I disagree. After hearing Tancredo speak on his own behalf earlier tonight on FOX (Hannity & Colmes), I now see that what's taken place is that a lot of negative media spin has been applied dishonestly to what Tancredo said.
Because of that, it's impossible to now know (or ever) if "people in politics" aren't discussing what Tancredo said because they don't know what he said but only what the negative and wrong spin has stated about what he said (but what he didn't say), or, if they understand what he actually said (I don't think so) and have refused to discuss that for whatever.
It's dangerous to begin a national discussion that includes in media the issue of possibly launching nuclear weapons against anyone, much less "mosques" in general (which Tancredo DID NOT SAY, but which it's been wrongfully said he did, and even Hewitt proliferates the dishonesty and fails to mention what Tancredo said, with any accuracy)...thus, what I am thinking is that most in politics are not discussing this issue because it's a dangerous one -- and more importantly, there are enough unreliable and unpredictably unstable "leaders" in other countries who would be easily -- in their perceptions -- incited by even the idea that the U.S. was discussing the use of nuclear weapons (Castro, Chavez, Bin Laden and many in Africa, Palestine, and particularly, Korea and elsewhere come to mind here). And who might, worse, premptively launch thier own weapons based upon a misperception about such a discussion...should legislators actually start making public comments about the very idea.
However, back to Tancredo, it's significant to my view that, after hearing him repeat what he actually said (FOX, earlier tonight), I can easily see how badly he's been misrepresented.
I don't know about Hewitt sometimes, but this is one case where he's been unreliable in discussing what he alleges Tancredo said, but which Tancredo did not -- thus, Hewitt and others are ensuring that people are misled about Tancredo (if he's being refuted [even though he didn't say what's being refuted], many people assume he's actaully said whatever, given that other people are so consumed by whatever).
I understood Tancredo after hearing him earlier clarify what he said and it wasn't at all an unreasonalbe premise: that he would hypothetically consider launching nuclear weapons if the U.S. was attacked with nuclear weapons or with some other equally horrific damaging problem.
That's, in effect, what was the U.S. policy that won the Second WW -- we launched atomic bombs on Japan to ensure they got a severe message that exceeded the horror of what they'd done at Pearl Harbor.
Thus, Tancredo was making quite a bit of sense, contrary to what so many are wrongfully saying about him.