Tancredo hits the road

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Rep. Tom Tancredo hoped to overcome his recent controversy and get back onto his immigration message today, when he brought his traveling road show to South Carolina.

It's the third early presidential primary state Tancredo has visited this year, as he toys with the idea of a 2008 race.

Tancredo was scheduled to speak today night before hundreds of members of the Fraternal Order of Police at a hall outside Charleston.

He hopes to keep the topic to immigration reform, but he is still facing an international outcry over his recent comments suggesting the United States could target Muslim holy sites like Mecca if radical Islamic terrorists set off nuclear attacks in U.S. cities.

Some critics have demanded an apology or called for Tancredo to resign from Congress.

Tancredo has dismissed those calls and defended his comments to a Florida radio talk show host last month, saying he was merely thinking out loud about ways to deter a future terrorist attack.

Spokesman Will Adams said Tancredo planned to move past the controversy during the South Carolina trip. Tancredo has been visiting important presidential primary states in hopes of getting other would-be contenders to focus on his crusade against illegal immigration. If nobody does, he has said he might mount his own candidacy.

After Iowa and New Hampshire — two states Tancredo already has visited — South Carolina is considered the next make-or-break stop on the traditional presidential primary season calendar.

Thank you for letting me know what you think I said. Perhaps I can clarify.

What MACVSOG68 means to say is: The man has tremendous political gifts. He has "Charisma." He heats up a room.

I would add to that tremendous intelligence, communication (speaking) skills, the political skills to sell a reasonable idea, and was not ideologically linked to the far left, meaning he could have (and on occasion did)reach out to the conservative side. As to your list of why he could not have been a great president, I agree with those and a few more. They help explain why he was a poor president, not why he could not have been a great one. If he had truly wanted the job rather than just the position, he could have averted those pitfalls. But he did not, and as I have stated before on this thread, he squandered those gifts, and for that I despise the man.

He may have been the greatest con man to ever hold the office, but a con man simply indicates abilities to get things done. In Clinton's case, his cons were shallow, short sighted and short lasting. While he still ranks high in most polls, history will judge him far more harshly.

Had others on this thread asked me, I would have happily expanded on Clinton. I never will at the "barrel of a gun", or on the receiving end of an insult.

.... If he had truly wanted the job rather than just the position,

This to me is perhaps the most valuable lesson of Clinton and the Clinton world view. It is pure Hegel. Pure Marx. Pure Soviet, and pure (if one can use that word with Bill) Clinton.

Like the Communists, Clinton believed in the Nomenclatura, that is having the position; having the power. The rest is just technique and technicians. Not exactly widely bruited about for obvious reasons, but it is known that Clinton found a lot of NAZI ideology worthy of study. For example, it's reported that he was fascinated with Hitler's early political success. He tried to figure out at what point, like Hitler, he should stop using his remarkable intuition (or luck), and rely on the knowledge of experts.

Like Hitler, he failed at this. Hitler failed because he never let the experts do their job. Clinton failed because the experts he relied upon for policy and implementation were very far-left, left-wing wonks, and if not that, left-wing crooks. Leaving his wonk corps to their own devices, he preside over wrecking the FBI, the CIA,the State department, the military, and, having been left a very good economic foundation by Bush the Elder, he damn near wrecked the economy. (Contrary to popular perception, which is, after all, all that counts!)

Clinton took office without ever taking 50% of the vote. That alone in our system is a good sign that one is dealing with a political mastermind. BTW, I grant one part of your thesis: He was a much better president than JFK!

It's interesting. I was listening to NPR's "The Connection" today. Yes, I know, I know. Anyway, an all Black rountable was discussing the Clinton legacy. And to be sure, the bloom is off the rose. They all agreed (and for the most part these are leftists) that Clinton was practically all BS, and had literally talked his way into their community. They finally realized that for all of his "diversity", few minorities ever held policy making positions. So I would suspect that his good "numbers" are going to continue to drop over time as people finally wake up.

BTW, I grant one part of your thesis: He was a much better president than JFK!

Perhaps, though JFK gave us the Apollo program and put a lot into the development of the Special Warfare Center and the Army Special Forces program. I would also add Warren Harding and Andrew Johnson to that mix.

Amen to your post!!
I've seen heard the Congressman on the tv alot lately and in person about a month ago. This guy is telling it like it is and if he's on a ballot I'll be casting my vote for him!
He's putting America and it's LEGAL citizens first...this war we're in may indeed go on for quite some time and making things easier for the enemy to be victorious (not securing our borders) or by making things harder for us to win (the ACLU comes to mind)...should not be tolerated or rewarded in any way.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.