Posted on 04/02/2007 11:26:53 AM PDT by DBCJR
Criticizing other Republican candidates as weak in their efforts to stop illegal immigration, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo announced Monday he would seek his party's presidential nomination.
"The political elite in Washington have chosen to ignore this phenomenon," he said.
Tancredo, a congressman who has gained prominence in recent years for his staunch stance against illegal immigration, said immigration would be the primary focus of his campaign.
He said he would not enter the race if he thought one of the leading candidates was sufficiently conservative on the issue.
It's, "the field, the field," he said when asked why he was entering the race. "You look and you see no one is going to make this the primary issue of their campaign."
...
Tancredo's goal for the Iowa caucuses are fairly modest. He said he would like to finish third or fourth in Iowa, a placement he contends would be enough to help launch him to the Republican nomination.
He said he was not intimidated by other campaigns with more money and resources. Tancredo said he had raised a little more than a million dollars for his presidential bid... "We have something they don't have — a group of people out there who are there because of an issue," Tancredo said. "And they're never going to have that. They can use their 100 million to try and buy constituency. I have it. It's natural. It's there."
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
GO TOM TO! He has my vote and my check is in the mail. His odds are very long but the issue is important and hopefully his participation will force an open discussion of all sides of this problem. It has been ignored for far to long.
If nothing else, hopefully he'll force the candidates to address the issue and cause a few uneasy campaign moments for the frontrunners. America is pretty united on this issue. It's the political powers that be that aren't listening.
Tancredo could make things mighty uncomfortable for McCain and Giuliani, in partiuclar.
IIRC, Tancredo had said he would not enter the race if there was not already an anti-illegal immigration candidate announced. Isn't Duncan Hunter rock solid on this issue? As such, Tom's announcement sounds a bit ego driven.
By the way, I have long said that my dream ticket would be Tancredo/Coburn. It's just that the field is getting crowded now.
One note Tommy isn't going anywhere.
I'm going to vote for him. I've gotten to the point that I don't care about any other issue. Guns used to be my make or break issue. They are now second to immigration.
” By the way, I have long said that my dream ticket would be Tancredo/Coburn.”
I’m from Coburn’s district. Rock solid but just can’t see politics as a career - as if there is anything wrong with that!
“One note Tommy isn’t going anywhere.”
I tend to agree with you - but then neither was a no-name governor from Arksanas against an incumbent Bush with a 93% approval rating either. Tom doesn’t have the political acumen, underhandedness, or political team that Clinton did. And hopefully Republican candidates today can do more than stand there exasperated, shaking his head, and thinking, “I can’t believe he is doing that!”
Not just Duncan Hunter, but also Rep. Ron Paul.
Of course, there are Republicans who will argue that Rep. Paul is not a "real Republican" because he happens to believe the Constitution of the United States must be followed, in war as well as in peace.
Tommy T, on the other hand, has already insured he'd lose the Presidency even if he could get the nomination by royally p.o.-ing the entire State of Florida.
It’s about time. Thanks for the post.
I've not looked into Ron Paul's record on immigration, but a Libertarian running for president as a Republican is not electable in the general election. Thus I must decline to support him in the primary.
The same has been said of conservatives, ever since the 1964 Goldwater debacle.
Reagan demonstrated the falsity of that proposition in his election landslides of '80 and '84.
Eventually, the stigma of holding personal liberty as the highest moral value will subside and even Republicans may consider nominating a (small "l") libertarian for the White House.
The same has been said of conservatives, ever since the 1964 Goldwater debacle. Reagan demonstrated the falsity of that proposition in his election landslides of '80 and '84.
That is not correct, as Reagan did not run for president as a libertarian, but as a conservative.
Reagan was never a member of the Libertarian party. Ron Paul, as a former Libertarian party presidential nominee is not electable as a national candidate.
A distinction should be made between Libertarian and libertarian. One is affiliated with a party, the other with an ideal. Even within the ranks of the party there is wide diversity of libertarianism ideals. Some are fiscally conservative and socially “liberal”. Some are both conservative. Hardcore libertarians are isolationists and even lean toward anarchy, survival of the fittest (Social Darwinism). Pure capitalism, i.e., lasier faire, is a libertarian type idea. Reagan had many such ideas, but some not-so-liberatarian ideas. Rarely do we see libertarians that are pure, all-the-way libertarians. Reagan was definitely a Republican, but many Republicans embrace libertarian ideas.
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.