Posted on 04/04/2007 9:38:15 PM PDT by Tarantulas
Of over 25 radio programs that Congressman Tancredo was on yesterday, it was The Hugh Hewitt Show that had the chance to illuminate an issue that millions of Americans support us on, but instead he chose to educate Tancredo about the merits of supporting an illegal alien amnesty bill.
After talking with Tancredo he told me his response to Hewitt's show: "Why would we come back on his show? I know it makes good radio to be engaged in an hour for a yelling match with him, but it is not a good use of our time. We will not come back on the program."
Hugh Hewitt IS A RAT!
It sure seems that this only bothers a few of us...
America would be lucky to have Tancredo as POTUS. But we used up all our luck.
Not if his pro-amnesty border policy is any guide. He's agreeing with McVain and almost all Dimmycraps. That's not conservative in my book. Hewitt is a water-carrier for whatever the GOP wants to do on any given day.
So how come he's hailed as a "real conservatie" while cetain others who may have wandered in terms of supporting a candidate (for a lower office) are considered "fake conservatives"?
So how come he's hailed as a "real conservative" while cetain others who may have wandered in terms of supporting a candidate (for a lower office) are considered "fake conservatives"?
Like a fake conservative when the mask starts slipping.
Why? They're his friends.
Borders, language, culture. Three things Mr. Hewitt doesn't seem to understand, nor want to.
Supposed to be, but as I said before, the mask seems to be slipping.
From Tom Tancredo’s presidential campaign “official” website:
Of over 25 radio programs that Congressman Tancredo was on yesterday, it was The Hugh Hewitt Show that had the chance to illuminate an issue that millions of Americans support us on, but instead he chose to educate Tancredo about the merits of supporting an illegal alien amnesty bill.
After talking with Tancredo he told me his response to Hewitt’s show: “Why would we come back on his show? I know it makes good radio to be engaged in an hour for a yelling match with him, but it is not a good use of our time. We will not come back on the program.”
I have no way of knowing if Tom said this, or if this is in fact Tom’s response to Monday’s interview. The bolded statement is a blatant lie, however, and the transcript is here to prove it. If uncorrected, it will speak volumes about the honesty of the campaign.
From that transcript: HH: No, I’m saying that we lost a majority because you scared so many people with anti-illegal immigration rhetoric into not compromising at a critical moment, that we lost all sorts of momentum, all sorts of credibility, we’re not getting the fence built, that you played to win.
TT: So if you stand for principle, if you actually believe in what you’re saying, and you’re not willing to compromise on something of this nature, then of course you, in some way, have harmed the nation? Well, I’ll tell you, if that’s the case, then I do not for a moment, well, I don’t believe for a moment that that is the case. I think that if everybody in this Congress, and the past one would have stood on principle, then…and everybody in this Congress does so, and especially Republicans, we will be rewarded with a great win in the next election. HH: I mean, that’s Goldwater rhetoric, and I appreciated Barry as much as anywhere. TT: Well, I’m sorry. Am I supposed to be, apologize for Goldwater rhetoric? Too bad. TT: Yeah, well, you know, after a while, Hugh, you figure out this guy, no matter how long I talk to you, you’re not going to get the picture. HH: Oh, I’ve got the picture, but I want to make sure everybody gets the picture.
Tancredo told the truth. Hewitt is an open-borders, amnesty, good-time rock-and-roller who pretends to be a good conservative but then attacks the likes of Tancredo for trying to protect our borders.
I'm supposed t take this clown's conservatism seriously? He's already proven himself nothing more than a shill for the Republican Establishment.
It sure seems that this only bothers a few of us...
Not including "the gret conservative" Hewitt, apparently.
Tancredo told the truth. Hewitt is an open-borders, amnesty, good-time rock-and-roller who pretends to be a good conservative but then attacks the likes of Tancredo for trying to protect our borders.
He “attacked” him for demanding his plan or nothing at all, well now we’ve got nothing at all.
Hope you and Tom are happy.
So you think we should just accept open-borders amnesty like Hewitt does? I don’t. We need to fight that, tooth and nail. If you and Hewitt aren’t on board, too bad.
Hugh Hewitt again exposed himself as a fake conservative. He is clearly unwilling to do what it takes to protect this country’s laws and sovereignty.
Hewitt attacked Tancredo for standing up for border security. The transcript makes that clear, and if Hewitt is claiming oitherwise, then he's not entirely honest either.
LOL. No, and I can prove it...
...Go USC!
That should settle that.
All good points, my FRiend.
Given the closeness of the past two national elections, and the fact that Hillary is much more organized, funded, and media-connected that the previous two Dem candidates; and also the fact that the female demographic is much more highly biased in her favor, do you think that Tancredo as a candidate and illegal immigration as a principle message would be enough to win the election?
I am not so convinced.
As important as the issue of illegal aliens is, (and this includes all of the complex problems you describe and also such problems as erosion of American values and culture) I think that a non-stop media avalanche of Hillary's snake oil can out compete it in the national polls. I wish I had a higher opinion of the American electorate's ability to educate themselves and to be more skeptical of pathological Marxist liars.
My issue, and I believe it's the one that Hewitt made, is that if we surrender U S Supreme Court appointments to Hillary, then little else matters. Hillary will flood the U.S. with hoards of aliens, and see to it that they can vote by mid-term elections.
Your points were all good ones, sir.
But keeping Hillary from appointing supremes is the keystone issue.
Semper Fi from a Marine Dad.
.
I would not call HH a rino. He believes in winning elections for the republicans, even if it means electing rinos or losing conservative causes.
The tactic here is to get congress under a republican majority, then move from there.
Hugh believes that Tancredo hurts the republican ticket; but I think he misses the hidden votes that will go to an immigration enforcement candidate. Many people will vote for Tancredo despite they’re saying otherwise. Immigration is an issue that crosses party lines.
Hugh has the most content-laden show on any network. Although I don’t agree with him all the time, he believes in winning back he majority first; that’s not a bad belief.
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.