Posted on 12/22/2007 7:49:14 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I'll admit it. I underestimated Tom Tancredo. I underestimated the impact he could make as a presidential candidate, particularly as a candidate who was polling, as many of us had predicted, around 2 percent.
And yet, I had no idea he could take one issue and, with it, help make the Republican presidential race - and the country itself - an uglier, nastier and more mean-spirited place to be.
He didn't do it by himself, of course. He wasn't even the lead player. You have to give that role to Lou Dobbs and the huge audience on his team.
Still, you'd have to call Tancredo's aborted presidential run - his never-even-get-to-a- vote run, his abandonment- even-by-the-Minutemen run, his so-desperate-to-be-noticed-that-he'd-even-endorse- Mitt Romney run - a success. And that's even though, as a candidate, he was a minor disaster. And even though few will even notice, now that he's dropped out, that he's actually gone.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at rockymountainnews.com ...
I donated several hundred dollars to Hunter. He would have been my choice. But he's out of the race. Wish he weren't. But he is.
Iowa is where Tancredo has the most impact in making an endorsement. To have an impact, he had to endorse one of the four viable candidates (imho, Thompson has not yet established he can get off the ground). So of the remaining four, Romney is clearly the best on illegal immigration. The other three have been actively on the wrong side of the issue. With Huckabee threatening to run away from the pack early and McCain surging in New Hampshire, Tancredo's endorsement may help stall a runaway by one of these two very bad candidates while Thompson gets his act together (that would be my hope).
Folks slagging Tancredo over this don't know Tom. He believes in the issue passionately and was in the trenches for years taking grief (from R's and D's) long before the issue became fashionable. He was persona-non-grata in the establishment Colorado Republican party for a long time because of it--lots of R's would not even appear on stage with him. When W visited Colorado, he would not shake Tom's hand or appear in pictures with him (although Tom was eventually allowed on stage at the opposite end).
I'm have no doubt he made the best call he could, given the rather slim pickin's available amongst the frontrunners.
Is Mike Litwin Ward Churchill’s speech writer?
Or is he a LULAC Lawyer?
Hell I'm not mean spirited I'm Angry Spirited 47 years old and watching every President since right after Reagan screw everyone over including some of their own party and mainly citizens ...
Mainly hard working folks getting muled out of their hard earned money and for what ? so some deadbeat can sit on their butt... after Clinton wiped his behind with the Constitution as much as he did ....Watching disgusting people do outright murderous things to unborn children ...and watching our borders leak like a sieve
Yea I'm Angry and I'm apt to stay that way i guess it will keep me warm during these days of global whining and crying ....
I'm gonna vote for Fred and gnash my teeth the whole time I'm doing it and pray he will carry out what he says he will do !
What state do you live in? Fred will likely drop out after NH - possibly right after IA - and either endorse Rudy or McCain. Hope Mitt can count on your vote - and yeah, it’s ok to hold your nose.
Who fed you that lie and why did you believe it so easily? Romney was on the record in 03 against drivers licenses. He vetoed instate tuition for illegals in 04. He was on the record in 02 supporting English immersion.
I'm not a Hunter supporter, but Tancredo should have endorsed him or Fred instead of Romney. .... Mitt won't win Iowa and Paul may upset him in NH. The other states preceding Super Tuesday such as South Carolina, Wyoming, Florida, and Nevada won't go for him. He'll have Michigan, and that's pretty much it IMO.
Wait - so he should have endorsed Hunter, but should not have endorsed Mitt because Mitt isn't going to win any state primaries. Yeah, totally logical.
By endorsing Romney, he just flushed away whatever credibility he has on the issue.
Sounds more like you just flushed yours.
Ummmm.
OK.
You’re backing a front-runner because he is a front-runner.
See my tagline, for the definition of a “Front Runner” ...
This is a ratmedia scumbag in a small out of the way place in flyoveria using this down time to audition for a job in a ratmedia news outlet on one of the coasts. He’s saying “Hey I hate Republicans too! How about me? I’ll support socializing America with illegal aliens! Please, please read my stuff. Please call me up to the big leagues.”
Although the phrase "touch back" wasn't coined until the Pence Plan in 2006, and Kyl-Cornyn didn't define an interval, the objections were that Kyl-Cornyn was a trick to allow touch back.
Pence/Hutchinson also excluded every human from outside of NAFTA/CAFTA countries. Why would anyone support that?
And Romney doesn't? Look, all of the so-called "front-runner" candidates stink on illegal immigration. The best thing about Fred is that he at least recognizes the enormity of the situation and will be more aggressive in dealing with it.
Illegal immigration wasn't as pertinent then as it is now, so I can give Fred a pass on those votes.
Litwin = NitWit
Mike Litwin is a hateful piece of filth.
The bill proposed by Pence/Hutchinson would have secured the borders. Since securing the borders was of utmost importance, I don't care about all of the guest-worker crap it contained because that could have been revised or dismantled over the long run. The borders had to get secured first, I know, I was fighting on the '06 immigration threads when FReepers wanted their whole cake instead of taking what they could get and fighting for the rest later. Now we have a Rat Congress just as everyone feared and almost had amnesty shoved down our throats.
Thanks
If they find the country "mean spirited" they can simply look in the mirror to find the source of that bile.
Wow, did it just get suddenly much colder? Hell has to have just frozen over again. You and I actually agree on something! :-)
Curious what the 100%er Freeper purists around here would of said about a President who signed 6 tax hikes? Signed a real Illegals Amnesty? Appointed a liberal to the Supreme Court? Doubled Federal Spending in 8 years? Spent Record Deficits? Ran away from a Muslim Terrorist threat? Played diplomatic footsie with Iran’s mullahs?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
That President was Ronald Reagan. So not even the greatest President of the 20th Century could measure up to standard being demanded by the by today's purist political bigots.
Nothing in life is ever perfect. Adult minds accept that and fight like heck to see as much as possible of what they want done gets done. Childish minds, and certain pseudo Conservative talking heads, whine hysterically because their political glass is only 70% full. On Judges alone the current GOP has done more real good for the Conservative Movement then all the pseudo Conservative Junk Media talking heads with their continual whining will EVER do for us.
Check out this:
For those of us stuck with defending Ward Churchill, this is not an easy time.
I mean, if the case against Churchill wasn't clear before the Rocky's devastating series on the CU professor, it has to be obvious now to anyone who can read.
It has become all but impossible to defend Churchill on the facts.
But Litwin goes on to defend Ward Churchill, facts or no facts.
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.