No, I understand your objection to what you are calling a “personal attack” on the Pope. I simply disagree with your assessment that it WAS a “childish” and “nonsensical” “personal attack.”
Previously I thought it MIGHT have displayed a lack of tact, and I still do think that Tancredo will have (now has?) gotten more negative response than positive, so it probably did not help his cause much. But the more and more I read about the Church’s stance on the issue and how involved they are with the immigration issue and how intertwined the Pope’s seemingly innocuous (if you don’t know the background) remarks are with the underlying amnesty issue and how the Vatican and the Catholic church hierarchy here in the U.S. is acutely aware of his hot-button issue and how much anticipation there was from Latinos prior to the Pope’s visit for him to address the immigration issue and give them “hope” and “humane treatment” (i.e. push for amnesty and compromises for illegals)...well, the more and more I am utterly convinced that Tancredo was dead-on correct.
Call his approach childish and nonsensical if you will, and I agree it won’t make him many political points, but I don’t he cares about that. And call me cynical if you will for not taking the Pope at face value as a man of “love” and “peace” and all of that, and seeing an underlying agenda there that the Church has been pushing. Tancredo just stands up and calls ‘em as he sees ‘em, and I respect him for having the guts to call a spade a spade.
Small typo: “...don’t THINK he cares about that.”