Two Tancredo’s Two Too Many for Bush Administration

azconservative.org ^ | 01/20/2004 | By Dennis Durband, Editor

[VU4G10]

Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo is a thorn in Karl Rove’s side, to say the least. Tancredo favors border controls; the president and many in Congress do not. Rove, the president’s senior advisor, is attempting to find someone to run against Cong. Tancredo in this year’s election. So far, he has no takers. After all, Tancredo won re-election in 2002 with a 70-percent majority, and no mentally-balanced person would want to challenge such a formidable foe. It would be a waste of time and money.

Many Arizona conservatives are urging State Rep. Russell Pearce to run against Cong. Jeff Flake in District 6 this year. Pearce is a senior advisor to the popular Protect Arizona Now (PAN) initiative. If placed on the 2004 ballot, and if voters support it as expected, PAN would actually require proof of citizenship for things of some importance, such as voting. The White House, state and national GOP leadership favor the president’s Temporary Worker Program and the Flake-McCain-Kolbe guest worker bill, which amount to nothing more than amnesty for millions of foreign invaders.

Now the stage is set: two diametrically-opposed sides with sharply-contrasting views on the border invasion. Tancredo and Pearce are advocating tighter controls of the borders and a stoppage of the drain on American taxpayers caused by the border invasion. The corporate appeasers want to dissolve the borders.

The worst thing in Rove’s world would be to lose Flake and have Pearce replace him through the election process. Rove wants to subtract Tancredo and isn’t going to succeed in that aim. He sure doesn’t want Pearce -- another Tancredo -- going to Washington, D.C., a year from now. Two Tancredo’s are two too many, in the view of the Bush Administration. However, most Republicans would love to see Tancredo and Pearce representing them in Congress.

How motivated are those who oppose Tancredo and Pearce? Let's put things into proper perspective and look at some very recent history.

Some influential and well-connected people have recently suggest that Barnes may be a set-up, a plant to dilute a potential Pearce candidacy by splitting votes between Flake's would-be challengers. Barnes is a moderate who's totally with President Bush.

On Dec. 31, Rep. Pearce was getting ready to appear as a guest on Salt Lake City Radio Station KSL's “Born on the 4th of July" program, hosted by Barbara Jean. It appeared that this would be just another of the many state/regional/national media appearances Pearce would make on the border controversy. As it turned out, this was no ordinary day.

Arizona people listening on the Internet reported that the Salt Lake City station's power went down and the show’s producers were having trouble with outgoing broadcasting and incoming calls. Just bad luck? Tampering? Sun spots? Possibly any of the above, but we're just getting warmed up. There's more to the story.

Fast forward to last week when Pearce was getting ready to guest-host two hours of Ernie Hancock's show on KFNX Radio in Phoenix. Guess what? The station reported losing power and similar problems as the Utah station had experienced. Pearce claims a car accident damaged a nearby power source. But wait: we're still not done.

Rusty Childress, co-chairman of PAN, was a guest on KJZZ Radio, of Mesa, last week ... and guess what happened? The call-in lines went dead.

On Saturday night, Kathy McKee, the other co-chair of PAN, tried to call KFNX Radio to be the guest on the "Mad as Hell" program. ''To make a long story short, I couldn't get in .. . . because the phone lines went down at 10:45 p.m.,'' McKee said. ''They had to call me and patch me in, but then callers couldn't call in.'' Hmmm ... mighty, mighty interesting series of events.

Also, last week GOPUSA/Arizona posted two separate Internet polls on the Congressional District 6 race. The first poll appeared on the Internet for three days and queried readers as to their choice between Barnes and the incumbent Flake. This was a poll that did not get much traction or generate much excitement. Barnes received 22 of the 40 total votes cast, with Flake garnering 13 votes and the third option: “other” getting five votes.

In mid-week, the poll changed to add Pearce to the mix. Almost as quickly as the poll went up, some unknown person(s) with great technical expertise -- possibly some of it legal -- developed a very keen interest in the poll. It became readily apparent that the insertion of Pearce’s name had tripped the sensor of someone very interested in one Arizona congressional seat.

Within 12 hours, 188 votes showed up on the poll screen. Flake and Barnes were neck and neck; Pearce did not show up on the radar. A short time later, the vote tally reached 240 and Flake began to pull away from Barnes. Pearce barely registered a heartbeat with a 3-percent showing.

Then a remarkable thing happened for the first time in the 20-month history of GOPUSA/Arizona polls: The numbers actually went down -- from 240 total votes to 75. And Pearce’s numbers dropped to zero.

Then the vote tally started racing wildly upward. In the next few hours, the vote total pushed toward 2,000. Flake was winning big and Pearce was staying at zero percent, even though his supporters informed me they were starting to vote for him -- and starting to wonder why their tallies were not showing up. In one 10-minute period, 100 new votes went up on the board.

The next morning, the vote total continued to balloon, reaching nearly 4,800. It had been less than 36 hours since the poll was posted on the Internet. Flake had a lead of 2-1 over Barnes, and Pearce registered a faint glimmer with one percent of the vote.

As emails started coming in from bewildered people watching the poll, GOPUSA’s CEO, Bobby Eberle, was alerted about the dubious nature of the poll. Whoever was tampering with this poll had all the guile of a Pampalona bull on its way to Barcelona.

A short time later, Eberle confirmed that someone had indeed hacked into the system. He advised that the poll be removed to get the hacker out of the system. A new poll was quickly posted. Over the next several hours, only a trickle of new votes came in on the new poll. Someone no longer had any interest in GOPUSA/Arizona polls.

Looking again at the bogus poll results, one more strange occurrence was discovered. The poll totals now sat at 4,514 votes, a decline of nearly 300 votes in the last few minutes. Flake had 2,880 “votes,” Barnes had 1,560, Pearce 66 and the “other” option had four votes. Whomever tampered with Flake’s vote total obviously took Barnes’ total up in an effort to make it look like a second contestant was registering believable vote totals. Nice try, but it didn’t work. Nice, illegal try.

The 4,514 votes represented a higher number than the total number of votes cast in all the GOPUSA/Arizona poll votes for the entire year of 2003.

Now the big questions: Who has an interest in the re-election of Cong. Flake? Who has an interest in undermining Rep. Pearce? Is the hacker just some kid down the street who likes to play games with other people’s websites? Was it a political organization or a political operative acting on someone’s orders? Who would care enough about this particular poll to risk a visit from the FBI for hacking?

The answers, as of this moment, are unknown, but the questions are legitimate.

As of Sunday night, Eberle had not responded to queries about whether or not he was able to discern the identity of the hacker, or if he had reported the crime to authorities.

One footnote: Just as Cong. Tom Tancredo concluded his address to the Arizona Republican Assembly in Scottsdale Saturday morning, the power went out in the auditorium. Russell Pearce was in that room; he had introduced Tancredo. Two Tancredo’s is two too many for some people.

[Re-electNobody]

I would like confirmation of a report that the Texas redistricting put Ron Paul in a district with lots more Democrats. Is this accurate?

[FITZ]

The "third world culture".

Why do we have to like third world cultures? That's the whole problem in their country in the first place. The reason they have such hopeless poverty for the majority of the people isn't their race --- it's the culture. Just like the difference between Barbados and Haiti isn't race --- it's culture.

[FITZ]

Why can't Tancredo go to Arizona?

[Spiff]

When Jim calls President Bush "Jorge", photoshops him into sombreros and other Mexican garb, well I may wonder about his approach. He doesn't do that crap.

Neither do I. Neither does most of the immigration reformers here on FR. You are lumping us together.

Bush's proposal was about illegal immigrants already here, census bureau saying 30-40% of which are non-Mexican. This is NOT an illegally resident worker or trespasser from Mexico problem, it is a much more important American border security and resident illegal alien accountability problem. All borders. All ethnicities.

I don't care where they come from. If they're here illegally, send them home. As for Cochise County where I live and where most of them cross, the majority are Mexicans. There's a number of Other Than Mexicans (OTMs), but most are from Mexico. It is a fact of life here. You are assuming that anti-illegal immigrant sentiment is anti-Mexican. It is not.

This is a vital national concern, but it is absolutely marginalized on this Forum. Bush made a good faith proposal, there's room for people of good will to disagree with the wisdom, but there's no good faith counterproposals (Write in Tancredo HA!) forthcoming from this "think tank".

If you don't like it, and you think the entire forum is polluted with it, go find another forum. We're obviously too stupid for the likes of you.

To some Freepers, whom I don't like one bit, it's at its core a Mexican problem. Legal Immigrant or illegal-immigrant ... THAT's the energy those who feel beseiged by some Bush insult that's keeping 10, 11 or 12 freeping threads running here concurrently 24X7? Gimme a break. They don't like Mexicans. The people. The competition for jobs. The language. The "third world culture". Period. If all illegal immigrants were deported, then brought back over the border legally to their same homes and jobs ... it wouldn't matter ONE IOTA. It's the fact that they are here at all.

Again, you're painting every immigration reformer with a brush of being "anti-Mexican." As for culture, if you don't realize we are in a fight to the death to preserve our culture and western civilization as we know it, then you're not paying attention.

I don't like bigoted stuff. Too bad if you don't like that I don't like bigoted stuff. I see it here, and I'm no polyanna and I'm not working some political program, but I call it when I see it like I would in any other facet of my life outside this cyberplace. You guys go apeshit at even the inference, when it's not personally directed. That speaks volumes to me. Yeah, call me a race baiter ... again. Ouch.

And you go apes**t calling all immigration reformers "bigoted" and implying that we are racist. You know why you brought up VDARE - your intention was obvious to those who know your history here. I don't like bigots either. I don't see all the bigotry that you want to pretend exists. Sure, there's a couple of very angry folks who feel betrayed who come on and talk about mining the border and put a sombrero on President Bush. But your implication that all immigration reformers are up to that kind of stuff is like the City of Fresno calling Free Republic a "hate" website.

[k2blader]

Being able to see through the euphemisms is the key.

Here's how the two sentences would read if they were more honestly presented:

"This program will offer legal status, as temporary workers, to the millions of illegal aliens now employed in the United States,"

Entering our country illegally is wrong. Criminals who do that should not be rewarded for their criminal actions by being granted "temporary worker" status.

and

"Some illegal aliens will make the decision to pursue American citizenship. Those who make this choice will be allowed to apply in the normal way."

Again, criminals who enter our country illegally, thus displaying a disrespect for our laws, should not be rewarded by being allowed to apply for citizenship.


I'm not sure how much clearer it can get.

[Spiff]

Says me! Look, I was simply prefacing my comments, but wouldn't you agree that no politician is perfect?

You're right. No politician is perfect. Tancredo has made some mistakes as we all do. However, I still haven't heard any "over the top" rhetoric coming from Tancredo.

[FITZ]

I don't like bigoted stuff.

If it's only racism --- then why did Cesar Chavez go down to the border with the UFW union and work with border patrol to stop illegals from coming over? He wanted illegals to stay in Mexico --- but was that racist?

[FITZ]

If it's racism --- then why did Silvestre Reyes get elected to Congress by a mostly hispanic district when he became popular for "Operation Blockade" and "Operation Hold-the-Line" which were condemned by the Mexican government? Those were border control measures ---- was he a racist for trying to enforce the border?

[Reagan Man]

Breaking your pledge on term limits; hiring illegal aliens when you oppose amnesty; and then to publically attack a teenage boy for his parents breaking of the law, are all examples of over the top behavior. The rhetoric goes with the events. Same same.

And no, I don't have that rhetoric handy.

Don't you see my point?

[CA Conservative]

You still refuse to address the unequivocal statements by Bush that you deliberately omitted, preferring instead to focus on your own interpretation of what he said. That is your right, but it is a very dishonest technique, and reveals more about you than it does about the president.

[Lancey Howard]

However, most Republicans would love to see Tancredo and Pearce representing them in Congress.

I know I would.
Any chance of dumping Flake?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Boy the deafening silence to your questions... hmmm could it be people just oppose illegal immigration because it's wrong or maybe it's negatively impacting their livelihoods or quality of life?

[Sabertooth]

I'm not a nice guy about this crap. We're at War with an enemy we cannot allow to prevail. Victor Hanson called this the most important election since 1864 for the future of this country. And you people are jacking around. Let's see what happens.

Here's what else Hanson has to say...

President Bush's recent proposal to grant legal status to thousands of Mexican citizens currently working in the U.S. under illegal auspices seems at first glance to be a good start--splitting the difference between open and closed borders, and between amnesty and deportation. Politically it was a wise move on the eve of a Mexican state visit to grant some concessions to Vicente Fox. After all, the president of Mexico cannot ignore the $12 billion in worker remittances sent his way--and he can either encourage or discourage millions more of his citizens to head north in lieu of needed radical reform at home. Yet the proposed legislation, even if it should pass in Congress, will create more problems than it might solve--the fate of all such piecemeal legal solutions to systematic problems of illegality. Once the U.S. government--not to mention the Republican Party--commits its good name and legal capital to regulate, rather than end, the current chaos, a number of contradictions will arise that will only make things either more embarrassing or, in fact, worse.

< -snip- >

Instead of squabbling over piecemeal legislation in an election year, rolling amnesties or a return of braceros, we might as well bite the bullet and reconsider an immigration policy that worked well enough for some 200 years for people from all over the world. Reasonable advocates can set a realistic figure for legal immigration from Mexico. Then we must enforce our border controls; consider a one-time citizenship process for current residents who have been here for two or three decades; apply stiff employer sanctions; deport those who now break the law--and return to social and cultural protocols that promote national unity through assimilation and integration. In the short term, under such difficult reform, we of the American Southwest might pay more for our food, hotel rooms and construction. Yet eventually we will save far more through reduced entitlements, the growing empowerment of our own entry-level workers (many of them recent and legal immigrants from Mexico), and the easing of social and legal problems associated with some eight million to 12 million illegal residents.

More importantly still, our laws would recover their sanctity. Without massive illegal immigration, Americans would rediscover their fondness for measured legal immigration. At a time of war, our borders would be more secure. And we could regain solace, knowing that we are no longer overlords importing modern helots to do the jobs that we, in our affluence and leisure, now deem beneath us.
El Norte (The case against Bush's immigration plan.)
Wall Street Journal (FR link) - 1/19/04 - Victor David Hansen

Want more?

We never would have had this conversation [about Illegal Aliens] in 1950. There was no conversation about a wall or a fence. It was very simple: If you came across the border illegally, you were deported. The employer was not to hire people who were here illegally. It's very simple to do, but it just requires a degree of courage.
Paradise Lost? (Victor Davis Hanson comments on Bush's immigration proposal)
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (FR link) - January 10, 2004
Bill Steigerwald with Victor Davis Hanson

[riri]

We're at war for our survival.

OK, we agree at this point. I would like to add that if we are going to save the country we are going to have to hurt some feelings and, yes, we are going to have to offend a bunch too.

We have an opportunity to turn back 65 years of Socialism. INCREMENTALLY.

Come on, Arne, you really can't believe this. I almost feel sorry for you. I understand the desire to want a leader so bad that you can try to paint someone into something he is not but come on.

You really think that we are going to turn BACK the tides of socialism but jumping head first into socialism and by filling our country with people who don't even understand and will never be taught the principles of our system? A huge demographic of people who see themselves as Mexican first and are persuaded to do so by the dueling factions within our government?

It may be news to you, but we're not at war with Mexico

Tell that to the Mexican's who cheered in the streets after 9/11 and who boo our flag at soccer games. Tell that to the day laborers down the street who shield their scalps from the sun with Mexican flag bandannas and have Mexican flag emblems all over their cars.

and he's playing at a grandmaster chess level and most of y'all can't even get the "Chutes and Ladders" box open.

I wish he was playing something but I am afraid it is the real deal. He is playing Christian socialist globalist and he is playing it with your 2 grand.

[k2blader]

I did not address them because I think the "unequivocal statements" by President Bush are untrustworthy as they contradict his previous statements, which I tried to lay out as simply as possible.

What about the following is incorrect?

"This program will offer legal status, as temporary workers, to the millions of illegal aliens now employed in the United States,"

...

"Some illegal aliens will make the decision to pursue American citizenship. Those who make this choice will be allowed to apply in the normal way."

[ArneFufkin]

When any of you immigration warriors utter the word "welfare", my ears will perk up. That's the source of all illegal immigration problems. That's why people are sneaking in without employable skills or job prospects. That's not a George W. Bush construct, that's a Marxist, lefty Democrat construct. That's what is bringing people accross the border absent paying productive work or any independent living arrangements.

Understanding that the source and solution to the problem lies within the Democrat welfare machine makes you a real boy Pinoccio. Working locally through your county supervisors, school boards and local county attorneys and courts to defeat that outrage is HARD DAMN WORK. That's where the illegal immigration enticement resides, that's where it is funded, and that's where we stuff it. But ... that takes effort. Pffffttt ...

Every immigration warrior here should know EXACTLY - what their State, county and municipality policies are regarding healthcare, housing, schooling, LEO enforcements and other benefits for illegally resident foreign nationals, what the legal foundations for the provision of those benefits and entitlements, what political processes were used to establish those legal foundations, what court rulings if any enable illegal abuse, the cost to taxpayers of these programs and entitlements, as well as ambient costs associated with courts, prisons and other societal burden. If you don't know each of those facts, if you haven't challenged your local politicians and bureaucrats to justify their policies ... you're not serious about this issue. You have no standing to make any comment about your injury here. Nobody here knows those facts. It's all "Jorge"s fault.

It's easier to blame Bush and the Feds. Blame the Republicans. Go to bed pissed, but in a good kind of useless way. The Feds are the source of all your everyday failures and woe. Hallelujah, it ain't you. It's them. That's why I think this entire issue is crap.

[skeeter]

hmmm could it be people just oppose illegal immigration because it's wrong or maybe it's negatively impacting their livelihoods or quality of life?

Sorry, I give your assessment a 2.

You can't rant to it & it makes seizing the 'moral high ground' on the issue damn near impossible.

[Sabertooth]

Tancredo also employed illegal aliens to remodel his home.

No, he didn't.

Tancredo hired a contractor.

The Denver Post (IIRC) claimed the contractor hired Illegals. The contractor denied it, the Post couldn't prove it, and the last I heard, that's where it stands.

[Sabertooth]

When any of you immigration warriors utter the word "welfare", my ears will perk up.

Proposition #187.

That's the source of all illegal immigration problems.

All? No, but it's certainly a big part of the problem.

Illegals come for many reasons, and all of them are illegitimate.

Folks who say it's all about welfare, however, are being disingenuous, as they are suggesting that we can't do anything to solve Illegals without deconstructing the welfare state.

I'm all for both, but the folks who can't summon the will to confront Illegals are going to feint dead away when it comes time to overturn the welfare state.

That's not a George W. Bush construct, that's a Marxist, lefty Democrat construct.

George W. Bush opposed #187.

#187 would have cut off most of California's goodies for Illegals.

George W. Bush opposed California's cutting off of public services, including welfare, to Illegal Aliens.

[ArneFufkin]

I'm fully behind your initiative to make Prop 187 a national reality. It's CRUCIAL.

It's going to take a Supreme Court case. If you can't deny schooling to the interlopers' children, you can't do anything with their parents. That's the Plyler vs. Doe case. It has to be overturned. That was the basis of Pfaelzer ayatollah decision in California shitcanning 187. We have to attack that.

From a strategic view ... would any liberal court overturn Plyler vs. Doe? I don't think so! Would a court with Al Gore's or John Kerry's appointments overturn that ridiculous post Carter era 5-4 decision? No.

So why sabotage Bush if you want your objectives met?

I just don't get it.