Posted on 03/30/2007 9:09:25 AM PDT by John Jorsett
WASHINGTON (AP) - Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, an outspoken opponent of illegal immigration, will announce his bid for president on Monday.
Tancredo will kick off campaign with an announcement in Iowa, where political caucuses start whose the presidential nominating season, an official close to the congressman said.
Tancredo has flirted with a presidential bid for more than a year and began raising money for the effort in January. After taking in more than $1 million in two months, he has decided to make his run official, said the official, who asked not to be named ahead of Tancredo's official announcement.
Tancredo's office on Friday morning said that he will make a "major announcement" Monday on a Des Moines, Iowa, radio station.
Tancredo spokesman Carlos Espinosa would say only that Tancredo will announce his intentions and that his decision whether to run for president won't affect whether he will run again for his House seat.
Tancredo, a five-term House member who represents the Denver suburbs, is a leading supporter of securing the nation's Southern border with Mexico and cracking down on illegal immigration. He has used the issue to take on President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain, a leading contender for the GOP nomination.
Tancredo acknowledges that he is a long shot for president, but he has made no secret that he hopes to rattle McCain's campaign in Iowa by appealing to conservatives on immigration, abortion and other issues.
McCain last year co-sponsored a bill creating a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country now, though he has played a smaller role in the issue this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Mowing your own lawn? Surely not.
The supporters of legalizing millions of illegal aliens and giving them a path to citizenship would have us believe that is the kind of work Americans just won't do.
ASSUMING THE GOAL IS TO WIN.....I AM MORE IMPRESSED
WITH GULIANO THAN MOST...GOOD ARTICLE ON HIM IN A FEW
MAGAZINES...AND WHAT CINCHES MY CHOICE, IS THE HATCHET
JOB BEING PUT OUT BY THE NOOOYOOKTIMES. IF HE CAN TAKE
CALIFORNIA, POSSIBLE, AND NEW YORK?? WHY ARE WE PUTTING
UP SO MANY LOSERS, INCLUDING TANCREDO.....JK
Of course no Republican is going to get a fair go with the Lamestream, but they do have their preferred candidates/RINOs, like John McCain, who they will give a friendly helping hand to. The accusations against Tancredo will get more ink and bandwidth than his actual platform.
You know - just like the "highly electable" Republican we have in the White House right now.
This issue was hashed out on many, many threads at FR last Nov and Dec.
On one hand you have this evidence that Vdare came up with and if you want to believe that, it is OK
On the other hand, there was extensive data compiled that showed the opposite. Particular House, Senate, and Gubanatorial races. Exit polling. I could spend a couple of hours and pull all that info together. It wouldn't change your mind.
What you think or what the FR cult of self-deception thinks is irrelevant. It is what the republican party thinks that is important.
If what you think was reality, the republicans would be running with it. They're not.
I didn't take the time to look at all those House bills, but I looked at some of them. Those issues will be covered in a Comprehensive bill. HR 26 will not be included because of the cost.
Your response is once again laughable.
You demanded that I name an immigration bill that I support. I named eleven for you. You demand that I name an immigration bill that Rep. Tancredo supports. I anme one for you. However, you can't name a single immigration bill that you support. You are still afraid to say whether you supported S.6211.
In post number 49 you stated the following:
In case you don't know it, we are in the 110th Congress. All those bills from the 109th were wiped out. Where is your bill for this Congress? Who is writing it? When will it be submitted?
What's that you say, you don't have a bill?
I have no doubt that Senate Democrats in overwhelming numbers will once again support an amnesty bill, just as they did during the last Congress. It will not pass the House.
No immigration bill supported by Ted Kennedy is going to pass the House. President Bush could not convince the House to support an amnesty bill last session and he won't be able to convince the House to support an amnesty bill this session.
Notice how the video juxtaposes Tancredo's speech/Miami turd world to the discouragement of the young hispanic republican to Norquist's warning.
While the segment is less than 60 seconds long, it a powerful summation of the problem the republican party faces.
I've already told you that is a possibility. And the GOP will be labeled as obstructionists, and will suffer politically. That is the democratic strategy.
The democratic goal is to drive a permanent wedge between the GOP and Hispanics. Just like they did with Blacks and Goldwater.
All those bill you listed are feel good bills. They are there only for show. They have no chance of passing as stand alone legislation. But many of them will be included in a comprehensive bill.
If what you think was reality, the republicans would be running with it. They're not."
My, my, my! You really are an elitist, aren't you? Well, party man, your attitude is one example of why the GOP is losing power, and will one day just fade into history. Enjoy your last few fleeting years of relevance.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the founder, president, and CEO of The Center for Security Policy. During the Reagan administration, Gaffney was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy, and a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). He is a columnist for The Washington Times, Jewish World Review, and Townhall.com and has also contributed to The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, and Newsday.
Mr. Gaffney wrote an article about Grover Norquist entitled " Troubling Influence". Here is a link to that article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11209.
Below is a copy of a portion of an introduction to Mr. Gaffney's column that was written by David Horowitz:
It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.
Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.
As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, Grover’s own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” Grover appointed Alamoudi’s deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation.
Parts of this story have been published before, but never in such detail and never with the full picture of Islamist influence in view. No doubt, that is partly because of Grover Norquist’s large (and therefore intimidating) presence in the Washington community. Many have been quite simply afraid to raise these issues and thus have allowed Grover to make them seem a matter of individual personality differences. This suits his agendas well, as it does those of his Islamist allies. If matters in dispute reflect personal animosity or “racial” prejudice, as Grover insists, then the true gravity of these charges is obscured. The fact remains that while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them. If he wishes to do so now, the pages of frontpagemag.com are open to him.
Many have been reluctant to support these charges or to make them public because they involve a prominent conservative. I am familiar with these attitudes from my years on the Left. Loyalty is an important political value, but there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to one’s country. Grover’s activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he “hoped [he] would have the guts” to betray his country.
So we now see that just as I suspected "GOP insiders" really means one person, Grover Norquist.
Gee, a video made by a left-winger that is the son of a left-wing lawyer for the Clintons.
If the GOP is to survive, it has to look to the future. Not the past.
You mean to say that Tancredo didn't make that speech at CPAC. Or the hispanic delegate didn't make those statements?
And what's new about this? President Reagan was going to take us into a nuclear war, Bush the First was an elitist who didn't know what a gallon of milk cost and who's veep couldn't spell "tomato", and his son was a doofus, drunk driving frat boy who couldn't step out of his daddy's shadow. The drive-bys are going easy on Rudy McRomney right now, hoping the Pubbies will be duped into nominating them. Then it'll be open season on the nominee all the way to the general election.
Rudy will be pilloried as a serial divorcer and Bernie Kerik pal. Romney will be grilled as a flip-flop artist who can't make up his mind on any issue. McCommie's deal with the NVA during his captivity will be dredged up. All of this is in store for Rudy McRomney.
So why not nominate a true conservative who 1) can take his message directly to the people (ala Ronald Reagan), thereby bypassing the media altogether, and 2) has a helluva lot less real baggage in his past? Whatever they make up about Tancredo can be countered, debated and eventually proven false. What they drag out about Rudy McRomeny will have to be spun, and when it is, it will be a feeding frenzy in the drive-by media.
I just can't, for the life of me, understand why Pubbies have all apparently lost their stomach for a fight.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
In July, 2001, Grover Norquist received an award from the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), a civil liberties group headed by Sami Al-Arian. On March 2, 2006, Al-Arian pled guilty to one count of conspiracy "to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad." He was sentenced to 57 months in prison, of which he had already served 38, and to then be deported.
Look to the future, yes, but you don't abandon your core values. Otherwise you're nothing but a whore, selling yourself to whoever and whatever promises you more votes.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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.