Bush team strikes back against Tancredo

Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., renewed his fight with President Bush over immigration laws Monday, mixing his pointed criticisms of the president's policies with lavish praise for Bush's leadership. It wasn't enough, however, to win over the president's aides. Tancredo said he got a second call in four days from the White House, this one complaining about the tone of a letter he sent the president offering "some political advice."

"I want to be polite. I really like the president. I really like him a lot," the Colorado lawmaker said shortly after he was berated by Ken Mehlman, White House director of political affairs.

The president's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, upbraided the two-term conservative Friday over statements he made attacking Bush in a Washington Times interview.

"The president is not on our side," Tancredo told the paper, complaining that Bush supports an "open door" border policy that could lead to another terrorist attack. "Then the blood of the people killed will be on this administration and this Congress."

Tancredo didn't dispute any of the quotations. He was just surprised, he said, that the White House took so much offense at them.

Tancredo, who heads the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, long has been an outspoken critic of Bush's immigration policies. Earlier this year, he came within one vote of blocking House passage of a Bush-supported bill to allow individuals who are in the country illegally to become legal residents.

None of Tancredo's previous comments stirred the White House to action as much as his interview with the Times, a conservative newspaper with a strong following among the president's senior advisers. In a luncheon meeting with the paper's editors and reporters Thursday, Tancredo argued that the president's policies are a threat to national security.

Hoping he could open discussions between the president and members of his caucus over the issues, Tancredo on Monday sent the president a letter restating his "strong opposition" to open borders. It didn't mention the flap over his Times comments.

"I, like most Americans, am immensely thankful that our nation has the great fortune of having you at the helm of the ship of state to guide us through this difficult time in history," Tancredo wrote. "Your courage and determination have been inspirational, and I will do all I can to support your efforts to destroy every vestige of those organizations that pose a threat to our way of life."

That was neither a retreat nor an apology, Tancredo said. "What I hoped was we could have some sort of dialogue on this."

At the very least, Tancredo said, he hoped it would prompt Bush to issue a statement backing the reorganization of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the letter, Tancredo also noted that Rove had not met with him or the caucus over the issue despite repeated invitations.

Tancredo said he has never been involved in so public a dispute with someone he admires.

"This is not pleasant for me. If the issue didn't demand it, I wouldn't do it. This one happens to be enormously important."

This thread is interesting. It's obvious that the administration's cheerleaders are taking the "shoot the messenger" approach to Representative Tancredo, trying to marginalize him as his views gain more notice. And there is now an attempt to make him look bad, while just waiting for him to say something they can use to make him look unworthy of support.

Fact is, these people should get out and see how real people are impacted by out-of-control immigration, everyday. We can connect the dots...if the bogus students weren't roaming around the country without supervision, they never could've even gotten on those planes. The ones who were overstaying their visa...well, there should be a list and it should be checked whenever anyone buys tickets for public transportation, or rents a car or apartment, or gets a job or driver's license.

I sincerely hope that Representative Tancredo and others who care more about the country than they do about globalist-corporate initiatives are getting together and developing a plan to win.

And I expected more of the GWB administration. It doesn't sound like they're listening to what those who elected them want. I'm a lifelong Republican, but honestly, if I write a letter to my congressman (Barney Frank), I'll get a more honest and thoughtful response to my concerns than Representative Tancredo is getting from the administration.

One is a constitutional and god-given right. The other is not: no one has a *right* to enter this country illegally, to stay here illegally, or to work here illegally.

You guys are missing the point. I'm not arguing the Constitution, I'm arguing the logic. You know that easy access to guns doesn't cause crime, even though guns are used in crimes. Criminals flout gun laws; if they can get guns legally they will, but if they can't get them legally, they'll find another way. But why then do you accept the logic that the easy access to our territory results in more terrorism? Yes, terrorists can get in legally, but if they couldn't, they'd find another way in.

There certainly are good reasons for overhauling immigration policy, nobody's denying that. My point is that counterterrorism is not among those reasons, any more than crime fighting is a reason for gun control.

Unrestricted illegal immigration = Terrorists on our turf?..Sure. We've found them here. Proof positive that terrorists can gain access to our country illegally. What is there to debate on that point?

And by the same token, criminals obtain guns legally and illegally to commits crimes. The debate is that essentially nobody here accepts the notion that stricter gun control will reduce crime by the slightest margin. There's quite a bit of what Clinton would call "compartmentalization" going on here. The dictionary calls it hypocrisy.

Hey, there are people who are against illegal immigration (that would be most of us, including me), there are people who want illegals who are here sent back to their country of origin (that would be most of us, including me), there are people who want to control our borders (that would be most of us, including me), and there are anti-immigration nuts who claim to be unprejudiced, and not hate Mexicans, but aren't very good at disguising their bigotry in spite of their efforts to do so.

There are plenty of them here at FR, and they are the ones to whom I was referring. If you don't recognize the difference, so be it, but it's a reality. If you don't fit the category, then you were kind of silly to be so offended by it now, weren't you? The same kind of anti-immigration nuts have always existed, and most likely your family or mine (or theirs) would not have been in America if immigration policy had been left up to them.

There......that's a rational answer to your below the belt nasty little post. Can you deal with that, or are you going to insult me again in response? Because if you do, I'll know what category you fit in.

You know, there are so many bashers here at FR who claim they voted for Bush. I know a few of you are telling the truth, but it's really hard to believe any of you.

The difference between what he's doing, and what he campaigned on is the difference between what is ideal, and what can be done in the real world of politics. Compromise is a necessary, albeit sometimes unpleasant, part of being the President. People who don't understand that don't have an understanding of national politics, as apparently you don't.

There is a wonderful quote from Ronald Reagan about how he was hated by the far right just because compromised in order to get things done.

What's ironic is that a lot of the same people who were on Reagan's back for not living up to 'ideal' conservative principles, have now deified him, and ask why Bush can't be more like he was. It's almost funny.

ohio don't wear yourself out most of the people who bash bush never voted for him

You're absolutely right. And I think his popularity is part of the burr in their bonnets, don't you? They're either 2%ers, McCainiacs, or from the DU, and they're doing whatever they can to reduce the President's overwhelming popularity.

I'm not wearing myself out, though. I find them quite amusing some of the time. When they get really nasty....I leave, and find intelligent company.

I have not seen that information as you posted it. Thanks. It will most likely change my view on this particular part of this particular issue, but it will not take away my support of the President.

Immigration is not the only thing I don't agree with him about (even before reading your post I didn't agree with him), but I don't require unanimity of thought with people I respect. I watched and listened very carefully to George W. Bush in the campaign and in the first year of his Presidency. The reason he has my respect is because he has earned it, and I am enough of a realist to know that I will not always agree with him. But I trust him enough to believe that he is doing what he thinks is best.

I heard Benjamin Netanyahu (in person) a few weeks ago, discussing his differing opinion with the President on the Israel/Palestine situation. He said it was "a disagreement among friends. We'll work it out." If someone of his stature views the President with that kind of respect in an area of disagreement, one would think that the arm chair do-nothing 'experts' here could do the same.

I'm not arguing the Constitution, I'm arguing the logic. You know that easy access to guns doesn't cause crime, even though guns are used in crimes. Criminals flout gun laws; if they can get guns legally they will, but if they can't get them legally, they'll find another way. But why then do you accept the logic that the easy access to our territory results in more terrorism? Yes, terrorists can get in legally, but if they couldn't, they'd find another way in.

Besides the fact that it is needlessly inflammatory, I still don't think your gun control analogy is a good one. Try this...
We passed a three strikes law in California which took a lot of criminals off the street. Did it stop all crime? No. Did it reduce crime? Yes. When a crime is committed now, are more resources available to solve that crime? Yes.
We're talking about needles and haystacks... Smaller stacks makes it easier to find the needles.
Fewer Illegals won't solve the problem of potential terrorists, but it makes it more solvable

"I have helped vote Bush into office three times: twice as governor and once as President. I am really disillusioned with some of the things he has done lately. He cares more about pandering for votes than our nation's laws and the huge burden illegal immigrants place upon the US taxpayer. I never thought I would say it before this year, but I will not vote for him ever again. I knew he wasn't tough on illegals while he was governor, but it was the feds responsibility to protect our borders. I thought he would toughen up after being elected President. Well, he's in the driver's seat now, and despite his tough talk after Sept. 11, he's no different regarding the illegals than the liberals."

A whole slew of us were duped by Dubya the first go around. He actually ran as a moderate conservative....too moderate for me, though quite bearable after the plundering of the White House under Clinton.

However, it is clear that he is a big government moderate liberal, who occasionally tosses Christians and other conservatives a bone, while he continues governing 75% from the left.

I agree with you but will add that Bush has also done absolutely nothing to investigate chinagate, pardongate, trashgate, etc. etc. Plus, all those clinton cronies are still at the IRS, DOJ, FBI, etc. He talks a good tough talk on terrorism (as long as the terrorists aren't palestinian), but he is a wimp when it comes to obstructionist democrats (stalling of judgeships). Ashcroft has done a disappearing act since he became AG.

The Presidency has been transformed into a popularity show. I'm disgusted by the Republican Party - they sold out and you can color me gone right now.

If there is a choice between the lesser of two evils, I choose neither.

Of course you will. I'm sure you have done that in every election. You can not produce a candidate that can win in a democracy so you destroy the best the rest of us can produce. This is one of the main reasons the democrats can just say "hillary will run" and we just give her the presidency.

Just who do you think would vote for a man to take away all the welfare programs, quit funding education, do away with social security and medicare when the democrats will give them a hillary to take care of the poor masses?

Finally! A man who posts common sense and reality instead of pie-in-the-sky ideals. We may never know what forces were at work to rig that election so the dems would win. They felt it was a sure thing and were astounded that Bush pulled through.

With Clinton having secret meetings with the Saudi prince, with a Clinton that sold secrets to China during his term - why would we expect them to play fair?

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.