Bush team strikes back against Tancredo

Denver Post ^

[KantianBurke]

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."

[ClancyJ]

he's no different regarding the illegals than the liberals.

Hate to lose your vote - we need it desperately. I really feel that Bush is looking at this situation with Mexico with a different vision. Remember Bush comes up with innovative solutions. I feel that his vision sees solving the problem by setting up a guest worker program which would have control over the "guest workers" in our country. Our country needs the workers that will work cheap - they are coming in anyway and the work is being done. Just find a way to take away the illegal crossing and have control over who comes in.

IMHO he feels the solution is in raising the economy in Mexico to prevent the need for coming over. I feel Bush wants to strengthen the ties with Mexico and Canada to provide a more secure North America with partners on each side instead of illegals wandering in and out.

Bush is going to do nothing to hurt the welfare of his own country - I feel he is working on bigger solutions.

[Mo1]

I suppose you don't have too many illegals up in Pennsylvania, do you? Obviously not.

I am sure we do .. what does that have to do with my response???

[ClancyJ]

I agree with you but will add that Bush has also done absolutely nothing to investigate chinagate, pardongate, trashgate, etc. etc.

Just why does Bush have to play policeman as well as run this country, fight terrorist, fight democrats, try to get tax cuts and all the other efforts we want in government? Bush had a choice - go after Clinton with revenge after years of investigations, impeachment efforts, and everything the republicans had done to take Clinton to task - or set about putting in his policies as quickly as possible. He did not run on the platform - to investigate chinagate, etc. He ran on things he wanted to get done and he set about doing them getting far more through than we ever thought possible.

Looks like you just wanted him for revenge. Another thing - what would have happened if he attacked Clinton with more investigations? It would have immediately put Clinton in the limelight and rallied his forces to take over the Bush term with Clintonantics.

Bush handled it perfectly - he showed class, dignity and leadership. We finally had a leader running the government. Clinton was now out of power - I would not have wanted Clinton controlling the agenda from the sidelines.

[colorado tanker]

By a "more open" border I mean both longer and fewer border patrol agents. Having crossed both borders often, I would certainly choose the Canadian to infiltrate the country. Plus, Canadian security is so bad it would be easy to go to Canada from the Middle East or Europe.

[4Freedom]

Section 245i couldn't be written anymore vaguely, generally and all inclusively, if Vicente Fox had written it himself. Section 245i is about as specifically targeted as an atomic bomb.

You two chatter about Bush's intent to have the INS eveluate applications submitted by illegal aliens, under the terms of 245i, on a case by case basis. If the INS receives 20 million applications, how many years will it take for them to make all of those case by case decisions?

In the meantime we have all those millions more illegal aliens leaching off our social services for all those years?

With $70 billion dollars plus, in social services that we spend on illegal aliens, we could afford to pay a high enough price for Calfornia Fruits and Vegetables that the farmers could pay Americans to do those jobs.

I vote for the "They Will Deport Themselves Plan". Send the illegals home. We can't afford them.

[4Freedom]

Serious anti-illegal immigration bump to your post #173!

[4Freedom]

Consider sending those contributions to Tom Tancredo. He's willing to take the heat for his tough stand against illegal immigration.

[exmarine]

Just why does Bush have to play policeman as well as run this country, fight terrorist, fight democrats, try to get tax cuts and all the other efforts we want in government? Bush had a choice - go after Clinton with revenge after years of investigations, impeachment efforts, and everything the republicans had done to take Clinton to task - or set about putting in his policies as quickly as possible. He did not run on the platform - to investigate chinagate, etc. He ran on things he wanted to get done and he set about doing them getting far more through than we ever thought possible.

Does the rule of law mean anything anymore? Does it matter that Clinton besmirched and disgraced the office of President? Apparently not to you and not to Bush. The RIGHT thing to do would be to expose that criminal and his cronies for the gangsters and traitors that they are. Not to do so is a travesty of justice.

And what did Bush run on? Smaller govt right? Then what is this farm bill? What is this education bill? Is this what he ran on?

Fight democrats? I don't see much fighting going on. What is Bush doing about the holdup of the his judicial nominees? NOTHING.

Bush handled it perfectly - he showed class, dignity and leadership. We finally had a leader running the government. Clinton was now out of power - I would not have wanted Clinton controlling the agenda from the sidelines.

What is it exactly that makes Bush a good leader? So far, I haven't seen him do anything to advance the cause of conservatives other than a tax cut, and give lip service to abortion issue.

Let me tell you something, he also has done very little to protect Americans from terorists - the U.S. govt. doesn't know the meaning of homeland defense. Our borders are sieves and Bush wants to grant amnesty to lawbreakers - pandering to hispanics. I am sick and tired of wishy washy republicans giving lip service to conservatives and then abandoning conservative principles. I am through with the Republican Party. YOu see, I am a REAL CONSERVATIVE with principles. I don't back down in the face of pressure - I will DIE BEFORE I SURRENDER MY PRINCIPLES.

[Joe Hadenuf]

"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."

I also subscribe to this. If another large scale attack happens, it's going to get ugly.

[dsutah]

You know, you sound sooo high and mighty about what
Mr. Bush's job is, why don't you go and take over. Run
for office, and lets just see how much better YOU do!
Mr. Bush has had a lot on his plate lately, after Sept. 11.
I just wonder how a lot of you armchair political advisors, and
tough-talking know-it-alls would do if you were in his position.

I couldn't say I absolutely agree 100% with everything he
says, or does, but I don't know all the facts that he has access to.
Then he might not get everything he wants done, done.
There is our legislative body, Congress. That's where Mr. Tancredo comes
in. Now If he disagrees with Mr. Bush, he can say so, and vote
against it. He's not helpless! One can respect Mr. Tancredo
very much and not agree with him. Contrary to what
the bush-bashers on here, Bush doesn't have a magic wand like
a wizard, and he waves it whenever someone squalls that they
want something done 'right now'. Good grief, settle
down people! Mr Bush doesn't have unending power! So
cheer-up! He might not get his way on this either.

Although all this junk is falling on G. Bush now, he does have to
deal with it the best way he can. I don't remember him
asking for Sept. 11, do you? We have to remember, a lot of these
shadowy people who had some involvement with Sept. 11,
got in before G. Bush got into office. Was he supposed to
anticipate that the would get in and stay past their visas?
Whose job was that, huh? Did he do his job? No.
So why, may I ask, is it all being blamed on G. Bush?
Why should G. Bush turn himself in? Unless he's committed some
crime, no he shouldn't. Unless you can do better, quit judging! Or, vote for
else, and hush-up!

[EBUCK]

When a person gets into an auto-accident and someone dies, we don't accuse him of having blood on his hands. Tancredo accused the adminstration of murder.

I don't agree with that. The blood would be on the terrorists hands, not our government, unless they knowingly knew that people would die in a specific situation.

If you get into an accident, wife and kids killed, because you didn't want to get your hands dirty and fix the brakes you are responsible and you would know it. Even if it wasn't your fault...some guy ran a red light and you could have stopped if only you had fixed the brakes. You would spend the rest of your days blaming yourself inwardly while outwardly attempting to blame the other party. Blood on your hands.period.

EBUCK

[EBUCK]

I live in California and while I don't think that people should enter this country illegally, I do have to say this; California produces half of the fruit and vegetables that the country consumes. It's mostly these illegals that tend these crops. These are jobs that no one else here will do. These people do serve a purpose.

Because illegals are working menial jobs they should get to skirt the law? Does that apply to all of us or just illegals?

I do also have to say this; for the most part, I would say that Mexicans are very decent, honest, hard working people. They are people who love their families. I have no hard feelings when it comes to them. They come here, do work that no other Americans will do, and then send money back to their families back in Mexico, or return back to their families.

When I was a kid I worked summers on farms picking produce (garlic and straw berries ect). There were quite a few mexican families out there as well doing the work. They were all legal, the farmers were very strict about that. They worked hard, a lot harder than us kids did, and got paid well. Nowadays there are hundreds of illegals out in the fields picking away for very little pay and no local kids are hired anymore. The price of our fruits hasn't changed (actually StrawBerries were up 10% last year after adjusting for inflation) and the quality has gone down dramatically.

EBUCK

[EBUCK]

These have been posted numerous times to Amnesty Deniers, but they still persist for reasons inscrutable to me.

I know it! How many time do you need to put that thing up before they actually read it?????

EBUCK

[Brownie74]

If another large scale attack happens, it's going to get ugly.

I think it is just a matter of time before something happens. We have Memorial Day and July the 4th coming up. What a time for these loons to make a statement.

[EBUCK]

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.

I guess I don't understand what you are geting at.

Guns are not pre-requisites to crime. Right?

Illegally coming into our country is, in fact, a pre-requisite to illegal immigration. Right?

Stricter gun-control will not reduce crime because crime is not dependant upon guns. Stricter border control will reduce illegal immigration because crossing the border is absolutely neccesary to illegal immigration.

AGain, I don't see your point. It's obvious to me that gun control has no effect on crime. I might even say gun control promotes crime

EBUCK

[4Freedom]

As someone has mentioned to you before, Physicist, that's comparing apples and oranges. Stricter enforcement of the law and stiffer penalties, including swifter application of the death penalty, will result in a reduction of crime. Gun, knife or baseball bat control doesn't have anything to do with it.

[4Freedom]

OhioWfan, name me one piece of conservative legislation that George Bush is twisting arms and calling in markers to get sneaked on, at the very last minute, to every unrelated piece of legislation that goes through Congress, behind the backs of the liberal Democrats. Name one.

That's what has me so incensed. He's using these tactics on his own, conservative constituency.

That's leadership?

[carenot]

Uh, excuse me.
I tried to understand that.
Please tell me what that said.

(I am slow)