TARGET: Tom Tancredo (Warned "never to darken the door of the White House again.")

By Josh Kurtz He represents one of the most conservative districts in the nation. He just trounced his Democratic challenger by 37 points. Yet Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) may be one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the 2004 election cycle.

Tancredo, a controversial, outspoken voice for the Republican right who is entering his third term, has angered leading Republicans back home and in the White House.

The House Member's criticisms of President Bush's immigration policy bought him a 40-minute rebuke earlier this year from Bush adviser Karl Rove, who, in the Congressman's own words, warned him "never to darken the door of the White House again." And his decision to renounce his pledge to serve only three terms has infuriated powerful Colorado Republicans, including his political patron, former Sen. Bill Armstrong (R).

"I'll be surprised if he doesn't have a primary [in 2004]," said Floyd Ciruli, an independent Colorado pollster.

Several Republicans, including popular state Treasurer Mike Coffman, who just won a landslide re-election of his own, are considering taking on Tancredo in the '04 primary.

Other potential candidates include state Sen. Jim Dyer (R) and former Arapahoe County Commissioner Steve Ward. "It's a given" that someone will run against the 56-year-old lawmaker, Coffman said. "There are questions about his term-limit pledge. When you have someone like Senator Armstrong, who was his mentor, backing away from him - I think that resonates."

Armstrong was instrumental in getting Tancredo elected in the first place, endorsing him over four strong opponents in a competitive GOP primary to replace retiring Rep. Dan Schaefer (R) in 1998. By Tancredo's reckoning, Armstrong's blessing was worth 3 points at the polls - which just happened to be his margin of victory in the primary.

Even though he may not seek re-election in 2004 - and would consider running for Senate if Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R) retires - he has chucked the term-limit promise nevertheless.

"The term-limit pledge in and of itself is not the deciding factor if he will run again," said Tancredo spokeswoman Lara Kennedy.

Like all Members who change their minds on term limits, Tancredo has cast his decision as being in the best interests of his district and pet causes. Tancredo wants to preserve his seniority for his suburban district south of Denver and angle for better committee assignments. Plus, he does not want to lose the momentum he has built fighting the government's open immigration policies, Kennedy said. Tancredo is the founder of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.

While plenty of politicians have broken their term-limit pledges before, including Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.), Tancredo's decision is more noteworthy because he once headed Colorado's term-limit organization.

"All too often you have terrific candidates who come to Washington with the best of intentions, but they get too comfortable, and when the time comes, they don't want to go home," lamented Stacie Rumenap, a spokeswoman for U.S.Term Limits.

Whether Tancredo suffers any political damage remains to be seen. So far, the handful of Members who have broken their pledges, including McInnis, have not suffered any consequences at the polls, Rumenap conceded. And U.S.Term Limits is not in the business of recruiting challengers to incumbents who have broken the pledge.

Tancredo has promised to return campaign contributions to donors who are dismayed at his decision to ignore the term-limits pledge. But Armstrong - who did not respond to several messages left at his Denver law office - called the refund offer "hollow," according to The Rocky Mountain News.

"Mike Coffman is someone the Republican Party and the people of Colorado will rally around,"he told the News. "There is no doubt in my mind that he will be on the short list for whatever comes along - it could be governor, it could be Senator, it could be Congress."

Coffman, in fact, began running for Congress last year - in the new 7th district, which adjoins Tancredo's. But when the final district lines were drawn, Coffman found himself in Tancredo's 6th district, just a few blocks from the 7th, and chose not to move or run.

Coffman said that while he has not given much thought to the 2004 election yet, he believes that Tancredo will be vulnerable. The three Republicans most frequently mentioned as challengers are all military veterans, while Tancredo is not, and that could make a difference in a district that values military service, political insiders said.

Coffman, a 47-year-old Marine Corps vet who served in Operation Desert Storm, said Tancredo's military deferments during the Vietnam War would hurt him as America prepares to attack Iraq, and could be linked to his decision to ignore the term-limit pledge.

"Here's a guy ordering young men off to war and he himself didn't serve," he said. "I think in this conservative district, something like that could resonate."

Certainly, Tancredo's record would contrast with Coffman's, or Dyer's, who is an Air Force veteran, or Ward's, who is a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps Reserves and is on active duty in Florida.

Dyer called it "highly unlikely" that he would challenge Tancredo, but said somebody else might, and predicted that the term-limit issue would sting the incumbent.

"I think a number of people that support Tom are not going to support him if he breaks the term-limit pledge,"said Dyer, who was a surrogate for Tancredo at a candidate forum this fall. "We can't say that situational ethics is bad for party A but not for party B."

Ward, a former mayor of suburban Glendale, could not be reached for comment, but is expected to return to Colorado next year. In an interview with the News after completing his one term on the Arapahoe County Commission, Ward made his opinion of politicians who stay in office too long perfectly clear.

"Any politician who can't find the bathrooms in the first week doesn't deserve to be in public office," he said.

It is unclear whether the White House would try to get involved in a primary challenge to Tancredo.

But it is fair to say that Tancredo is not one of the president's favorite people. Earlier this year, the Congressman accused Bush of pandering to Hispanic voters and trying to prop up Mexican President Vicente Fox by offering amnesty to certain undocumented immigrants. That declaration brought an angry 40-minute phone call from Rove, and Bush pointedly failed to introduce Tancredo to the crowd during a political rally in Colorado in September.

With his hard-line views on immigration, Tancredo is no stranger to controversy. In 1999, he gained publicity for reaffirming his support for gun owners' rights just days after the massacre at Columbine High School, which is six blocks from his house.

The Southern Poverty Law Center released a report last summer linking Tancredo to extremist groups, which the Congressman dismissed as "McCarthyism."

And he was embarrassed earlier this year when it was revealed that undocumented workers had been hired to do some construction work on his Littleton home.

But pollster Ciruli said Tancredo's views on immigration are in line with his constituents'.

"Nobody who's going to argue the soft side of immigration is going to beat him in the Republican primary, or even in the general," he said.

After seeing two fairly viable opponents get wiped out by Tancredo in 1998 and 2000, Democrats appear to have abandoned the 6th district - leaving Republicans there to decide whether they want him to remain in office.

You make a good point about military service being given so much weight. John McCain was a POW in Vietnam, and George McGovern a veteran of WWII. The military service of both men was exemplary. Their subsequent behavior is abominable.

Tancredo's message finds a home in the fear that the influx on Mexicans (legal or illegal) will destroy our civilization, he plays to the fear that this will become a country where "white" will no longer be the majority.

Tancredo picks up where Buchanan left off.

"As I said, you don't like the message, which is a sovereign nation has a right to control its borders and enforce its laws."

You want me to show you a race-baiting quote by Tancredo similar to Jesse Jackson?

Why, I just said that they both used racial fear to gain power. You don't need to race bait to get that done.

Sinkspurt, you haven't changed, you still can't answer a question.

I've answered questions for over four years.

You've been here eleven days.

Stuff your condescension, dh.

If my politics were left of center, from a political standpoint things would be grand. I only wish it were true. When I was young, I was a bit worried that WASP America was threatened. I was raised in that tradition, albeit in a sort of gentile but persistent way. But over time, I learned and matured, and changed my mind, based on the evidence. In some ways, the immigrant invasion, legal and illegal, tends to keep the American dream alive and vital. Granted, it is not without risk, but risk is part of life, individualy, and as a nation. So far, America's risk taking has generated a handsome return. The nativists were saying the exact same thing 150 or more years ago, and ongoing thereafter, as they are saying now. So far, the unfolding American sage as proven them totally wrong, by any objective standard.

Continue to ignore warnings of Tancredo and the farmers defending their land, and he won't have to worry about big bad Tancredo "darkening his door." That shadow will be of the Reconquistas or Islamonazis or Resurgent Commies coming to mete out their revolutionary justice.

Since everyone living in California knows that everything on your list is either an individual state issue or originated in Mexico, we also recognize how dishonest you are.
Bush has no control over the idiot leftist politicians in border states or what Fox allows to come into law. Tancredo knows this, so should you.

Deb - you are absolutely right and Hats off to you!

Yes, these conditions did originate in Mexico. And yes, they exist in idiot leftist-politician- controlled States ... like Texas and Florida.

One little point though, Bush has a great deal of control over the immigration-related problems faced by leftist (and not-so leftist) State and Local politicians. Unfortunately, he has not chosen to exercise that control or responsibility.

I don't think he's doing it cynically. I believe he really believes in what he's doing (and I agree with him), but the tactics he has started using in publically confronting Bush in the press and allowing himself to be used by the other side, are not the actions of a patriot.

Taking my cue from Reagan, whenever someone risks weakening his president in order to advance his single issue, I become suspicious of his motives and/or his intellect.

I attack people like Tancredo for their blatant demagoguery...

You don't like Tancredo for his demagoguery, you don't like Buchanan for his demagoguery, you don't like FAIR for their demagoguery, let's face it, you don't like ANYONE who speaks out against illegal immigration.

Here's a chance to prove me wrong. Who do you admire for speaking out against illegal immigration?

re your post #195...

Hallelujah! and AMEN!

Thank you. Nothing is more galling than these race baiting dividers on the right. This issue has nothing to do with race. It is about national sovereignty, the rule of law, the openess of our borders to every job thief and terrorist in the third world and fairness to those who want to be American citizens AS American citizens. Law abiding and patriotic. Not criminals who take what they want.

I know Tancredo isn't a racist, it's just that he wants the borders guarded from illegal aliens.

Now, if I could just find anything from him about securing our northern border, I could prove that his statements aren't racially motivated.

Why, I just said that they both used racial fear to gain power.

Luis, when you make a serious charge like that, you have to back it up.

Please, enlighten me, I've never heard Tancredo speak against legal immigrants from any country. If I'm wrong, you will need to post a quote.

Now, if I could just find anything from him about securing our northern border, I could prove that his statements aren't racially motivated.

The southern border is where the action is Luis, and you know it. But for the record, Tancredo has stated on several occasions both borders and the coastlines need to be secured. We all agree with that.

Intersting, you will support someone who is known not to go through with his promises.

When Bush was running for president he said he would "Protect Our Borders". We are still waiting for him to make good on that promise. To say nothing of his constitutionally sworn duty to do so.

Sinkspurt,I repeat, in the years that I have been positng on this forum, you have never answered any of my questions. You can't, you don't have the intellect to do so. You are nothing more that a republican liberal democrat. You only know what your party bosses tell you.

I don't agree. His actions pre-9/11 cannot in any way be entered into the argument. Post 9/11 is a new world. And since the Democrats have refused to allow Homeland Security to go thru and blocked the budget so that the Patriot Act provisions couldn't kick in...exactly what is Tancredo's bitch with Bush?

If you have followed the Bush/Fox dynamic you know Fox has been outraged and furious at Bush for over a year because Bush will not give in to any of the Fox demands. And he won't.

Bush has to address the border problem and (illegal) immigration, while not handing a giant club to hispanic activists at LaRaza etc. to crush conservatives.

No matter what the issue or national emergency, the Democrats have reduced everything to politics...and they mean to win.

If the Republicans aren't equal to the battle on the field and in the PR arena...we all lose. Tancredo isn't helping.

No one is assuming that all "Hispanics" (a ridiculous Nixon-era classification, BTW) hate America. There are certainly naturalized citizens from Latin America who are excellent, loyal, patriotic Americans who believe in the principles of this country more than many native-born people (leftists, for example). The point a lot of folks here are trying to articulate is the nature and volume of immigration has been changed into something that is ultimately destructive to all we (including the patriots of Latino background) hold dear. We now have a welfare system, combined with an anti-American multicultiralist media and establishment, which has encouraged colonization instead of Americanization. Hence, Foundation and Governmental support for blantantly treasonous and genocidal organizations such as "LaRaza" and "MEChA", whose stated purpose is to take over part (or even all) of the United States and ethnically cleanse any areas under their control. Is it rational for any nation or its citizens to tolerate such nonsense??

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.