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.

Even in routine operations, there is a high level of risk. Much higher than flying in some club. Sorry, but you are dead wrong to characterize it the way you did.

---------------------------

Right. They had a 25% casualty rate.

So what the hell was that family supposed to do, LET some thuggish guerilla movement kidnap their son?

Had an American family suffered much less inconvenience than having their oldest son kidnapped at the hands of bureaucratic malfeasance in the EPA or BATF, most of this forum would be justifiably angry about this and motivated to take action. Furthermore, you're all infavor of shipping that family back into harm's way?

Ist just me, or do I see a glaring double standard here, where some types of bureaucratic malfeasance is allowable and in fact cheered on, while other exampels are condemned? Bureaucratic malfeasance is bureaucratic malfeasance, and it is wrong no matter what form it takes.

Do you have any words for the permanent residents in the United States either with green cards or awaiting citizenship, who obeyed the established rules and paid the funds/submitted the paperwork and underwent the background checks, etc.? What do you say to them?

Were they foolish to waste their time?

If a person who wants to enter the US legally were to ask you the simple question: 'what's the point of my trying legally when everyone else is running to the front of the ice-cream line without waiting like the rest of us back here in line?"

What, truly, do you have to say to them? Are or were they fools?

I will bet you have no cogent response to this. The individuals who are tolerant of open borders and disorderly illegal immigration never have a reply when I ask them to direct their comments on this topic to legal immigrants.

The last time I checked the U.S. wasn't the last place on earth. They were free to flee to Europe or god knows where but they came here why? Because they knew our enforcement was crap.

Maybe if they stayed and fought they could change the future of their country but don't expect me to applaude them for running and assuming that we should look after them.

Your logic is flawed. All illegals, ALL need to be rounded up and deported.

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

Bwaahahahaha! Herr Rove has him scrubbed, and he's dead meat. His 100% ACU rating last year and 99% lifetime doesn't mean spit.

If he keeps screwing with the power structure the DOJ will get him an all expense paid trip to join James Traficant in making license plates. Scottie can beam them both up.

Ah, I love the smell of facism in the morning!

Suggest a different solution... maybe a Border Patrol with teeth, and an acknowledgement that those sneaking in are not citizens and are not entitled to any of our bill of rights, instead.

Well considering the drug cartels are using the mexican military we are going to have to give the border patrol alot of teeth. I wouldnt exactly say its a police officer's job to take on military units.

" Whenever I read comments like yours, I am reminded what "Dandy" Don Meredith so eloquently said about those who reminisced about the glory days of the NFL: "The NFL isn't what it used to be, and it never was" "

Actually, the score is well known. The budgets continue to skyrocket; the government continues to grow and more importantly the liberties continue to be eroded.

A massive Federal Dept. of Education; Campaign Finance Reform (speech limitation bill); Prescription Drug Benefits....

Many on this board (me included) had admiration and respect for Reagan in way that Democrats had such respect for JFK. We cannot let our fond remininscences cloud our view about the current state of affairs with the party.

Americans want socialist policies. There is no doubt.

It is precisely to curtail such greedy desires (which destroy governments) that the Constitution was established. The Constitution provides cover for the politicians to Just Say No. It requires them to say No, or technically they should be jailed. Unfortunately they have learned how to avoid jail and personally prosper from the violations. They have no need to Just Say No. (Thanks go to Nancy Reagan for that phrase).

He's strident. Good. Thank God somebody other than just me has the guts to be strident.

And are you ineffective as ineffective -- and counterproductive -- as Tancredo?

Tancredo doesn't (and won't) get anything done. All he does is yell. Nobody in the House will work with him, because all he does is make inflammatory statements that remove all common ground from the debate.

Whether or not you agree with him on particular issues, he's a very poor representative. He can vote yea or nay on somebody else's bill, but he won't be getting votes on his own bills.

If I recall, this came out prior to his election, and it turned out he hired a contractor who had an illegal on the payroll. The contractor himself was an American.

The charge is laughable but Rove will use it and anything else he can scrape up or make up. Tancredo will be lucky if has any reputation left, much less an office. The price of not being a ball bearing is extremely expensive these days.

Promoting murdering kids at the border again? Want to gun down some more Mexicans? Or are we into blowing them up today?

Yah our lack of enforcement and rewards for breaking the laws are promoting the murder of border patrol agents. It promotes the sale of drugs into our school systems. It allows a free highway into the US to commit terrorism.

PULL YOUR DAMN HEAD OUT YOU RACE BAITING JACKASS!!

I'd tell them that I'm grateful they followed the rules, and that they have not been fools. I will also explain to them that there have been mistakes made in implementing our immigration policy, and that they have to be rectified, and that it will be done in a fair and equitable manner to all concerned.

Now, I ask you, do you have a cogent response to that Colombian family, who had been forced - by the malfeasance of those who issued visas - to choose between saving their son and obeying our laws?

Whether or not you agree with him on particular issues, he's a very poor representative. He can vote yea or nay on somebody else's bill, but he won't be getting votes on his own bills.

There are at least 60 members of the Immigration Reform Caucus who will vote with him. And even those who may not like his openness on the topic will too if they see it's in their political interest to do so.

Flawed logic? No. Our government failed them - no differently than other failures. Only this was worse.

They came to us, not the UK, Spain, Canada, or some other European nation. They applied to enter HERE. They were facing circumatnces that warranted expedited action - namely, an imminent threat to their oldest son.

And they were let down by our government. My logic is not flawed. Or are you saying that screw-up is not worth fixing? It's easy from the relative safety of the USA to criticize them, but I can't blame them for taking that action - I blame the bureuacratic malfeasance that forced them into a situation where they had no choice but to overstay tourist visas.

That was where the blame lies - OUR State Department's Consular Affairs Department. And I want that fixed, and any victims of malfeasance like I describe in post 618 to be compensated. It's no different that demanding fair treatment for a farmer who accidentally runs over an endangered rat while plowing his fields or demanding that the EPA or Fish and Wildlife Service compenstae those whose land is effectively seized to protect some golden-cheeked warbler.

Sorry, the logic in allowing some instances of malfeasance to go undealt with is flawed - and you would allow that by a blanket "deprot them all" policy that does not take situations like I described into account.

I would guess it is just his style..do you know him personally?

I would guess it just isn't his style........ do you know him personally? This game can be played both ways... but you can't produce a bunch of evidence that it is his style....

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.