Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TARGET: Tom Tancredo (Warned "never to darken the door of the White House again.")
Roll Call ^ | November 18, 2002 | Josh Kurtz

Posted on 11/18/2002 6:23:24 PM PST by Mark Felton

November 18, 2002

Target: Tom Tancredo

Some Say GOPPrimary Challenge Likely

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.

Armstrong, meanwhile, has offered some kind words about Coffman.

"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.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: immigrantlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 1,101-1,115 next last
To: ClancyJ
Just how much money do you think it would take to have military control the borders?

I don't have a number, but you could take it, or some of it, out of what we're now spending on the illegals for schooling, medical care, and prisons.

701 posted on 11/19/2002 8:51:54 AM PST by SCalGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: 4Freedom
If a family should be able to enter the US if they feel they may become the victims of crime, where do they go when they are mugged in the US? hehe
702 posted on 11/19/2002 8:52:20 AM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
The INS is not doing their job now - how could they possibly handle the borders?

And who is there boss? Immediately after 911, the INS should have been given emergency personnel, funds whatever, after what happend at the hand of foreign terrorists. Should have been number one priority, even if you have a Homeland Security Plan in the works to deal with the problems 15 months down the line. Priorities demanded that visas be frozen and Border Patrol/INS be beefed up. IMHO.

God Bless America and heaven help us.!

703 posted on 11/19/2002 8:52:48 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: SCalGal
So, is someone in Montana who shoots a grizzly bear (protected under the Endangered Species Act) to protect their oldest son from being mauled to death a criminal, too?
704 posted on 11/19/2002 8:54:07 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Good thoughts. I agree - just closing the borders is not the answer. They will just find other ways to get in.

Mexico needs to do something about their own country instead of trying to sap the wealth from this country. Fox is beside himself wanting more of the wealth here.

705 posted on 11/19/2002 8:54:14 AM PST by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
It may not stop them but it'll cut it by 95% and in my opinion that's a BIG improvement.

As for trashing Bush, that's not my intent. Unless of course he's pro illegal.

706 posted on 11/19/2002 8:54:31 AM PST by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
What the h**l does that have to do with illegal immigration???
707 posted on 11/19/2002 8:54:58 AM PST by SCalGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
A selfish attitude on your part - and the "big picture" is just an excuse to sweep this malfeasance under the rug.

I'd say the only one being selfish is you. You want to stick the taxpayers with billions of dollars in costs associated with mass immigration, which includes bankrupt hospitals, crumbling schools and infrastructures, overwhelmed welfare services, not to mention skyrocketing crime rates so your skimpy employer friends can have an abundant source of cheap labor.

Yeah, they'll get a nice a bonus at Christmas time while the country falls apart. Traitors if you ask me.

708 posted on 11/19/2002 8:55:40 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

Comment #709 Removed by Moderator

To: ClancyJ
Protecting our borders would stop 99% of those illegally coming in. We can never stop illegal immigration, and neither could the USSR, but that doesn't mean reducing it to a trickle isn't an acceptable outcome of a reasonable effort. That leaves the definition of "reasonable" up for discussion. For me, that means no troops, but a seriously strengthened Border Patrol and enforcement of our current laws. Laws such as employment, welfare, ect., need to be enforced, and we don't enforce them.
710 posted on 11/19/2002 8:56:12 AM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
Oh... then does that mean I should demand the next person who accidentally runs over an endangered rat be thrown in jail for violated the Endangered Species Act?

Should he face the same penalties as a poacher? Or should the fact it was an accident be taken into account?

A lot of people here would be up in arms if that farmer was being railroaded. But they are okay here. You will forgive me if I presume a double standard exists and CALL people on it.
711 posted on 11/19/2002 8:56:51 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: 4Freedom
Here's what he meant to say!

I must go I down follow the park of the connection in where you live, and him hair of its sister hardly enough time to strike towards outside what few putrefactos teeth still continue being their mouth.

712 posted on 11/19/2002 8:57:55 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
I really like your football analogy.

It's slightly flawed, though.

You see the coach in your analogy is ignoring 75% of the fans.

When the fans stop coming to the games, supporting the team and calling for the coach to be fired, the guy on the bench that defied the coach could get his job.

The coach and the team are nothing without the support of the fans.

713 posted on 11/19/2002 8:59:50 AM PST by 4Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Your illegals willfully and with full understanding and comprehension broke the law.

How on earth is that an accident?

What that has to do with an endangered rat being scooped up and munched by and endangered owl who happens to be sitting (illegally) on the branch of an endangered tree in some wildlife preserve somewhere doesn't mean squat.

714 posted on 11/19/2002 9:00:58 AM PST by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
Just how much money do you think it would take to have military control the borders?

I don't know, but considering the total costs of illegal immigration is in the billions of dollars, if it came out to be 10 billion a year I'd say it's worth it.

And there's the security aspect of it, we wouldn't be just be keeping out illegal aliens and drugs, but potential terrorists as well. For that reason alone I don't care how much money it costs.

715 posted on 11/19/2002 9:02:23 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
And how the farmer wound up in the picture is absolutely beyond me.
716 posted on 11/19/2002 9:02:26 AM PST by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Sorry to disappoint you Teddy. Just for the record, Tancredo recieved about 67% of the vote in his district. In all of Colorado, my guy, Rep Joel Hefley won with 69% of the vote down here in southern Colorado. I like Tancredo's tough stand on enforcing current immigration policy, but his zealotry on the issue is hurting his message.
717 posted on 11/19/2002 9:06:05 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: SCalGal; Bikers4Bush; Reaganwuzthebest
The fact that you do not want to admit is that that Colombian family was acting to protect the oldest son. Our government was not doing a DAMN THING to help them out.

There is not much difference between that family's situation from those ranchers losing livestock to wolf and grizzly bear introductions during the Clinton years in my book. In both cases, our government had responsibilities it was not fulfilling. In both cases, people were hurt by the non-fulfillment of those responsibilities.

In both cases, the people hurt "violated" the law after all other options were exhausted. The ranchers losing livestock shot the wolves. That Colombian family came on tourist visas and overstayed them.

I hate to say this, but there seems to be a double standard where the ranchers shooting the wolves are defended, but this family protecting their oldest son is attacked. That is a double standard in my book. And double standards are, in my opinion, wrong, particularly when applied by a government. And right now, I see a double standard emerging as to which screw-ups involving immigration policy are denounced and corrected, and I find that to be wrong.
718 posted on 11/19/2002 9:08:30 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
They did so protecting their oldest son.

Ranchers who shot reintroduced wolves willfully broke the law, too. Do they get a pass?
719 posted on 11/19/2002 9:09:07 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
How do you figure that the possibility that one's children might be kidnapped is a reason for asylum?

That's a reason for the Colombian government to provide its citizens protection. That has nothing to do with the United States.

720 posted on 11/19/2002 9:09:27 AM PST by 4Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 1,101-1,115 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson