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

Roll Call ^ | November 18, 2002 | Josh Kurtz

[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.

[Reagan Man]

>>>That's because they were functioning at the same, or slightly above, your level. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Wow, a personal attack. LOL Is that all you have?

At this point, I think its fair to say, you're the real halfwit around here. May be dumbell is more fitting.

Now tell us all, just who did you vote for in 2000. Was it Buchanan, Hagelin, Philips or the libertarian Harry Browne? Perhaps it was the ultra leftwinger, Ralph Nadar. Don't keep us in suspense.

[archy]

I would hardly call flying combat aircraft- which the F-102 Delta Dagger is- being part of a "flying country club" by any stretch of the imagination.

If you are not flying them in combat and are fairly certain you never will, it's a flying country club for the well connected. You attempt to overdramatize it falls flat.

Not as flat as the many 102s that conclusively proved Newton's theories about gravity, like the one in Seattle that lost power during a World's Fair flyover and slammed into a house, killing the residents. It was sometimes sung of the F102 [to the tune of *ta ra ra boom-de-ay] that:

If you fly a 102
You'd best pray for skies of blue
For if there's one drop of rain
You'll fly parts instead of plane:

Will you go boom today,
Will you go boom today?
Two blew up yesterday
Will you go boom today?

[Mark Felton]

Your assessment is dead on.

It is blueblood intimidation.

[RLK]

Wow, a personal attack. LOL Is that all you have?

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

It's not a personal attack. You gave me your personal evaluation. Your personal evaluation revealed your personal limitations.

[Mark Felton]

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

[Mark Felton]

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

[4Freedom]

"...where do they go when they are mugged in the US?"

The 'White House' has lots of extra rooms and great security. The temporary tenant there speaks Spanish and has been known to let illegal aliens flop wherever they want.

[Mark Felton]

". I am glad Bush is in charge of winning elections and not you or some of the other posters here. Bush just proved he knows what he is doing."

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317

[Mark Felton]

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

[4Freedom]

Chutch, you're confusing American citizens with illegal aliens, again. Those Colombians should stay home and shoot guerillas, grizzly bears, or whatever in their own country.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Tancredo's views are in line with just about the whole country. It's only a small elitist clique in both parties who are out of touch with reality.

[Mark Felton]

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

[madfly]

Someone just pinged me to this thread. It's very timely and might answer our questions, here. It's written very methodically and easy to understand. Give it a look.

(No Answers, No Taxes) by Robert L. Schulz, Chairman, We The People Congress

Presented at Freedom Drive 2002, The National Mall, Washington DC November 14, 2002

Acknowledgement: Bob Schulz wishes to acknowledge and thank Anthony Hargis for his fine research paper, "The Lost Right, Redress of Grievances." (undated). Bob's speech draws heavily on that research and the underlying documents.

The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, said, "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

This very American Right of Redress of Grievances Before Taxes is deeply embedded in our law.

The founding fathers could hardly have used words more clear when they declared, "the people . . . may retain [their money] until their grievances are [remedied]."

By these words, the founding fathers fully recognized and clearly stated: that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the right of Redress Before payment of Taxes, that this Right of Redress Before Taxes lies in the hands of the People, that this Right is the People's non-violent, peaceful means to procuring a remedy to their grievances without having depend on -- or place their trust in -- the government's willingness to respond to the People's petitions and without having to resort to violence.

Before going further, I'd like to clarify two points: first, the question we are dealing with here is not whether the government has the power to tax, but whether the government is abusing its constitutionally limited power to tax; and second, there is the question of whether the government is using the tax revenue to effect other abuses of its authority.

The founding fathers were well acquainted with the fact that government is the enemy of Freedom, that those wielding governmental power despise petitions from the People; the representatives of the People, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the People themselves and exhibit strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any quarter.

The founding fathers knew that it was possible for the institutions of the Congress, the Executive and the Courts to someday begin to fail in their duty to protect the people from tyranny. They knew that unless the People had the right to withhold their money from the government their grievances might fall on deaf ears and Liberty would give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary servitude.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states clearly and unambiguously, "Congress shall make NO law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

While some Rights are reserved with qualifications . . . (continued)

This is a real eye opener!

[cyncooper]

The temporary tenant there speaks Spanish...

Ooooh, that's a bad thing, right?

And because I'm sure you'll leap to the wrong conclusion, let me state clearly that English should and will always remain the official language of the United States of America and President Bush does not seek to undermine this.

[Reagan Man]

>>>It's not a personal attack. You gave me your personal evaluation. Your personal evaluation revealed your personal limitations.

I was right, all you have are personal attacks.

I'll give you one more chance, mister smartass. Just who did you vote for in 2000? Was it Buchanan, Hagelin, Philips or the libertarian Harry Browne? Perhaps it was the ultra leftwinger, Ralph Nadar, or did you actually vote for Algore?! Dispense with the suspense already.

Let's see if you can answer my simple question, with a simple reply, or will you revert to further personal attacks. With you being a halfwit, I understand, that means you are limited in your ability to respond in a reasonable and civil manner. But try, real hard.

[RLK]

Some of you are moving heaven and earth in absurd attempts to manufacture a hero out of Bush. In that sense he's become a cult figure and creation. I don't believe Bush did many air show flyovers or non-routine tricky manuevers.

Tens of thousands of people are killed in automobiles each year and someone might even write a goofy poem about it. However, people who climb into automobiles aren't attributed with hyped glorious military service. I'll stand with what I said.

[4Freedom]

Yeah, that sounds like something he'd say, alright.

LOL!

[RLK]

Was it Buchanan, Hagelin, Philips or the libertarian Harry Browne? Perhaps it was the ultra leftwinger, Ralph Nadar, or did you actually vote for Algore?! Dispense with the suspense already.

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

None of the above. You are attempting to construct straw man alternatives to your assertions. You don't even know what a personal attack is. Unproductive discussion ended.

[4Freedom]

You were working against Tancredo in this last election.

BIG DEAL!

LOL!

[Deb]

Hence the pandering.