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 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 1,101-1,115 next last
Comment #841 Removed by Moderator

To: madfly
You know on the subject of RACISM - think about it - it only works if the person, in fact, is not a RACIST. It wouldn't matter to a RACIST to be called one. So, believe me, the folks using that term - know it isn't true. They just hope that, because you are a decent person, it will wound you so you will shut up, because they have no other way to handle the truth.

I have adopted the position, that each and every time, I will respond by pointing out they put forth no idea, common sense or facts - just RACISM!. I no longer say "I am not a RACIST" I realize that is a given, or they would not have used it in the first place.

This is a tactic that has been so detrimentally in our country in the past and will be in the future unless we counter it every time and not be afraid of it. That is why I 'scream' it each time I post.

Someone just wrote me that my 'epic' post raised the suspicion of RACISM!. You see, they didn't call me a RACIST - just 'suspected' I was.

842 posted on 11/19/2002 12:58:19 PM PST by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
And yet it mentions nothing about removing the illegals that are already here.

All well and good to say what you'd do if and when, what about now?

843 posted on 11/19/2002 1:00:16 PM PST by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
If you don't want Spanish as your official language, I suggest you voice your opinion to that effect.

yIDoqhQo' tlhInqan maH! buy' nqop!

-archy-/-

844 posted on 11/19/2002 1:02:09 PM PST by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Deb; janetgreen
To: Deb

What laws of the land has he not upheld?

There's a section of the Constitution that says that our borders must be protected from invasion. A biggie, especially after September 11.

512 posted on 11/18/2002 11:56 PM PST by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
 

To: janetgreen

Thanks for proving you're incapable of rational thought.

Going round and round with the Bozo Brigade soaks up valuable hours of life and ends up with looney statements like yours.

Your fears have been addressed. Start at the first post and read the thread. If you still feel the need to overstate, exaggerate and talk stupid...you're on your own.

Best of luck.

827 posted on 11/19/2002 12:35 PM PST by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
 

FYI
 

From the

Constitution of the United States

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
 

If the Bozo Brigade is the last defender of the Constitution of the United States, consider me a proud member.

845 posted on 11/19/2002 1:04:00 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
[P.S. I didn't scream it, but I notice you sure did in this reply.]

Oh yes, you did! It is always screamed. It is one of those words that screams by it's very usage - you realize that.

Now you bet I screamed it and will continue to do so. It shows I am not afraid of those kind of tactics. You know and I know that it will only work on someone who is, in fact, a decent person. It wouldn't matter otherwise. So since you know and I know it isn't true - then I will make it very prominent to let you and others know - it is an insult that is not to be feared because it is so blatantly false and the accuser is well aware of that fact.

The sooner this country frees itself of the tactics of intimidation, the sooner we can actually discuss our problems and perhaps reach some solutions.

846 posted on 11/19/2002 1:04:20 PM PST by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: archy
Same to you buddy! LOL I haven't been cussed at in Vietnamese before. Or was it Vietnamese?
847 posted on 11/19/2002 1:05:27 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 844 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
In this paragraph, where did I use them interchangeably - I repeat, I repeat - I said, ' some are in favor because 3 generatons back, their grandfather was an immigrant, or they are married to an immigrant, etc. Now unless those family members were illegals, it is an insult to their families". Show me how I interchanged? You see, I made a definite distinction between legal and illegal - nothing interchangeable in that. "Just because someone has an immigrant in their families (and who doesn't?) is a very mnisguided reason to support illegal immigration. There is absolutely no interchanging here - to the contrary - there is a definite distinction.

You cannot find it there any more than you can find any 'suspicion' of RACISM.

848 posted on 11/19/2002 1:12:37 PM PST by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
830
836
837

In this short exchange you stated...

I do live in Arizona where there is a large Spanish speaking population. I like it and I truly don't have the least fear that it will overtake English as the dominant
language.

This intimated to me that you don't have a problem with Spanish becoming a rival language to English in your area.  The offshoot of this is that in your area teachers, healthcare workers, emergency services employees, public service employees and others can't get jobs unless they speak Spanish.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but this is the impact of your inference.  Did I misinterpret your thoughts?  Does this reality trouble you?

849 posted on 11/19/2002 1:12:40 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
All well and good to say what you'd do if and when, what about now?

Who's been blocking this? Huhhh?

850 posted on 11/19/2002 1:13:15 PM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 843 | View Replies]

To: Drill Alaska
"So we're taking a number of steps to continue securring our borders.

The Bush administration hasn't done anything up until now to secure our borders and they're likely to do less in the future.

Nice catch, Drill.

851 posted on 11/19/2002 1:21:43 PM PST by 4Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Tens of thousands of people are killed in automobiles each year and someone might even write a goofy poem about it.

Paul Shanklins parody song In a Yugo, popularized on Rush Limbaugh's show and found on Shanklin's Executive Privilidges album, comes to mind. So do a LOT of '50s and '60s *carcrash* songs, including Jan and Dean's Dead Man's Curve.

852 posted on 11/19/2002 1:25:13 PM PST by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: archy
Gesund heit!
853 posted on 11/19/2002 1:26:07 PM PST by 4Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 844 | View Replies]

Comment #854 Removed by Moderator

To: SCalGal
I hope I'm right too. If not - I'll be mad along with all the others.
855 posted on 11/19/2002 1:37:18 PM PST by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: nanny
It was the part you just left off here that made it clear. You stated that "Some are in favor because President Bush is and they are just not going to question his actions."

Now, President Bush is certainly not in favor of illegal immigration, so that leaves the statement meaning that because President Bush has not closed the borders on legal immigration, too, then one is also in favor of illegal immigration, meaning one has a problem with *any* immigration.

Oh, wait. I suppose you are going to say that President Bush DOES support illegal immigration. Obviously false.

856 posted on 11/19/2002 1:38:29 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 848 | View Replies]

To: 4Freedom
I just don't know how the government can afford all this. Sure glad the dems are not in charge or we would be facing the biggest tax increase ever.

Bin Laden must be proud - said he wanted to take down our economy.
857 posted on 11/19/2002 1:39:13 PM PST by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
Classical conservatives (pro-liberty conservatives) must ask themselves if the modern Republican party truly stands for classical, traditional conservative values.

The push-button-Bush-Bot responses on this thread have answered this question.

858 posted on 11/19/2002 1:43:00 PM PST by BureaucratusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4Freedom
I think you should read this wrt border security and then restate your comment.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.html

Democrats have blocked this for a year now.

859 posted on 11/19/2002 1:51:02 PM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 851 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Now, President Bush is certainly not in favor of illegal immigration

We have a crime wave of illegal immigration and Bush has done nothing about it but give speeches that legitimize it. Amnesties support and promote illegal immigration.

No Bush doesnt say he is in favor of "illegal immigration" instead he says he is in favor migrant workers while in the meantime our borders and citizens are being trampled over by criminals looking for a free-handout from the govt.

860 posted on 11/19/2002 1:52:14 PM PST by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 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