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.
Apples and oranges. They came legally.
An analogy was made that we're talking about Mexicans when illegal immigration is brought up because that's where the bulk of the illegals are coming from.
Legal immigration from anywhere is not the problem, but illegals have to go, no matter where they're from.
Mr. Zigler was a Bush appointee who later admitted he had no qualifications for the job and that the position of INS Director was in conflict with his basic libertarian philosophy of open borders. President Bush already had the option of appointing a dedicated and experienced law enforcement professional to the top INS position, but he chose not to.
More than 75% of the American people want a stop put to illegal immigration. These bogus studies aren't having the desired results.
It's hard to do much when you don't control all of the government.
If Bush had spent the last 2 years talking about kicking out Mexicans there would have been a very different outcome on election day 2 weeks ago.
Not from illegals voting, but from legal US citizens, independents(hispanic and otherwise) who would have bought into the race baiting propaganda that the rats would have spewing out nonstop.
We control the government, you can't argue with success
Bush doesn't have to talk, he's in a position to act. He could have done, quietly, a lot more to close the borders and enforce the laws, especially after 9/11.
It's because he hasn't that people like Tancredo and others are speaking out.
If W and the GOP somehow manage to maintain the status quo or make the situation worse, he will be derelict in his duty.
I say wait and see, comforted by the thought that the democrats certainly won't do any better.
If he plans on closing the borders and enforcing the laws, it sure looks to me like he's sending out the wrong signals then.
Perhaps it is YOU who should take a look at who you're hanging out with.
LOL! You may easily dismiss him, but millions of native (those born in the USA) Americans are with him 100 percent. If Tom Tancredo had more national exposure he could easily defeat Bush in 2004.
Up to today, all I have seen this administration do in the last year in regards to borders is put water stations with emergency phones along the borders so illegal immigrants do not get dehydrated. Border patrol and FBI agents are still being fired upon, and in some cases, killed by drug dealers and Mexican troops. There has been no condemnation, no outrage, no action to prevent this from happening again. I won't even get into the Haitian incident in Florida. The website claims that currently, the coast guard stops illegal boats from entering the US. They didn't even do that! They were supposed to stop them,but they let them go. What makes us think that this agencey will do what it is supposed to do, especially if the same, incompetents are still there. Let alone the sabetours/plants/subversives...
I looked at the website you provided for me, and I don't see much that changes my mind. Let's look at the following passage:
The Department would unify authority over major federal security operations related to our borders, territorial waters, and transportation systems. It would assume responsibility for operational assets of the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture, and the recently created Transportation Security Administration – allowing a single government entity to manage entry into the United States. It would ensure that all aspects of border control, including the issuing of visas, are informed by a central information-sharing clearinghouse and compatible databases.
I submit the following questions: Does centralizing three or four agencies automatically ensure efficient, competent,and successful operation? Especially if the same people that screwed it up are STILL working there? Has the union issue been solved--to our satisfaction? Is another Ziglar going to be in charge? I heard that a candidate for the soon-to-be vacant "INS chief" job advocates citizenship in exchange for time spent working here illegally. The type of appointees are just as important as the lip service and generalization provided by the website. I think it is too vague.
This particular Homeland Security bill is full of "poison pills" (put in by daschle and the rest) enabling "trial liars" to sue drug companies. There is also talk of allowing non-citizens to work in these agencies as well. (I am going to look up the status of these measures as we speak) These two poison pills alone can undermine the effectiveness of the department,and that is why I am not sure this is going to work. The easiest thing to do, the cheapest thing to do, and the most common-sensical thing to do is to militarize/seal the borders, put a 10 year moratorium on immigration and (all) visas, and in that 10 year period, gut/dismantle/purge the P.C. from the INS--and restructure it.
Dick Gephardt promised a blanket amnesty for illegal aliens, if they gave the Democrats a majority in congress. The Democrats didn't get 100% of the Hispanic vote, with that promise.
Bush could have put a law and order type in charge of the INS and enforced the law from the very beginning. He didn't. He better, now.
"We control the government, you can't argue with success."
If all we get is liberal legislation and amnesty for illegal aliens, how can you call it success?
You're confusing pre-election rhetoric with reality.
There isn't going to be any immunity.
You avoid having democrat propagandists call you a racist when you pretend that you are receptive to an idea that counters their lies.
They can't say you hate hispanics and want to kick them out of the counrty when you are talking about giving illegals possible immunity.
It is a political calculation, thats what politicians do.
Remember Clinton and Sister Souljah?.
Thats the issue Clinton used to illustrate he was a new democrat.
Whatever. Some might put that in the leap of faith category.
So, what's wrong with that? I'm glad that he is.
Just disregard that.
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.