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.
Didn't I read the Arab leaders spoke with Bush about the Christian's statement? Was I wrong? Then Bush did chastize Christian religous leaders.
Just read that an Islamic leader has said some quite nasty things about the Christian leaders - will President Bush chastize them - and get embroiled in a religous affair. He should have stayed out of it.
But tell me if I am wrong on the Arab leaders speaking to him about it. If you think I am, I will do my best to find the article - but confess I don't know if there is a way to find one after it is gone.
But really, if you want to debate or discuss, let's drop the nastiness - it serves no purpose. Now if you would like to debate or discuss, we can do that. If you just want to spread nastiness - go for it - but count me out.
Okay, I am going to give you your chance to tell us all what YOU expect from the Republican party now that it is in total control of the United States Government for the first time in 50 Years. Then please try to address my questions.
Please list how they will deal with the illegal immigration problem.
Please say when they will realize that we don't want unprotected borders.
Please tell us what Liberties will be protected with the Patriot Act and what Liberties we will forfeit.
Please tell us when our Republican President, our Republican Congress and our Republican Senate will stop subsidizing the Communist United Nations plans to socialize OUR America.
Please tell us when we will feel secure in our own country or will the Republican controlled INS continue to allow Arabs and Middle Eastern terrorists of all nature to come into our cities.
Remember I am asking you to tell us what all what YOU expect from the Republican party. I am not asking you to belittle my concerns, just promote your own and how the Republican party will correct them.
Now, unless you're a dishonest poster, you should be able to find MY WORDS to back up your claim -- not something YOU assumed I meant.
YOU SAID:
You disputed the pollsters! They said most constituents supported Tancredo. You said you didn't believe it!
I did not dispute ANY pollsters. I said I don't believe a word they say, ever. For all I know, his constitutents may be just as dim as you are.
And you said this, also:
If you think most Americans do not want to control the borders then you are, well, deluding yourself.
Now show me WHERE I said anything close to that.
Is that suppose to be an answer to my post? I have NO idea what you've read or heard.
You made a statement and I asked you to back it up. Can you?
Maybe it is not in its final form. But The Senate just passed it.
Now I need to read that again - you are saying immigration was uncontrolled for Mexicans until 1964. Are you saying we had open borders until 1964. Could you clarify that?
Notice the word 'blanket' - boy that leaves him a lot of wiggling room doesn't it. If he gives amnesty to all by one person now, he has lived up to that statement.
Now I have heard it said he wants to grant amnesty to those who have been here 5 years and are part of the community, etc., etc., Also, you know it will have to be granted to those with children born here. Then what if some have a sickness or family member with an illness - they will get amnesty. Suppose they have an 'honor' student - do you see - the lists goes on and on.
He did not say he wasn't in favor of amnesty - just not 'blanket' amnesty - and therein lies the rub - he only has to eliminate a small number (which they will never find to deport) and he is home free. It will satisfy those who really want to believe in him no matter what.
Well your impression is full of excrement. When the sainted George Washington ran for his first office in the House of Burgesses in Virgina, he gave each person that voted for him a pint of whiskey. They just had to claim they could not read or write so they have one of Georges foreman vote for him. After the foreman voted for the citizen Georges Slave handed him pint of Good Whiskey. One of my ancestors joked at the time that he had never known so many Virginia voters were unable to read or write.
Like many people you believe what you read in the history books. It has nothing to do with reality.
George Washington surveyed what is now Southern Ohio in the mid seventeen hundreds. He got a bunch of free land for pay. And my ancestor bought it from him in 1790. There was nothing wrong with that but then Tom Jefferson, Tom Worthington and Bob Tiffen bought a bunch of land in the middle of Ohio. They named it Worthington after Tom, and then tried to move the capital of Ohio there. My ancestor had enough clout, in the Ohio legislature to kill that. So we all bought land 15 miles south of Worthington and called it Columbus after Chris who made his fortune in the new world and so did we.
We all made a killing on that land and the people that sold it were a little ticked when they found out it was to be the new capital.. But that is the way the constitution flops. Jefferson ran through more money than any one could imagine. He stiffed lots of folks and died bankrupt. They had to sell all his slaves down the river to pay his debts but what the hay.. that is thew way the slaves sell. And all men are created equal except when we need to sell them for ready cash. Washington was a good guy. He set everyone of his slaves free. He even left them all money in his will. He could aford to.
Tell me about those founding fathers principles one more time Bam bam. The main principle was get yours while the getting good. Washington was the richest man in america by the way. An honor he and Bill Gates share. Ever wonder how ole George got to be the richest man? I think it was article III that says Geo. gets to be rich or words to that effect.
Oh and Ben Franklin made Clinton look like a virgin. They said ole Ben had a hankering for daughters and wives.. especially yours. Thomas Jefferson had 4 kids by his slave girl Sally Hemmings. Madison Hemmings looked just like his Dad. In fact in the 1870 census in Ohio Madison listed his Dad as Thomas Jefferson. Madison was the bastard son of that moral paragon Thomas Jefferson, and Jefferson never denied it. Sally slept with Jefferson every night. Slave girls can't say NO don'tcha know. She had Madison and he looked exactly like his daddy. My Grand-pappy knew Madison real well. Madison lived his final years on the road that bears my last name. We sold him a few acres to live on and farm. He couldn't help it if his daddy used slave girls as sex toys. Now could he.
Oh by the way Madison Hemmings Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandson sent me a picture of he and his wife with Dubya and Laura in the White House. Hell of a nice guy. Nothin' like that damned Jefferon.
I find it very funny that people actually believe that the founders were any different than Clinton, Daschle and Lott. They were not. If anything they were a lot worse.
But you should learn there were a whole lot more Clinton's in politics in 1790 than there are in 2002.
Do you know what Alexander Hamilton said to V.P. Burr that cost him his life? He asked Burr if his teen aged daughter was the cheapest prostitute in town, or was she just giving Hamilton a special rate? He did not use the word prostitute. Burr killed him in the resulting Duel just to teach Alexander a lesson. Politics has always been a gentleman's sport.
Politics has always been a rough game no matter if you played it with the boys form Virgina or Mass and New York.
I recommend to you the old saying that there are two things you should never watch being made.. Laws and Sausage.
They make Sausage by washing the sh*t out of the intestine of a pig and then stuffing it with pork meat.
I will leave it up to you to figure out why making laws should not be observed.
------------------------
When I was in grade school during the '40s it was taught the the entire legal immigration was 100,000 per year. That was from everywhere.
My support for Reagan is because he more closely mirrored what I believed in, not the other way around.
Just as they try to advance their own people, I, too, write of the things I love and cherish, of my own heritage and my own interests, for my values are the values of my people. And I can only be subjective about it.
What is your heritage? Mine is mostly Irish. They were not welcome into the country either, and from what I can gather they haven't done too badly. We've had Mexicans living in the country for generations, it only became a problem within the last generation because there's too many coming in too fast now and there's no assimiliation. They're bringing their culture with them, that's why it has to be slowed down.
But, on the legal immigration issue I disagree both with you and Reagan especially when you attempt to consider European immigration as second- or third-tier to non-European immigration.
You want all immigration to be from Europe and that's not going to happen because not too many from there want to come here anymore, except maybe Eastern Europe. You have a problem with people from Argentina, or Columbia, or Cuba coming here? Most of them are of Western European heritage. Again, it's a matter of numbers, they're too high and there's a lack of assimiliation going on. If we slow it down I don't see a problem with it.
Most importantly, we have to keep it legal.
------------
If he goes there will be almost no alternative voice left.
I expect the socialistic degeneration of America to continue, unabated, as the sheep graze on homosexuality, multiculturalism, globalization, and the rest of the Communis bull$hit that has already turned most of TOMMOROW'S WORKERS into brain-mushed morons. I have no hope for my generation. They lack respect, integrity, morality and decency. I expect the Republicans to continue torching Rome. I expect to witness the slow decay of the greatest civilization this world has ever seen.
Republicrats and Democans are all the same. It doesn't really matter much who is in control. Illegals will continue to flock here. Welfare roles will rise. Taxes will rise. The white, Christian male will continue to be persecuted. And so on, and so on.....
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.