Posted on 01/16/2007 7:29:24 AM PST by Valin
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is expected to announce the formation of an exploratory committee to seek the candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. "He's going to paint himself as a mainstream conservative," says the staffer for one of Tancredo's colleagues in the House of Representatives. "But the folks he's associating with are not part of the mainstream."
Tancredo, who came to national prominence on the basis of his tough stands on immigration reform, an issue he has pressed for quite some time. "There is more to Tancredo than just immigration," says another House staffer. "If he does this, he's going to try to appeal to a broader, socially conservative audience."
In fact, it's not clear Tancredo is in line with the mainstream, social conservative wing of the GOP he seeks to align himself with. According to campaign finance reports, one of Tancredo's biggest financial backers has been the family of Dr. John Tanton, the founder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Wall Street Journal editorial-page features writer Jason Riley wrote a devastating piece about the organization back in 2004, in which the group's pro-abortion and pro-eugenics roots were revealed.
Tanton is also one of the most prominent conservative financiers of Planned Parenthood in the United States, having helped found in the mid-1960s the first Planned Parenthood chapter in northern Michigan.
Tancredo appears to have embraced FAIR's extreme and repugnant policy positions, having accepted more than $20,000 from the FAIR PAC and personal donations from Tanton between 1996 and 2006. Over the past ten years, according to Federal Election Commission reports, FAIR has provided more than $15,000 to Tancredo campaigns and PACs. Tanton has given Tancredo $7,000, while donating $28,000 to FAIR's political action arm.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I've been to the fair website and all the statistics and articles they use seem to be pretty good, fair and balanced.
The founder maybe a nutcase, but I did not see much else to complain about.
Further, I see no need for Tancredo bashing. The political process will take care of tancredo.
The people we should be bashing are the Tancredo supporters who somehow feel the need to engage in smears and character assasination on Guiliani, McCain and Romney.
Smearing the others will not elect tancredo who is unelectable.
Smearing the others only benefits obama and hillary.
However, the political process involves a lot of bashing.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page is one of the top cheerleaders for the illegals - they want to keep that cheap labor coming. I do not support a presidential run by Tancredo, but I would like to see both sides of the story on this topic, given the accusers.
"Guiliani, McCain and Romney. "
Speaking of those unelectable....
Further, I see no need for Tancredo bashing
Oh but it's so much fun! There's nothing like the smell of burning Tancredocistas in the morning.
Hopefully, none of those three will get the nomination.
but I would like to see both sides of the story on this topic, given the accusers.
Have no fear, as the campaign heats up you will.
Duncan Hunter isn't a dud. But I wouldn't waste a second of my time arguing with someone who says that he is. Just to be factual, he is not a "national senator" or a "state level representative". I understand the point you're TRYING to make, however.
I can see why you are badmouthing Duncan Hunter if you think Guiliani is the way to go. RINO candidates hate having to deal with conservative competitors.
"Giuliani IS the most electable candidate. This party must quickly get behind him and become unified if there is any hope of us keeping the White house in '08"
Not a chance. Social conservatives will sit home if Giuliani runs. We would just as soon see a Democrat win than Giuliani.
Most of the comments I've read here concerning Romney,McCain,and Guiliani seem factually based,not 'smears'. At this stage of the election process I see nothing wrong with pointing out facts.
Referring to inconvenient facts as smears is how RINOs camouflage themselves in the wild.
We would just as soon see a Democrat win than Giuliani.
The we indicates you and many others think this is reality.
Sadly it appears to me to be idiocy of the first order, on display for all to see. Sort of like the dem Iraq policy, if there is one, cut and run, redeploy, bring the troops home, whatever you call it just not victory.
I haven't a clue this far out who could should or will win in 08, but thinking, if that is what you call it, that voting for a democrat doesn't have consequences beyond the nose on your face, and beyond the foolish no RINO policy is just beyond belief.
Giuliani's own family couldn't trust him. Why on earth should I? Not even "the best of a bad lot". Gotta be somebody out there who isn't either tainted or self-seeking, but I haven't located him/her yet. Condi?
"Giuliani IS the most electable candidate. This party must quickly get behind him and become unified if there is any hope of us keeping the White house in '08"
Oh bull. He's a rino. His positions are repugnant to the base. His only support is by fanboys and the media. When it comes time to face off against a democrat, the liberal media support and cover (the hidding of his rino ways) will vanish.
Supporting any of the three rinos will mean defeat in 2008. When republicans run a candidate who effectively espouses conservative principles, they win. When they run a rino, they lose. History bears that out. There is nothing to bear out your false claims that he is the most electable candidate.
No Hillary is the most electable, maybe we should just get her to put an (R) beside the (D) on her ticket most here would notice anyway.
Spectator-Weekly Standard-WSJ
Peas of the same globalist, wage depressing economic viewpoint.
With regards to the presidential race, this statement is false.
The Gop has always had an annoited candidate. Eisenhower, eisenhower, nixon, goldwater, nixon, nixon, ford, reagan, reagan, bush, dole, bush, bush. All were "the next in line". This may be the first for the gop not to have a "next in line"
sorry, but the next nominee will be mccain, guiliani or romney.
my prediction is mccain.
Fact is "duncan who ?" will be a minor footnote. I doubt he even gets debate time.
Goldwater was the annoited candidate? That's the funniest claim I've read for some time, given Rockefeller was the choice of the establishment.
Reagan almost beat Ford in 1976. Bush was the choice of the establishment in 1980. Bush II was not an automatic shoo-in for 2000.
Not if a conservative elbows his way in. And I think if one of the big three gets the nod, it is LEAST likely to be McCain.
Voting Record
American Conservative Union A+
National Right to Life Committee A
National Rifle Association A
Family Research Council A
Americans for Better Immigration A+
National Federation of Independent Business A+
Immigration
Defense
Education
Social Security
Taxes
Social Issues
Immigration
There is no doubt that America is facing an illegal immigration crisis. Currently, there are at least 12 million illegal aliens living in America I am absolutely opposed to amnesty or guest worker program in any form. In addition to rewarding those who broke our laws, amnesties simply do not solve the problem of illegal immigration. The only realistic solution to the problem of illegal immigration is a strategy of attrition, which seeks to reduce the flow of the illegal alien population over time by cutting off the incentives for coming to and staying in America - most importantly by eliminating the jobs magnet. America must also reexamine its legal immigration policies. Since 1990, that number has been roughly one million yearly - and that doesn't count illegal aliens. America should reduce legal immigration to 250,000 people a year, which will allow the newcomers to assimilate.
Defense
In the wake of the September 11th attacks and the ensuing war on terrorism, it has become clear that the United States is facing a new security threat. The war America is already engaged in will not be fought like the wars of the past. After witnessing the tragic terrorist attacks against the nation, it is now time to coordinate the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies to provide better homeland defense. Tomorrow's attacker is more likely to board a commercial airliner bound for the U.S. with a tourist or student visa - or he may simply walk across our porous southern or northern border carrying a device in his backpack. These issues must be addressed.
Education
Having served as a public school teacher in Colorado and as the U.S. Secretary of Education's Regional Representative, I have earned real world knowledge of how to best educate America's children. Control over the education of our children must be in the hands of the parents. I believe in the ability of parents to choose the educational path best suited for their children. I support tax credits for families who choose to allow their children attend any other institution whether it be a private, parochial, or home school. I oppose increased federal involvement in education, and broke ranks with my party to oppose the No Child Left Behind Act for that reason.
Social Security
I am committed to ensuring that Social Security remains a strong, solvent program for America's seniors. We need to look at major reforms to protect the program. One component is individually-controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts, which will augment the Social Security safety net. Any solution must, however, protect current retirees, and provide greater retirement security for future retirees.
Taxes
I support tax relief, because it helps families save more for retirement, education, and medical care. However, high taxes are a symptom of a more serious underlying problem: The federal government is far. Tax cuts must be accompanied by fiscal restraint. In addition to decreasing the overall amount of taxes Americans pay, I also support efforts to scrap the current cumbersome income tax system and start fresh with either a national sales tax or a flat tax.
Social Issues
As a devout Christian, father, and grandfather, I am a strong believer in the rights to life for the unborn child. I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. For years, activist judges have undermined both life and marriage. As president I would stop this by appointing strict constructionists as judges, reining in the power of the judiciary, and supporting constitutional amendments that respect marriage and life.
Fact is that if McCain or Guiliani wins the nomination, the GOP will split. A split is less likely with Romney, but he is still problematic to the right.
ALERT - RINO Hit Piece.
You are a nut. When bush ran in 80, it was "Bush who ?". The initial polls had him at about 1 percent.
Bush gave Reagan a decent run for his money because Bush was the choice of the establishment. They always hated Ronnie.
republicans have usually nominated the next guy in line.
although romney is my choice, the fact is that mccain is "next in line"
They won't this time. Way too many conservatives hate McCain. Few people hated Bob Dole or Gerald Ford or GHWB.
*Yawn*
Any other jive in the news today?
Giuliani "Americas Mayor"..,,no way
Dallas "Americas Team"..,, no way
From Wikipedia:
In January of 1980, the Iowa Republicans decided to have a straw poll as a part of their caucuses for that year. Bush's hard work paid off, and he defeated Reagan by a small margin.
Who is the nut now?
Please send checks or money orders (cash is best) to:
Luis for President
P.O. Box 1234565
Banana Republic
"No Hillary is the most electable, maybe we should just get her to put an (R) beside the (D) on her ticket most here would notice anyway."
Good point. For too many on this site, all that counts is getting someone with an "R" next to there name elected.
the "conservatives" at FR are largely irrelevant.
look how long it takes us to raise 70,000 in the freepathon.
the big 3 can raise 70k in less than 1/2 an hour if they want to.
the self important conservatives blathering away on fr are good for talk, but they are mostly do nothings.
I guess we all can't be Jack Abramoff.
This article is simply a smearfest based on a WSJ smearfest. See this for the details:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/006144.html
Based on his statements in 2004, I very strongly suspect that the first unnamed aide works for Chris Cannon, recipient of an award from MALDEF among many other feats.
You beat me to this one. I finally, after many, many years of subscribing to WSJ allowed it to lapse after reading their continued bashing of conservatives who stood in the way of total and complete amnesty of illegals in the 2006 Senate bill and demanded enforcement that was supposed to follow the 1980s Reagan amnesty passed.
"We would just as soon see a Democrat win than Giuliani."
This is my problem with that wing of the party. Don't mistake me, I'm all for fighting for principle! But look what this attitude has wrought recently:
- Social/paleo/whatever-ya-wanna-call-em conservatives vow to stay home rather than let RINOs run things.
- Election day comes: (D)em vote is about the same, but (R) vote is depressed. Dems take control.
- Already we have minimum wage hikes (hello inflation), military cuts promised to make sure we lose in Iraq, and totally insane 'fairness' policies to shut down conservative talk (no doubt including FR if they can!)
- and that's only the start of this FUBAR two years in Congress. Soon 'neo' and 'paleo' conservatives alike will get to watch the new Congress vote a complete amnesty that will make the Bush plan look like hardcore border control by comparison.
I'm sorry, but keep your fervor for the primaries and whomever wins, support them. If it's Tom, or Rudy, or someone else, get out and vote, because you KNOW what the Dims will do (and if you don't, you'll get plenty of reminders in the next couple years).
If you and yours would rather see Hillary or Obama HUSSEIN than be bothered to vote, then ... well, who are you rooting for anyway?
You obviously know very little about Giuliani. His real problem (beyond even the obvious social issues and gun issues) is that eight years governing NYC (and doing it well, I'd add) proved to the world what a total @ssh01e he is. Giuliani's political career was OVER until it was saved by 9/11.
Once the presidential race begins, most of the people in Middle America who like Giuliani and are totally ignorant of his antics as mayor will learn the truth. Then he will sink like a stone.
I'm not saying this just because I don't like him -- although I don't like him -- I'm saying it because he WILL lose to any Democrat in the field after a campaign.
"Smearing the others will not elect tancredo who is unelectable. "
Why do you think Tancredo is unelectable? I've heard several people express this.
You are delusional. If you think the future for the GOP is in Rockefeller-Guiliani republicanism over Reagan-Helms conservatism, then you deserve your fate.
Tancredo called miami a third world hell hole.
Florida is a swing state and the gop can not win the presidency without it. The numbers do not add up.
Next, the last nominee that came from the house was before eisenhower and maybe longer than that, I can't remember.
I'm assuming you're not a gun owner.
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.