Posted on 08/04/2005 4:04:16 PM PDT by 4.1O dana super trac pak
CHARLESTON, S.C. - Rep. Tom Tancredo is trying to become the Johnny Appleseed of the immigration reform movement.
State to state, small town to small town, he's spreading the seeds for a national grass-roots movement.
The question is whether he can make it grow beyond a core of die-hard local activists so that immigration issues - and maybe Tancredo himself - become serious factors in the 2008 presidential contest.
With that in mind, the Littleton Republican on Wednesday wrapped up a two-day tour around the suburbs of Charleston, S.C.
Tancredo got plenty of local media attention for the trip, which closely followed his tour of the early presidential caucus state of Iowa. He raised money and lined up enthusiastic new volunteers for the political action committee he founded, Team America PAC, which supports immigration reform-minded candidates.
But he also was greeted by smaller-than-expected audiences at events Tuesday and Wednesday, and he continues to be distracted by the controversy over his remarks suggesting that the United States could threaten Muslim holy sites to deter nuclear terrorist attacks on U.S. cities.
Still, the South Carolina tour confirmed that Tancredo has fans far from his Denver suburbs district - and some want him to push the fight against illegal immigration all the way to the White House.
"It has got to be him because he is the issue," retired Army Lt. Col. Tom Loftain said Wednesday after a breakfast reception in Summerville, S.C.
Joe Kress, a retired Air Force officer, agreed.
"He's not going to get anywhere unless he gets in the presidential politics," Kress said. "He wants a voice. He wants national attention. That's the way to go."
More than 2 1/2 years before the presidential contest heats up, Tancredo has now stumped in the three states that lead off the traditional primary season calendar: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
As a little-known fourth-term congressman who's often on the outs with his own party leadership, Tancredo knows he faces the longest of odds to win the White House. He keeps saying he just wants to pressure other contenders to embrace his hard line about securing the borders and oppose President Bush's proposed guest-worker plan, which he equates to "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.
In case he decides to run, however, he already has the makings of a volunteer force in eastern Iowa, and now, South Carolina.
"He's the only voice of reason I see," said R.E. "Reggie" Sharpe, a sheriff's detective who arranged a Tuesday night meeting for Tancredo at a Fraternal Order of Police hall in Hanahan, S.C. "Most people are reluctant to speak (against illegal immigration), lest you get a label."
For years, critics have accused Tancredo of racism or xenophobia. On his recent barnstorming trips in Iowa and South Carolina, he has tried to send a message to racists who might be in the audiences.
"This is not a race issue," he told Wednesday's gathering in Summerville. "If there's anyone who comes at the issue with that kind of a mind-set, I say, 'Get lost.' "
In South Carolina, some people who shook hands with Tancredo said they were hearing his name for the first time. He has a daunting task if he wants to raise his national profile to be on par with other rumored presidential contenders such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and former New York Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
In his recent travels, he's trying to take advantage of the political vacuum between the 2004 and 2006 elections, when most of the bigger-name presidential wannabes are lying low.
Is he just trying to stir the issue? Or is he really thinking about a run?
Even his biggest fans are not sure.
"I think he's running a national campaign," said Ron Turner, who invited Tancredo to address the Low Country Conservative GOP Breakfast Club on Wednesday. "His national campaign is immigration reform. What we don't know is what his political aspirations are."
That's the way it works when one group spreads malicious false myths about another group. The good get hurt as much as the bad.
You don't give the American voter enough credit for being able to apply common sense instead of reacting out of pure emotionalism like many who have been caught up in the anti-immigrant hysteria.
President Bush has been advocating immigration reforms for five years that the Secretary of Homeland Defense recently testified are necessary to secure the border against terrorists. Immediately after his testimony Tancredo vowed to block the reforms necessary to protect us from terrorists getting through the border defenses.
If there were to be an incident linked to ineffective border defense, Tancredo would be the one with blood on his hands, not President Bush.
Tancredo and the Buchanans are simply bungling amateurs compared to Karl Rove when it comes to political strategy. Tancredo has already shot himself in the foot while it was in his mouth.
Ah.....No comment.
Well, Tan should NOT vote to block ANY reform. If it doesn't go far enough, use the old Marxist-Leninist philosophy: pass it, then come back for more. But we need both: we need the "pragmatists" who can get legislation passed now, and we need the guys ringing the alarm bell like Tan, because the bell needs to be rung! Heck, today in Colo. seven libraries have become ALL SPANISH. That's outrageous.
When you say "anti-immigrant", do you mean anti-legal immigrant or anti-illegal immigrant? Oh wait, I forgot that you don't make a distinction between legal and illegal when it comes to immigration.
Based on your post and tag line one could easily get the impression that you are just giddy with anticipation of a terrorist attack on America. People really concerned about terrorism don't look forward with glee to another attack.
Rod, we've been here before. How about if I told you that I predicted a major terrorist attack on the USA three years before 9/11 happened. My 35 years experience with the military, my year of living in Saudi Arabia and my studying of strategy may have something to do with it too.
I am by no means an expert on it, but unlike you, I am willing to look at the "whole" picture. There is no doubt where you stand on illegal immigration and wide open borders. If 20,000,000 illegal immigrants and hundreds of tons of illegal drugs can be brought into the USA every year, you can be assured our enemy has, and will exploit our open borders. For once, do your homework. It is estimated that 30% of the illegals entering the country today are OTM's with absolutely no doudt that a large number of them are from ME countries. We could triple the size of our Homeland Security and still not be able to follow up on their movements.
As for your comment that I am giddy about another terrorist attack on our soil. I just consider that statement another of your foolish FROBL rants. I have stated here on FR hundreds of times that another attack on our soil is the very last thing that I or any other loyal citizen wants. I also say that it is likely that it will take another attack to wake up jackasses like yourself to the fact that we cannot allow millions to come into our country unchecked and free to roam our country. After our next attack, the American public(except for a few like yourself) will DEMAND a complete crackdown on immigration.
I haven't defended this country for 35 years to be 'GIDDY" about being attacked by terrorists. No need to apologize and thank me again for my service, we've BTDT already. I only ask that, for once, you open your eyes and realize that myself and most FReepers are not racists, but realists about wanting immigration controls.
bttt
Once a quisling, always a quisling...
The animus isn't limited to Buchanan but every single Republican who has failed to constantly lick George Bush's psuedo-conservative toes on every single issue. It includes Schlafly, Buckley, Keyes, and recently Coulter for dissing Roberts. It's cult of personality crap backed by a fictive 11th commandment that is reminiscient of Clinton koolaid swallowing. From exapanding Federal government to the appointment of queer ambassadors to pledging to sign assault weapons bans to Federal meddling in religious charities to expanding the Federal role in education to the new Wilsonian/Kennedy doctrine foreign policy ....don't you dare criticize the fearless leader you DU Commie rat bag.
Based on your post and tag line one could easily get the impression that you are just giddy with anticipation of a terrorist attack on America. People really concerned about terrorism don't look forward with glee to another attack.
I just wrote a mini novel to you in post #47, but felt compelled to expound on a point. I'm currently assigned in Korea and am not likely to be personally affected by any terror attack on the USA. I've served overseas for 16 years of my 35 years combined service. At last count, I've been assigned and/or visited 35 different countries. Not one of those 35, including third world countries, simply allowed people to cross their borders unchecked. Not one of them employed a "catch and release" strategy once they identified somebody as being in their country illegally. We do that, and we will pay a BIG price for doing that in the future.
You're wasting good bandwidth on bayourod.
Once a quisling, always a quisling...
I realize that, but it makes my blood boil to read the trash that he/she writes.
How about a Tom Tancredo / Zell Miller ticket to go up against a Clinton / McCain ticket??
Nukes vs SpitBalls...new version of Paper/Rock/Scissors
And the United States doesn't either. We do not have open borders. It's not easy to legally immigrate to the U.S. or to get a visa to work here.
Since you consider yourself some type of authority on keeping terrorists from illegally entering the country you should be able to link us to some scholarly works or proposals on how that could be accomplished.
Take a look at my profile page for an example of how one presents facts concerning securing the border as opposed to simply repeating the Buchanan/Tancredo propaganda myths.
The Secretary of Homeland Defense is the highest civil authority on securing the border. It is his responsibility to prevent terrorists from illegally crossing the border. He testified before two Congressional committees that the border can not be secured until certain immigration law reforms are enacted by Congress including a guest worker program that would redirect the migrant worker traffic to portals of entry.
I'm anxiously awaiting some form of authoritative facts to support your position instead of just your opinion or that of a professional fund raiser demagogue.
We do allow about one million people to legally immigrate into the United States each year, so that is very generous. To those who say we should allow more -- which is the preferred method of stopping future illegal immigration for most in the open borders crowd -- I simply ask, how many more?
Should it be 1.5 million? 2 milllion? 3 million?
If we allowed entry to anyone in the world who wanted to come here, and who met the usual caveats about not being a criminal/terrorist threat, then we could easily be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers in a very short time.
Well I do think there are some parallels between Buchanan and the late boogeyman British politician Enoch Powell. Powell gave a rather famous (or infamous as it has become) speech talking about the dangers of mass immigration in Britain. He was of course denounced and to this day is often cited as the cause of of multicultural struggles instead of the harbinger of them.
Recent events in Britain have of course proved Powell to have been right and prescient all along, and I think it is the fact that he was right that continues to make him such a hated figure by those who oppose his politics and ideology.
Likewise with Buchanan, I think many who despise him know in their hearts that he has been right, generally speaking, about immigration all along, but instead of admitting it, they instead hate him even more for being right. And of course they delude themselves by saying that if only there weren't any Buchanans pointing out the problems with immigration policy that somehow the problems would magically disappear, and at a minimum the GOP wouldn't have any troubles with Hispanics and Asians and other immigrants if only there weren't any of these mean-spirited Buchanan-types out there making them feel unwelcome.
As to Bush: I won't speak to the war in Iraq, but he has clearly not championed conservative values on immigration.
And he betrayed us on racial preferences in the Univ of Michigan case.
And he and the GOP congress have presided over large increases in non-defense, non-discretionary spending. On this, I'm beginning to think there is no hope because its been proven that both parties will do it, and while I do think its true that the Dems are and would be worse, that isn't exactly a very rousing argument for the GOP. On one hand I can understand it; they came to power in 1994 and made an earnest effort to cut spending, but they were of course promptly and viciously demonized by the Left and their media allies. I think they are partly responding to what is a mixed preferences from the people. People say they want smaller, less-intrusive govt, but when you get specific they also say they want more spending on education, and healthcare, and scientific research, etc. So it is a difficult position to be in, and sadly I think it points to an ever expanding federal govt.
But its not all bad. I give Bush credit on tax cuts. And I applaud him for at least supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, even though he hasn't done much else on that front, like ask Frist to bring up the House-passed bill that would strip the federal courts of hearing challenges to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. And I give him great credit for many of his federal appeals court nominees, like Pryor, Brown, Owens, and Luttig.
What will ultimately be the deciding factor for my personal judgement of Bush as President is his Sup Court nominations. If he does as well here as he has done with appellate nominations, then we should all be grateful. If Roberts, and the 1-2 more picks he gets turn out to be the Scalia/Thomas types he promised, then his legacy will have at least one very powerful and positive element. If he misses the mark even once in this regard, then I don't think I'll be able to think very highly of him.
So for me it is a mixed bag, and the same is true of virtually all conservative critics of Bush. Afterall, Buchanan did support Bush last year, chiefly because of the Courts/Culture War issue. Buchanan praised him very highly in this regard, especially compared to his father. Coulter expects the Roberts nomination to be another Souter, but she is as big a supporter of the war in Iraq as you can find.
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.