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.
This is utter nonsense.
Come to Houston and revel in the fact that so many illegals are achieving their dream of mowing yards. What they should be doing is rooting out the corruption in their own countries and making a life for themselves, not stealing tax money from me.
Eaker
My first ( and second) reaction is we don't need it - but let's face it, that is probably my age talking and my cynicism regarding 'new' approaches. I really think the old one would work. It would be harsh and difficult - but many times, doing the right thing is very difficult and very harsh.
But you do have some good ideas - ideas that should have been put in place about 10 years ago. I don't know if we can wait until such a unit can be formed. Also, anytime I hear of 'new' approaches - it smacks of 'let's form a committee'. While we are forming, bad things are happening.
As for demeaning the military - I just don't see that. Since I have not been to Bosnia, Korea, or anywhere we are peacekeeping, I can only speak to what I have read and heard. But we have been guarding borders since the end of WWII, (Berlin) and since the end of the Korean War, and my impression of Bosnia is much the same. But my father guarded the Mexican border during WWII, so it is not without precedent. I just don't see the problem with using the military. Now I realized our military is not what it was when Reagan left office - but it would seem to me that guarding the Mexican border would be great training, especially for the National Guard. They have to train a certain amount of time - why not use them there. Believe me, I see our borders as a great threat to our security, now and in the future, so in that respect, your type military unit would be the 'prudent' thing to do. It is just that something needs to be done now - not when we can get all the things in place and a new unit trained.
But, all in all, a very good idea - it should have been done long ago. We just need to do something in the meantime. If anything meaningful is done, it will have to be tough, or there is no point in doing it. By tough, I mean it needs to be absolute and backed by the government. None of this kowtowing to the special interest groups who squeal the loudest or campaign contributors who pay the most.
But your idea, does nothing about the ones who are now here. Now this isn't bluster - but I just don't see it as a complex issue. It is a huge issue, but with very simple solutions - large, but simple. We have always had this problem, just not in this proportion, but we handled it with the law. We can do it again. The only thing lacking here is probably manpower and most certainly the will on the part of the people in power.
Thanks.
Representation is pandering? National Defence is pandering? Enforcing existing laws is pandering?
I'm attempting to get at the truth and something you know very little about
The animosity you have for George W.Bush, excludes the possibility you voted for him. So you actually didn't vote for anyone in the 2000 presidential race. As an American citizen, you have every right not to vote, if you so choose. But when you come on FreeRepublic under false pretenses, that mister smartass, makes you a first class hypocrite!
I remind you of exactly what JimRob has to say on the subject.
Well, I'll put it this way, this web site supports President Bush, supports our national defense efforts (including the war on terrorism), supports the effort to retake the Senate, supports the effort to confirm President Bush's judicial appointees, supports the effort to retake the congressional committees and the legislative agenda from the Democrats and or to increase the majority against the leftist caucus in the House, supports the effort to oppose the Democrats in every seat and office in the country and generally opposes the liberal/socialist left.
Democrats, liberals, socialists, and their ilk do not stand a chance on FR. They usually get nuked before they even get started. We don't need their perverted b/s or their anti-conservative, anti-freedom, cowardly anti-American propaganda. We get that crap all day long in every newspaper, newscast, TV show, movie, classroom, etc, we do not need it on FR. We are the opposition to these people.
Now, if people come on to FR spouting smear attacks against our candidates, calling them or us names, insulting us, insulting our positions and or generally working against our goals, then they are probably going to get kicked out. And I don't care what party they claim to be affiliated with. Liberals/socialists and their supporters or enablers are not wanted here and need not apply.
If the shoe fits....
668 posted on 9/23/02 8:04 PM Mountain by Jim Robinson
There isn't a phone tree in this nation that doesn't service Spanish and other languages. In our town it's Spanish, Armenien and English. When you start going down that road, you're subsidizing the balkanization your populace.
English is no longer the language of our nation. The CIA WorldFact book states now that the language of the United State is English and Spanish. Anotherwords, Spanish is on a level footing with English here. At least that's their claim.
If you don't want Spanish as your official language, I suggest you voice your opinion to that effect.
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.
Actually some of the founding fathers were very clear that they thought political parties would be a huge mistake in our nation. Just look at the tendency for their members to bicker and do things that are not in the best interest of our nation, solely to score points. The Democrats are excellent examples of this.
How? [President Bush is not for illegal immigration. I am not for illegal immigration. You confuse the issue when you interchange, as you do above, the term immigrant and illegal immigrant. When one does that it does lead one to suspect an element of racism.]
Boy you read something in there that wasn't there. And the old word RACISM - tells the whole story to me. Read carefully, many, many, many people have posted on here how they do not believe these people should be sent home "because my family (mother, father, grandfather, sister-in-law, any relative) came here as an immigrant" - this being their reasoning for supporting the illegals being here. Misguided though it is, they posted it, I didn't.
There was never an interchange of illegal and legal - except possibly in your mind - none in mine or my post. Nor was there anywhere an element of RACISM in the post - just the only thing available to a person who wants to support this illegality. To use RACIST in any debate these days just shows there are no ideas left to support the cause and it is a disservice to this country. It is the tactics of the people who want to stifle debate on this or any other issue and is not good for the country.
[I did not read past this portion of your epic post.]
Yes, it was long - and I don't blame you if you did not read it all - but you did not see anything in there that lends' a suspicion of RACISM'.
I do not oppose legal immigration, just serious curtailment and close scrutiny of immigrants - but even if I did - how on God's green earth would you get RACISM out of that? You can't put something in that is not there - but you can always scream RACISM. Who knows, it worked in the past - might work now.
Thank you for your response, which I too, appreciate.
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.
I think you should read this wrt border security and then restate your comment.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.html
I think you may be under the impression I am advocating something I'm not. To what do you refer?
I think you should read this wrt border security and then restate your comment.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.html
I think you should read this wrt border security and then restate your comment.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.html
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.