Tom ‘The Islamic Bomb’ Tancredo: The Voice of Patriotic Sanity
ChronWatch
By: Matthew Holmes
07/28/05

Once again, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo is speaking for the majority of sane Americans. And once again, liberals, terrorist sympathizers (is there an echo in here?), and cowards across the country want him rebuked and repudiated.

Democrats, some Muslim groups, and the partisan media are boo-hooing over comments Tancredo made regarding the war on terror. Specifically, they’re upset over his response to a question by radio interviewer Pat Campbell—who asked Tancredo what the appropriate response would be to a nuclear terror threat against America.

Tancredo said the following: “What if you said something like, ‘If this happens in the United States and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you could take out their holy sites.’”

Campbell said, “You’re talking about bombing Mecca.”

To which Tancredo replied, “Yeah. What if you said, we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response.”

Predictably, shock emanated from both liberals and conservatives. Liberals were furious over the barbarism of such an idea, adding Tancredo’s name to the Karl Rove/Tom DeLay list of Republicans to get thrown out of office.

Somehow, this version of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)—the wildly popular liberal solution to anything involving a threat of violence against Americans—is suddenly unacceptable to pacifiers on the Left.

While conservatives believe threatening Mecca with Daisy Cutters makes perfect sense, the liberal solution to Muslim terrorism looks a lot more like a paralyzed chicken asking a hungry fox not to eat him.

It’s simply fascinating that liberals—who have such little faith in God—have no trouble believing that the natural born killers of Al Qaeda would make peace with us if we would simply be nicer to them.

Conservatives, on the other hand, were shocked to find anyone in our federal government with enough common sense to say something so intelligent.

While liberals decry Tancredo’s remarks as hateful and demand the Republican Party denounce him, the Colorado congressman is sticking by his statement.

In the Denver Post, he wrote, “Many critics of my statements have characterized them as ‘offensive,’ and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is ‘offended’ by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed.”

For their part, Republicans at large have not repudiated Tancredo.

Instead, like the crazy uncle who shows up drunk to every family gathering (or as the Kennedy’s call him…Uncle Teddy), Republicans try to ignore Tancredo, hoping he’ll just go away.

But the congressman is right, the American people know it, and his comments should be defended, not refuted.

Just as the country rallied behind President Bush following the 9/11 attacks, when he promised “the people who knocked those buildings down will here from all of us,” Tancredo speaks for the majority of Americans, who don’t want thousands more of their countrymen murdered before our government decides to take further action against terrorists.

Tancredo’s message is an important warning to all involved in the war on terrorism.

Those who presently turn a blind eye to terror need to know that there will be consequences for their inaction. They believe Mecca and other religious sites are sacred. Americans feel the same way about our lives and our freedom. If they are willing to stand by while their countrymen kill innocent American civilians, they should know what the consequences could be.

For our part, Americans must realize that those who aid, sponsor, and hide terrorists do not understand peace, harmony, or freedom.

Our enemies speak only the language of death.

They need to know that any attack on American soil will be met with an incomprehensible destruction that will give new meaning to the word.

Link: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp? aid=15928

Apparently patriotic sanity is an oxymoron. This is supposed to be a war on terror, not a war on Islam.  Bombing Mecca would make it a war against Islam, which would be an all-out world war. Think of the reaction among muslims around the world when the Koran was defaced, multiply it by a million, and that's probably what would happen if Mecca was bombed. This is quite possibly the stupidest and most morally bankrupt idea anyone in our government has had in quite a while, which says a lot.

Sure, nuke Mecca to end Islamic terrorism?  WTF?  The level of kookiness among right-wingers never ceases to surprise!  Of course, your boy Tancredo backpedaled like crazy when he got called on his nonsense.  You know, your garden variety backpedal, "that's not what I meant, I said, I meant, I said, I meant, I said, I meant...."
::)

Patriotic Sainty? Religious fundamentalism more like!

"If Muslims bomb America, then bomb Mecca"?
How is that different from "If American's invade Iraq, then blow up American civilians"

Really, I despair of some people.  To anyone who thinks Tom Tancredo speaks the truth - You are Terrorist scum!
If you don't understand why, well neither do the Muslim suicide bombers you despise!

Patriotic Sainty? Religious fundamentalism more like!

"If Muslims bomb America, then bomb Mecca"?
How is that different from "If American's invade Iraq, then blow up American civilians"

Really, I despair of some people.  To anyone who thinks Tom Tancredo speaks the truth - You are Terrorist scum!
If you don't understand why, well neither do the Muslim suicide bombers you despise!



Ah people, I feel your pain. 

But just as terror need not beget terror, inflamatory rhetoric need not beget more of it.

The problem isn't one cooky, off the wall Congressman, but that so many people agree with him.  There is a line in "Casablanca" when Victor Lazlo is talking to the German major.  He says something like "for evey partisan yoiu kill, ten more will take his place.  Even Germans can't kill that fast."  And that wasn't over anything as passionate as religion.  And therein lies the problem.

So I suggest that this thread is misnamed.  It should be "Tom Tancredo: the Voice of Jingoistic Idiocy" or "Sabre Rattling Stupidity" or maybe "War Mongering Impotentcy".

Nah, you can't just write that many people off. 
Just gotta figure out how to get people to think more rationally.

Writing people off is a lot easier

I am sooooo tired of testosterone

I suppose Tancredo thinks that Islam only exists in the Middle East. There are more Muslims in South East Asia than there is in the whole of the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa put together: over 200 million in Indonesia alone. Islam has more followers than any other religion. Even Americans can't kill that fast. Mecca isn't just the centre of Middle Eastern Islam. It's the centre of the whole of Islam.
The list of countries where the population of Muslims is higher than 30% is quite long:

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Bosnia-Herzigovna
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Chad
Cote d’Ivoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Guinea
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Niger
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
UAE
Uzbekistan
Yemen


I'm pretty sure that not ALL of these nations are considered to be enemies of the US. Bombing Mecca because of Islamic terrorism would be like bombing the Vatican because of the IRA.

I am sooooo tired of testosterone

I was going to say "Tom Tancredo, voice of American males with tiny dinkies!"
;D

Or maybe he's taking one for the team  and saying something intentionally ridiculous to help keep the heat off of Rove

Or maybe he's taking one for the team  and saying something intentionally ridiculous to help keep the heat off of Rove

Nah, I think he's just another dim-witted troll, a relic of the caveman days!

Of course, your boy Tancredo backpedaled like crazy when he got called on his nonsense.  You know, your garden variety backpedal, "that's not what I meant, I said, I meant, I said, I meant, I said, I meant...."
::)


Tancredo does a lot of things, but he never backed down.  That's why I think so highly of him and the people of the sixth district of Colorado who have elected him to represent them four times.  Tancredo refused to back down, he refused to apologize and he basically told CAIR to go to hell.  There are currently several articles and opinions about Tancredo probably running for president in 2008 since he has been to Iowa and New Hampshire, and by God I hope they are true.

"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater, republican candidate for president, 1964.

Religious fundamentalism more like!

For one, it's not religious fundamentalism.  Second, there is no possible way to compare Christian fundamentalists to Muslim ones.  It wasn't people who loved Jesus who flew planes into the world trade center.

Sure, nuke Mecca to end Islamic terrorism?

That is not what Mr. Tancredo said.  He said it would be an ultimate American response to a terrorist attack.  Do you think terrorist cared about innocent people?  We can't fight a war like this.  We can't become the next Israel where muslim terrorists blow us up and then go in a song-and-dance about not bombing them because it will "destroy the peace process."  Give me a break.  Bombing Mecca now and maybe even after a terrorist attack wouldn't be the smartest thing, no one knows for sure what the smartest response would be.  That would have to be determined by the department of defense.  If Mecca is what they determine, then you do what you have to do for peace.

No sane person likes war.  But once you are in it, you have to win it.

"War is hell.  There is no use trying to reform it.  The bloodier it is, the quicker it ends." -William T. Sherman, U.S. General.

...there is no possible way to compare Christian fundamentalists to Muslim ones.  It wasn't people who loved Jesus who flew planes into the world trade center.

No, and it wasn't followers of the prophet Mohammed who gassed 4-6 million jews in WWII.
so..You're right, there is no comparison between these 2 acts!

No, and it wasn't followers of the prophet Mohammed who gassed 4-6 million Jews in WWII.
so..You're right, there is no comparison between these 2 acts!



Hitler was a pagan, pick up a history book.  Besides it's the modern-day Hitlers in the middle east who are blowing up Jews in Israel, pretty much all Muslims.

Muslims are almost the sole reason for today's terrorist.  Even one Muslim (who's name I can't remember) said something like: "not all Muslims are terrorists, but sadly most terrorists are Muslim."

Hitler was a pagan, pick up a history book.  Besides it's the modern-day Hitlers in the middle east who are blowing up Jews in Israel, pretty much all Muslims.

Or...try getting it straight from the horses mouth!
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


Regardless of his actual beliefs (His public religion may well have been propaganda), the holocaust against the jews was justified with christianity.
As for Israel, here the terrorists are predominantly Jewish.  The victims of this are mainly muslim because all the palestinian christians fled in 1948 to escape Israeli reprisals for the holocaust.
The situation in Israel is a war, started and continued by Israel.  The Israelis continually commit warcrimes against innocent civilians, only an American (or an Israeli) could consider these people the good guys! (see point below)


Muslims are almost the sole reason for today's terrorist.  Even one Muslim (who's name I can't remember) said something like: "not all Muslims are terrorists, but sadly most terrorists are Muslim."

BS!
What you mean is, most of the people who attack you and yours are muslims!
That is not the definition of terrorism!

America's invasion of Iraq for oil was terrorism, the spin the US media puts on it does not change this.  You can bet Osama uses spin to pretend that 9/11 was not terrorism.  It's all the same, both sides commit acts of terrorism, both sides console themselves with meaningless excuses to pretend they have the high ground.
Most of the terrorism aimed at the US is muslim, because most of today's terrorism by the US is aimed at muslims.

Tancredo does a lot of things, but he never backed down. That's why I think so highly of him and the people of the sixth district of Colorado who have elected him to represent them four times. Tancredo refused to back down, he refused to apologize and he basically told CAIR to go to hell. There are currently several articles and opinions about Tancredo probably running for president in 2008 since he has been to Iowa and New Hampshire, and by God I hope they are true.

You have got to be joking, please... I know irony may not be your strong point, but you have to realize how unbelievably inane (not to say insane) what Tancredo was saying in that first post.  I'm sure the most fanatic terrorists would love the US to nuke Mecca: their numbers would swell from the tens or hundreds to the tens of millions overnight.  And if Tancredo can't see that, the guy is an idiot of the sort that makes Bush seem like Einstein.

Yeah, great idea..... Tom, make people more angry, if they didn't have a reason to attack America more so, they would definitely have a reason to do now.
::)

GWB wrote
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater, republican candidate for president, 1964.

In his waning years, Goldwater disparaged Newt Gingrich and the right-wing of the Republican party.  He didn't want his name associated with those clowns. 

What's in a word?  Hasn't Bush redesignated the "War on Terror" to the "Struggle against Extremism"?  How does this sound--"Terrorism in pursuit of liberty is no vice..."
??? :o
Liberty?  Liberty to do what?  Liberty from what?  Libert for whom?

Sloganeering doesn't get you very far when you deal with thinking people.  However, you are the fellow who said "It is never a good idea to second guess the police." 
I guess you're not supposed think.  You're supposed to just shut up and do as you're told. 
Is that your idea of liberty, sir?

What drives me crazy is people who blame religion.  How about dropping the word Muslim and just
say terrorist.  Many people find it easy to drop the word Christian when referring to the Klan who
consider themselves a Christian organization doing the will of God just as the terrorists who call
themselves Muslim consider that they are doing the will of Allah.  The people involved in these
groups are power driven and use religion divisive wedge, and it works well.  Tancredo is using religion
as well by inflaming the ignorant toadies who will flock to him and praise him for "telling it like it is" 

What drives me crazy is people who blame religion. How about dropping the word Muslim and just
say terrorist. Many people find it easy to drop the word Christian when referring to the Klan who
consider themselves a Christian organization doing the will of God just as the terrorists who call
themselves Muslim consider that they are doing the will of Allah.

I agree completely.

What drives me crazy is people who blame religion. How about dropping the word Muslim and just
say terrorist.

Because without the religion making the poor suckers believe they're going on to something better if they kill themselves this way, they wouldn't be doing it.  And they're being told to do so by people who only have any authority by dint of their being respected in an Islamic context.  So the religious context is valid.

Once again, there are over 1 billion Muslims in the world. You don't want to p!ss THAT many people off.

Because without the religion making the poor suckers believe they're going on to something better if they kill themselves this way, they wouldn't be doing it. And they're being told to do so by people who only have any authority by dint of their being respected in an Islamic context. So the religious context is valid.


People don't use religion to justify stuff any more than they use patriotism.  Why do they call it the Patriot Act?  Because it means if you are against it youre not a patriot, the worst sin of all.  Wouldnt the logical thing be to call it the Anti-Terror or Homeland Security act?  Of course it would, but that wont serve the same cynical purpose.

People don't use religion to justify stuff any more than they use patriotism.

It's not a question of justification, more one of motive - I mean, what's the motive for killing yourself while not advancing your cause one iota?  Takes a real hold over someone (and a noticeable lack of thought from the suicide bomber), and that comes from religion.

People don't use religion to justify stuff any more than they use patriotism.  Why do they call it the Patriot Act?  Because it means if you are against it youre not a patriot, the worst sin of all.  Wouldnt the logical thing be to call it the Anti-Terror or Homeland Security act?  Of course it would, but that wont serve the same cynical purpose.

Read me the riot act, or read me the patriot act!  I always thought it was perverse that it contained the proverbial "riot act"!

Actually, USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym.  I'm most certain they chose the acronym first and then assembled the words to fit the initials.  It stands for:
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"
That's what they told us at least.  The true meaning of the acronym known only to the Inner Circle of the Illuminati is:
Until Satan Ascends: People Are To Remain In Our Trap.
:o 8)

The true meaning of the acronym known only to the Inner Circle of the Illuminati is:
Until Satan Ascends: People Are To Remain In Our Trap.
:o 8)

Ah, so you're one of them, are you Max?


;)

Ah, so you're one of them, are you Max?


;)

I just use Illuminati high priest and Trilateral Commission bigshot to disguise my true identity: liberal bum of no consequence.
:-X

It's not a question of justification, more one of motive - I mean, what's the motive for killing yourself while not advancing your cause one iota? Takes a real hold over someone (and a noticeable lack of thought from the suicide bomber), and that comes from religion.


If you call it justification or motive, either way, people do the same thing for patriotism, too.  Rapists use sex as a weapon, but that doesn't make sex bad.

It's not a question of justification, more one of motive - I mean, what's the motive for killing yourself while not advancing your cause one iota?  Takes a real hold over someone (and a noticeable lack of thought from the suicide bomber), and that comes from religion.


Sometimes religion, sometimes partiotism, sometimes misogyny, sometimes racism.  People who
commit these acts find someone or something to justify their acts.  Right now saying they are doing
it as a reaction to the treatment of Muslims is guaranteed a front page picture. 

At the risk of repeating myself again... my comment was not about justification, but about motive: especially when suicide bombing is concerned, the perpetrator doesn't do much post-hoc justification, 'cause he (or occasionally she) ain't around to do so: that's left to others to try and justify the unjustifiable by whatever twisted truths they care to peddle.  What I was talking about is the sort of motivating factor that can make someone decide that they want to blow *themselves* to little bits, just so they can take with them some people they don't know who don't even honestly represent the viewpoints these idiots are fighting against.  And it takes more than racism, misogyny or even patriotism to make someone think that suicide's a good idea.

And it takes more than racism, misogyny or even patriotism to make someone think that suicide's a good idea.


Well, as far as people willing to die and kill other people for what they believe, patriotism has the same power, I think.

Kill other people, yes (people seem to do that for ridiculously small reason).  Risk their own death, sometimes.  But *intentionally* killing yourself - no.  With the possible exception of the Japanese Kamikaze, though that wasn't simply patriotism: closer to religious zealotry with the "divine" Emperor as head of the church.

Because without the religion making the poor suckers believe they're going on to something better if they kill themselves this way, they wouldn't be doing it.  And they're being told to do so by people who only have any authority by dint of their being respected in an Islamic context.  So the religious context is valid.


See, we can agree.

See, we can agree.


Miracles can happen!

See, we can agree.

:)

I do think that what Tancredo said was extreme, to say the least. However, just to play devil's advocate, I'd like to throw out this question: What DO we do if al-Qaeda somehow succeeds in detonating a nuclear device in a major U.S. city and instantly vaporizes hundreds of thousands of our citizens? What do you feel would be the proper course of action to take in this situation? We couldn't just sit back and do nothing. I know that if my family was wiped out in such an attack I would want someone to pay dearly for it.

Unfortunately, I believe that one consequence of such an unspeakable horror would be for our government to enact laws that, to paraphrase The Manchurian Candidate, would "make martial law look like anarchy."

What DO we do if al-Qaeda somehow succeeds in detonating a nuclear device in a major U.S. city and instantly vaporizes hundreds of thousands of our citizens? What do you feel would be the proper course of action to take in this situation?



Why don't we just use expert knowledge and common sense and good information to make sure it doesnt happen?  I think its silly to say people in the government knew 9/11 would happen and on purpose didn't do anything about it.  But how much of a security expert to you have to be to figure out that if scanners only find metal, you have to make sure you check for plastic weapons?  How much of an expert do you have to be to know that it's a good idea to have a way to keep the pilot's doors locked?  How much of a security expert do you have to be to figure out that if you know a certain terrorist group might have kamikaze plans, you should crack down on airplane licenses?  Theres too much sloppiness and too much beurocracy.

Islam has more followers than any other religion.

Now I could be wrong, but last I heard, Christians made up the largest group in the world, but Muslims were/are the fastest growing.

Even Americans can't kill that fast.

Again with the American comment.  You're telling me people in other countries would really care if John Howard, Michael Howard or Stephen Harper said the exact same thing congressman Tancredo said?  I doubt it.

Maybe there are more religious muslims than religious christians, or maybe each sect is considered to be a separate religion.

Looks like Tom Tancredo made a better name for himself.

GOP Chairman Says Party Backs Tancredo

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.- The chairman of the Republican Party said Friday the party backs Rep. Tom Tancredo, despite rifts the Colorado congressman has created with some Hispanic groups.

If Tancredo is nominated for a fifth term, the party will back him, Ken Mehlman said. That's a sharp change from 2002, when a spokeswoman for the party said Tancredo did not speak for mainstream Republican values.

Read the rest of the article here.

What I don't understand is, is he supposed to be some kinda hero who speaks up against popular opinions, or is he just some guy saying what all "sane" people suposedly already agree with?  It doesn't seem like it makes sense that he gets to be both.

apparently the majority is insanely liberal

What I don't understand is, is he supposed to be some kinda hero who speaks up against popular opinions, or is he just some guy saying what all "sane" people suposedly already agree with?  It doesn't seem like it makes sense that he gets to be both.


On the border issue, he is a hero who speaks for the vast majority of Americans, but goes against the president.

On this issue, he is the hero for sane conservatives, who like the editorial said, can't believe there is somebody in the United States house of representatives with enough common sense to say such a thing.

How do you know what the vast majority of americans think? Especially when everyone I've talked to about this and the vast majority of this board diagrees with Tancredo.

Now I could be wrong, but last I heard, Christians made up the largest group in the world, but Muslims were/are the fastest growing.


Yes, I was wrong about that. But Islam is growing faster than any other religion.


Again with the American comment.  You're telling me people in other countries would really care if John Howard, Michael Howard or Stephen Harper said the exact same thing congressman Tancredo said?  I doubt it.


I don't think too many people outside of America cared about what Tancredo said, to be honest. I didn't even hear about it until I read it here. The difference between Tancredo saying something like that, and someone like John Howard saying it (not that he would. Despite his faults, he still understands that this is a War on Terror, not a War on Islam, and that there's a difference there), is that Howard is actually the leader of a nation and Tancredo is just some regional politician.

By the way, the "Even Americans can't kill that fast" was a tie-in to DC's Casablanca reference. It was flippancy.  :)

How do you know what the vast majority of americans think? Especially when everyone I've talked to about this and the vast majority of this board diagrees with Tancredo.


Dont you know most of the people on this board are just crazy liberals, the ones that stand up to them are the heroes.  ;D

How do you know what the vast majority of americans think?


I assume you're talking about Tancredo's immigration stance.  I had an entire page of opinion polls documenting how Americans feel on immigration, and I still have that link, but it seems to have gone bad.  Every poll between 2000 and today showed that between something link 77 and 90 percent of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration and something like 60 percent want more border patrol and something like 40 percent want the military on the border  I honestly don't know what Americans think of Tancredo's comments about Mecca.

and Tancredo is just some regional politician.

True, he was elected in a region (Colorado's sixth district, which is southern Denver) but he doesn't serve as a regional politician.  He serves in the United States house of representatives.

Tancredo makes 'dent' in N.H.
Rocky Mountain News
By: M.E. Sprengelmeyer
08/12/05

WASHINGTON - It's official: Rep. Tom Tancredo is a blip on the 2008 presidential radar.

http://mas.scripps.com/DRMN/2005/08/12/432312037_d.jpg
Tom Tancredo's name was misspelled on survey group's Web site.

A new poll shows Tancredo, a Littleton Republican, pulling 1 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, home of the traditional first-in-the-nation presidential primary election.

American Research Group Inc. surveyed 600 likely Republican primary voters - including 433 Republicans and 167 undeclared voters - from Aug. 5 to 7.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., led with 39 percent, followed by "undecided" at 32 percent. Among others: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia drew 14 percent; Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 8 percent; Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, 5 percent; and Tancredo was tied with Sen. George Allen of Virginia, at 1 percent.

Three other possible contenders - Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - did not register any support.

Tancredo has been testing the waters in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, saying he hopes to pressure bigger-name candidates to take up his crusade against illegal immigration.

The poll reveals a name recognition issue Tancredo must overcome. His name was spelled incorrectly (as "Tancrado") on the survey group's Web site, www.ameri canresearchgroup.com.

"We've got a phonetics issue I guess," Tancredo spokesman Will Adams joked. "In any case, he has made a dent in New Hampshire. For a congressman from suburban Colorado, it's a small step but a first step."

Tancredo received less than half of 1 percent support in a survey of 600 likely Republican primary voters in neighboring Massachusetts, where McCain led the field with 46 percent.

Link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3996773,00.html

1% isn't exactly contending... I hope McCain wins the primary since I might even consider voting for him in the general election

I hope McCain wins the primary since I might even consider voting for him in the general election


I doubt it.  A couple of points:

1. The primary is years away.  At this point, all poll results are basically a popularity contest.  Whoever is most known wins, it always changes once the primary starts.

2. John McCain won New Hampshire last time, it's a liberal state with an open primary.  Let's see what happens when he is in South Carolina.

1% isn't exactly contending... I hope McCain wins the primary since I might even consider voting for him in the general election


True, but at least it means that they know who he is.  That is probably about the same number of people in NH who knew who Bill Clinton was in 1989.  At this time, McCain is my leading consideration as well.  He is very moderate, and will both support or go against party line, depending on how he feels on an issue.  I look more for flexability then rigidity.

Very true, Mushroom.

Another thing to consider: a few weeks ago Tancredo was with Huckabee, Brownback and Hagel, he had 0%.  Now he has 1%.  It's a step foward, no-doubt.

True, but at least it means that they know who he is.  That is probably about the same number of people in NH who knew who Bill Clinton was in 1989.  At this time, McCain is my leading consideration as well.  He is very moderate, and will both support or go against party line, depending on how he feels on an issue.  I look more for flexability then rigidity.

He is getting along in years, I think he's going to be 73 this year.  Anyway, he's not the choice of the extremists who want to bomb all the extremists, like Tancredo, so they'll drag his name through the mud during the primaries all over again if he runs.

He is getting along in years, I think he's going to be 73 this year.  Anyway, he's not the choice of the extremists who want to bomb all the extremists, like Tancredo, so they'll drag his name through the mud during the primaries all over again if he runs.


What about your governor, Mitt Romney?  Would you vote for him?

What about your governor, Mitt Romney?  Would you vote for him?

He's not MY governor, he's a lizard from outerspace, as far as I'm concerned.  And no, I would rather eat ground glass than vote for him.

He is getting along in years, I think he's going to be 73 this year.  Anyway, he's not the choice of the extremists who want to bomb all the extremists, like Tancredo, so they'll drag his name through the mud during the primaries all over again if he runs.


During the primaries, both parties do that.  In 2004, the Republican choice was already set, but the Democrats tore each other apart for a full year until they decided on Kerry.  Then suddenly it was one big happy party again.

The same thing happened with the Republicans in 1996.  It was a messy and bloody battle for who the nominee was to be.  In 1992 there was a little fighting on the Republican side, but not as much as the Democrats fought.

Those of us old enough to remember 1980, that was also a messy fight.  Reagan and Bush Sr. were fighting all the time.  But when the matter was decided, they all pulled together and worked everything out.  The only difference then was that John Anderson did not like losing, and tried to run as an Independent.  But unlike 1992, those that split from the Republican Party did not matter.  Reagan still won a landslide against President Carter.

I do not care about the fighting in the primary races.  Every candidate will tear the others apart, because they want to be the party nominee.  And since Dick Cheny will be far to old to run himself, both the Republican and Democratic primaries this time will be bloody.

But at least in American politics, the blood is all metaphorical.  Loosers here do not collect guns and physically attack those they oppose.

During the primaries, both parties do that.  In 2004, the Republican choice was already set, but the Democrats tore each other apart for a full year until they decided on Kerry.  Then suddenly it was one big happy party again.

The same thing happened with the Republicans in 1996.  It was a messy and bloody battle for who the nominee was to be.  In 1992 there was a little fighting on the Republican side, but not as much as the Democrats fought.

Those of us old enough to remember 1980, that was also a messy fight.  Reagan and Bush Sr. were fighting all the time.  But when the matter was decided, they all pulled together and worked everything out.  The only difference then was that John Anderson did not like losing, and tried to run as an Independent.  But unlike 1992, those that split from the Republican Party did not matter.  Reagan still won a landslide against President Carter.

I do not care about the fighting in the primary races.  Every candidate will tear the others apart, because they want to be the party nominee.  And since Dick Cheny will be far to old to run himself, both the Republican and Democratic primaries this time will be bloody.

But at least in American politics, the blood is all metaphorical.  Loosers here do not collect guns and physically attack those they oppose.

Reagan won in electoral landslides against Carter and Mondale, which is rather deceptive compared to the popular vote.

The Bush family has been chasing political power since the 1940s.  They have no principles.  They'll  do what ever it takes to get power.  Of course George Bush, pere, wasn't going to turn down the chance to be the VP candidate after his own presidential bid fizzled.  He'd bide his time for eight years. 

Political winds shifting for Tancredo
The Denver Post
By: Dan Haley
08/15/05

Told three years ago to never darken the doorsteps of the White House again, Congressman Tom Tancredo suddenly is the toast of Washington. OK, that's pushing it, but more and more people want to hear from the Littleton Republican, who's been on a one-man crusade against illegal immigration since he was elected in 1998.

Even Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman is saying nice things about him. Three years ago, the party was embarrassed by Tancredo, saying he didn't represent mainstream Republicans. But the winds are shifting. You can expect immigration reform to replace Social Security as the next big issue in Washington when lawmakers return from their August recess.

Before they adjourned, President Bush visited the Republican congressional caucus and lawmakers told him they were getting hammered at home over immigration. Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave hears about it wherever she goes.

Tancredo has been barnstorming the country, trying to make immigration an issue in the 2008 presidential race and threatening to run if no one else picks up the torch. He's as suspicious as anyone as to why immigration is suddenly the hot topic - his rabble-rousing paying off? - but it's likely a combination of things, including the London bombings, that has Washington ready to act. Either way, it's long overdue.

Speaking of Tancredo, his would-be presidential run is turning a few heads. He landed the No. 9 spot on PoliticalDerby.com's power rankings for the 2008 race - one spot ahead of Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. "He's gone from an afterthought to a candidate worthy of an extra look," the site reads. "... He's speaking on college campuses, and his message is being eaten up faster than a cheese danish at a Howard Dean presser."

Tancredo stumped in California last week and has trips planned this month to Utah, Minnesota and Iowa. Next month, he'll head back to New Hampshire, the nation's first primary state.

Link: http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=2942775