Support Tancredo

Irv P. writes:

What does it say about the state of our nation when the only guy running for president (Tom Tancredo) who wants to preserve our culture, can’t even make a blip on the screen of the polls. Is he registering at one percent?

I’m proud to say that I’ve been sending $25 a month to his campaign. I have modest means. But everyone out there who gives a damn, should be sending donations. Whatever you can afford.

It’s not relevant to say “he can’t win.” If he’s your candidate, back him with more than words. Talk has always been cheap! Always will be!

“Tancredo for a Secure America”
P.O. Box 7204
McLean Va. 22106
703-255-9898

- end of initial entry -

Steven Warshawsky writes:

I respect Irv P’s enthusiasm for Tom Tancredo. I agree that, of all the candidates, Tancredo holds the most sensible positions on the most pressing issues of the day (for me, immigration, militant Islam, and the welfare state). However, I don’t think it is a commentary on “the state of our nation” that Tancredo has not made any headway in the race for the Republican nomination. Tancredo is a relatively obscure Congressman. He lacks the national stature of Giuliani or Romney or Thompson. He also lacks the personal presence and rhetorical ability of these candidates.

True, another obscure candidate, Huckabee, has managed to gain some traction recently. But Huckabee has certain advantages that Tancredo lacks: a quick and folksy wit, a preacher’s speaking skills, the backing of many “religious” voters, and—perhaps most important—a relatively respectful national media. The thing to understand about Huckabee is that he essentially is a pro-life liberal. Yes, he holds “conservative” views on certain social and religious matters. But he is no enemy of the welfare state, is soft on immigration, and is very unlikely to be much of a “warrior” when it comes to the Muslim threat. In short, he does not challenge the “mainstream” consensus the way Tancredo does. Recall the uproar that ensued when Tancredo proposed threatening to bomb Mecca in retaliation for a nuclear attack on the United States by Muslim terrorists.

Nevertheless, based on the huge backlash against the most recent amnesty bill, the continued support for a strong anti- terrorism policy despite dissatisfaction with the War in Iraq, and the growing sense that the welfare state is economically untenable, I believe that a candidate with Tancredo’s policy views could have made a big impact on the current presidential contest. Unfortunately, Tancredo is not the right candidate to convey his own message.

Ed writes:

Tancredo has no traction because he is a mediocre communicator. Doesn’t speak well, isn’t quick on his feet and hasn’t memorized his lines. One of the things that made Bill Clinton so effective as a communicator was that irrespective of what your question was, he gave you an answer focused on what he wanted to talk about. He didn’t care about your question, he only used it as a springboard to talk about the subject that he chose. Tancredo hasn’t learned this trick of the trade.

Mark E. writes:

The problem here is that Tancredo himself has said that he is not running as a serious candidate. He is running as a single-issue advocate, in order to influence the national debate about immigration. (Sorry I don’t have an exact quote or link for you, but I read this quote by him recently. Maybe one of your readers can source this.)

Mark Jaws writes:

I personally admire Tom Tancredo very much, especially since he refused to partake in that Hispanderfest Debacle in Miami. Unfortunately he lacks charisma, eloquence, and command presence—three qualities necessary for a movement politician to capture the attention and imagination of a politically weary public. Those are the breaks. However, Mr. Tancredo does serve the purpose of inching the political discourse ever so closer to our side.

Sam B. writes:

It’s something when even Eleanor Clift couldn’t take O Donnell’s ugliness. The man—as he proved during his anti Swiftboat vet hysteria—is the face of “liberal” bigotry.

Yes, i saw the show last sat. Too bad the video didn’t show his ugly SNARLING face! it should be plastered over the internet … and maybe the GOP can use it in their campaign against Hillary-Obama. What a great sound bite!

Oprah Winfrey—dishonest. As Al Rantel on a local conservative radio talk show says. She gives every reason for supporting Obama, except that he’s black. She never did that for anyone before. it’s C-O-L-O-R!

P.S. Medved calls Rep. Tancredo “Tancrazy”—and rhis from a so-called conservative talk show who’s a Bush KoolAid drinker. makes up for his years as an (anti-Viet) lefty.

I sent him an outraged e-mail.

David B. writes:

in September I had written you that our biggest problem was that we had no first-tier political figure who shared our views. Well, they have sort of taken stands, noncommittal, at best.

It looks far worse than it did in September. Huckabee could be nominated. Do you think he will say anything about “protecting our borders” if he clinches the nomination? Samuel Francis’ term, “the Stupid Party,” doesn’t begin to describe the so-called “grass roots.” Have they forgotten the fight over amnesty this year? They are falling all over themselves to support one of what you call a group of “fops and losers.”

LA replies:

Huckabee is ahead in Iowa. Elsewhere, he’s nowhere. His only function is to be a spoiler for Romney and help Giuliani. I see nothing good coming from this election. Romney would obviously be far better than any Democrat. But I can’t support him after his appearing on that Spanish language debate. That’s crossing a red line. Just as Bush did with his Miami speech in 2000.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 11, 2007 02:48 PM | Send