May 4, 2007 12:16 AM
The invisible Tom: aka 'the shrinking violet'
"Some candidates seemed lost in the shuffle. Tom Tancredo, who has led the national debate against illegal immigration, was the shrinking violet and never really got a good chance to argue the issue."
So said Des Moines Register political columnist David Yepsen today, telling his statewide readership how Colorado's presidential entrant, Rep. Tom Tancredo, seemed to get lost in the shuffle during Thursday night's Republican debate.
Tancredo has been called many things. But a "shrinking violet?" That's a new one.
* * *
Short shrift.
That's what Rep. Tom Tancredo's enthusiastic backers in Council Bluffs, Iowa, thought that their hero got out of Thursday night's nationally televised Republican presidential debate.
The ink-stained version of the Rocky Mountain News reports today on the dejected folks leaving a debate-watching event at Tancredo's Pottawattamie County headquarters.
His fans cheered each time the Colorado conservative's face was projected onto the wall, and they hooted and hollered in agreement with what he said. But he was cut short in some answers and was skipped entirely in one round of questions.
See the full story HERE.
In the crucial, first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa, three analysts said Tancredo did little to break out of the "other" category below the three so-called "front-runners" in the 10-man field.
For a detailed critique of Tancredo's performance, read on...
Consider one of the things that caught the attention of Mike Murphy, a Republican political consultant writing for www.politico.com (which co-hosted the debate with MSNBC):
"Surprisingly, Congressman Tom Tancredo didn’t hammer the powerful immigration issue."
Murphy's headline: "Dark horses fail to gallop into spotlight."
Grading the candidates at Time magazine's online edition, Mark Halperin was even more harsh, giving Tancredo a "D-." That put him at the bottom of the 10-person class.
Wrote Halperin:
"Amazingly, passed up chance after chance to highlight his unconditional, candidacy-defining anti-immigration stance. Neglected to show his anti-immigration fervor when talking about other issues. Memo to a single-issue candidate: TALK ABOUT YOUR SINGLE ISSUE EVERY CHANCE YOU GET."
Here in the all-important first presidential caucus state of Iowa, the Rocky Mountain News asked some neutral observers to weigh in with their takes on how the debate would be interpreted here -- particularly for Colorado's entrant, Tancredo.
From Bruce Gronbeck, director of the Center for Media Studies and Political Culture at the University of Iowa:
"Thanks to the Hardball style of moderator Chris Matthews, the GOP's
first candidate debate turned into a track meet. If you couldn't
sprint through instant, one-word or one-sentence answers, or
justifications for why you disagreed with the President or each other
or Hilary Clinton, you were left in the dust of the best sprinters... Tom Tancredo's best
moments came when he could finally talk about border issues and,
interestingly, in his last response, where he was asked to
differentiate his policies from those of President Bush. On those
occasions, he was smooth, clear, and confident. On too many other
questions, he came off as hesitant, starting and stopping, talking in
half-sentences. He didn't seem ready for questions about Israel-U.S.
policies toward Iran or the need to increase organ donations for
transplants. He argued firmly against the idea that Republicans
should stake out some centrist positions by saying that Ronald Reagan
didn't have to do that a quarter century ago--hardly a way to expand
his appeal. All in all, Rep. Tancredo probably won't see his public
recognition and approval ratings move up after his performance in this
debate. He's going to have to sculpt a much clearer vision of what
he'd be like as president if he wants to stay in this race."
From Peverill Squire, political science professor at the University of Iowa, :
"I think tonight was not a good night for Tancredo. He was lost among the mass of candidates on stage. More importantly, he was not the only voice taking a tough stand on immigration, losing an opportunity to differentiate himself from the others. But he did have one moment where he should be credited for giving an honest answer while his competitors opted for the easy response: Tancredo was the only candidate to point out that the budget has structural problems that can’t be solved by presidential vetoes."
LATE UPDATE: The snarky "Wonkette" web site even fact-checks one of Tancredo's laugh lines during the debate.
AND THIS JUST IN: Tancredo gets some credit -- and sympathy -- from this independently-minded Iowa observer.
Video from the TeamTancredo web site.
May 8, 2007
3:21 PM
truecitizen writes:
keithf
Apparently, you didn't bother to read the paragraph you quoted. 'we disagree with those who would label efforts to control immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant.'
I've already stated that I support reducing immigration to 550,000 annually, a generous and moderate level. But, obviously it doesn't satisfy your extreme agenda.
"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave." - Testimony of Barbara Jordan, chairwoman, bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform
So, keithf, what exactly are your credentials?
May 8, 2007
11:19 AM
KeithF writes:
Truecitizen, I think your attempt to raise Barbara Jordon as a smoking gun because she's a Dem, unlike yourself, is pathetic attempt that this is a left-right issue. I'm sure if she were alive she would explain that she's not anti-immigrant or would serve this anti-hispanic immigrant agenda that you profess. Her objective was to control legal immigration; it didn't address illegal immigration"
"The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform decries hostility and discrimination against immigrants as antithetical to the traditions and interests of the country. At the same time, we disagree with those who would label efforts to control immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant. Rather, it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest."
May 7, 2007
6:13 PM
truecitizen writes:
Anderson,
Dobbs is critical of illegal immigration but I don't see him making the sweeping generalizations you accuse him of.
Some illegals pay taxes, many don't. Some are chronic criminals, many aren't, etc. At least Dobbs addresses the issue where most of the media parrotts the Bush/ Kennedy/ la raza amnesty talking points.
The politicians, specifically those who've been in office since the last amnesty of 1986 and favor yet another amnesty are trying to reward themselves with the votes of those they seek to legalize.
Better border enforcement would curtail illegal immigration and some of the drugs that you mentioned.
May 7, 2007
5:59 PM
truecitizen writes:
In the 1990's, a solution was proposed. Had it been implemented, there wouldn't need to be this discussion today. It was called the Jordan Commission. A bipartisan commission chaired by the late TX Congresswoman (D) Barbara Jordan. The recommendations were to reduce legal immigration to 550,000 annually, enforce employer sanctions and deport those here illegally.http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/exesum95.pdf
Barbara Jordan was a well respected member of Congress. So much so, that President Clinton considered her for nomination to the US Supreme Court, but her ailing health prevented it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Jordan
May 7, 2007
1:46 PM
KeithF writes:
Interesting how a piece on Tancredo turns into an immigration debate. But I agree with Anderson, we need a solution, but it shouldn't come from the Tancredos, Dobbs, Boyles or LaRaza. But we need these extreme views to temper the reality. Even in the agenda of hate or in the bias of one's own culture, their is a common thread of sensitibility. The Mexican government DOES have responsibility in this problem. There IS issues of our stretching of health and welfare services. There is an issue of the "cost" of low-paid workers doing the jobs "most Americans" won't do.
We have to exand the mind, while filtering out the hate and bias. I'm ashamed to say Tancredo is my rep, but it's not true that no media outlet endorsed him, they all did for his congressional position, but his presidential run? They're not stupid. He might be, along with his side kick Boyles, and Dobbs is the kinder, gentler version, but we need to advance the discussion, and quit making it an argument. This is not about a one-trick pony candidate with nothing else to offer. It's about a national problem that has been stolen by the extremists bent on biased agenda, that really doesn't have everyone's interest in mind. The "smart" candidates will skirt this sensitive issue to avoid losing votes, the not-so-smart candidate will make it the only campaign issue. The "choice" candidate will recognize it as a serious issue, and ask for it to be address seriously.
May 5, 2007
3:04 PM
anderson writes:
"Regarding Mexico, letting them dump their poor upon us indefinitely obviously isn't working. Maybe closing the valve shut will provide them the proper motivation to adopt necessary reform. Because if not, they might find themselves getting overthrown."
Are we going to repeal NAFTA? Somehow put farmers and families back on their land in Mexico?
As far as "dumping" their people on us. I think it goes the other way. The U.S. benefits from their labor. The Bracero program 1942-1964 (a "guest worker" program) specifically called for Mexicans to come to the U.S. and work. Not surprisingly, as it is human nature to make friends or fall in love, some of them established roots. Bracero is not with us now, but the same demand for their labor, from U.S. employers, has continued.
"Amnesty is not one dimensional. US politicians are not only seeking amnesty for illegal immigrants, they seek amnesty for themselves. They seek to reward themselves for their decades of chicanery and deraliction of duty to enforce laws they took an oath uphold."
Although "amnesty" means something, "reward" is sheer rhetoric without substance. If you break the law while driving your car, and a cop stops you and doesn't give you a ticket, are you "rewarded"?.
As far as politicians not upholding the law, what about all the other laws that are routinely broken in the U.S that you haven't mentioned? When are we going to do something about it? For example, we've had drug laws for decades and still we have people in the streets of Denver buying and selling drugs. When are our politicians going to do something about it?
"Amnesty also benefits business interests who reaped ill-begotten profits by exploiting illegal labor."
And so shall we beat up on people who come here to work and contribute to our economy. Or do we hold employers accountable and encourage them to pay a decent wage? What about the unmet demand for unskilled labor in farming? Who's going to meet that demand? Should we tell farmers here, (as we've done indirectly in Mexico) that they should get out of the business if they can't get anybody to do the work?
"Nobody is suggesting eliminating immigration, but easing it down to moderate levels. Things are best when exercised in moderation, including immigration."
That sounds reasonable.
May 5, 2007
2:45 PM
anderson writes:
Citizen, I could write a book on his lies. Let's cover some of the common ones:
"They":
--don't pay taxes
--don't or won't speak English
--are unwilling to assimilate
--are destroying our health care system,
--are taking our jobs
--are using up social services.
--are criminals
First, anytime anyone tells you 12 million people are one in the same, you oughta know they're selling you a bill of goods. Second, anytime anyone relies heavily on rhetorical statements, unsupported by anything you can reasonably verify, leading to one conclusion and one conclusion only (Dobbs does all these things), they are probably selling you a bill of goods. Third, anytime anyone insists on looking at only a part of any picture ("they're breaking the law. period"), you ought to be suspcious.
Without pretending that any of these are absolute statements (as Dobbs does), I'll counter with the following arguments: immigrants (legally here or otherwise) DO
--pay taxes
--speak English
--do assimilate
--use fewer public services, including health care, than citizens
--benefit our economy as a whole
--compete for jobs only with unskilled, uneducated labor in specific industries
--commit less serious crime than citizens.
I know this because I've studied the issue. Put some time into it. Unlike Dobbs, I am not financially rewarded for expressing my views, I am only concerned for the health and welfare of my country.
May 4, 2007
8:29 PM
truecitizen writes:
I don't know what 'outrageous lies" have been spoken by Lou Dobbs. He is critical of current immigration policy. Can you cite specific examples.
Regarding Mexico, letting them dump their poor upon us indefinitely obviously isn't working. Maybe closing the valve shut will provide them the proper motivation to adopt necessary reform. Because if not, they might find themselves getting overthrown.
I'll agree with you on this, picking on the poor won't solve the problem. The one thing we have in common with illegal aliens is that we're all merely pawns being played in a game of geo-political chess.
Amnesty is not one dimensional. US politicians are not only seeking amnesty for illegal immigrants, they seek amnesty for themselves. They seek to reward themselves for their decades of chicanery and deraliction of duty to enforce laws they took an oath uphold. Amnesty also benefits business interests who reaped ill-begotten profits by exploiting illegal labor. And amnesty also rewards foreign governments that displace their poor to the US rather than fix their internal problems.
Most Americans are fairminded and benevolent. However, our generosity is being abused and exploited to our own detriment. Nobody is suggesting eliminating immigration, but easing it down to moderate levels. Things are best when exercised in moderation, including immigration.
May 4, 2007
7:16 PM
John Campbell writes:
Dear Howard "Scrappy" Willis, its called biased condemnation. If you call it mastery of the poison pen, then I would agree with you. Anderson sounds like a brainwashed clueless laying in his own definition of hate speech. You people are cowards to find excuses to look the other way.
May 4, 2007
7:14 PM
bb writes:
I think I will run for president because Tom Tancredo will get about 500 more votes than I will. You know he has a job. He has had a job as a Congressman and accomplished the same thing he did in his presidential run. Absolutely nothing. You could compare him to Pat Schroeder-but she could at least give a speech and answer questions and pass legislation. Tom needs to go back to school and study--so he can answer a question next time. Colorado has the most pitiful republican politicians in the entire country.
May 4, 2007
5:53 PM
anderson writes:
Even if all you say is true, we still have to fix the problem, don't we? Getting mad and telling outrageous lies about immigrants (Dobbs, Boyles et al) isn't going to do it.
May 4, 2007
4:55 PM
truecitizen writes:
Anderson,
I guarantee no other nation in world history has ever taken in more immigrants in a shorter period of time than present day Americans.
Percentage of the population is what mass immigration supporters cite in trying to downplay the magnitude of recent immigration.
17 million immigrants entered the US from 1900 to 1930.http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-08.pdf less than half the current onslaught That period was followed by low tide of about 10 million total for the next 40 years.
In the 1990's, a bipartisan Commission was chaired by the late TX Congresswoman (D) Barbara Jordan. Its' recommendations were to reduce immigration to 550,000 annualy, enforce employer sanctions, and deport those here illegally.
Had our government implemented its' own recommendations, there wouldn't be such a problem today.
May 4, 2007
4:52 PM
Anonymous writes:
Anderson,
I guarantee no other nation in world history has ever taken in more immigrants in a shorter period of time than present day Americans.
Percentage of the population is what mass immigration supporters cite in trying to downplay the magnitude of recent immigration.
18 million immigrants entered the US from 1900 to 1930.http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-08.pdf Less than half the current onslaught That period was followed by low tide of about 10 million total for the next 40 years.
In the 1990's, a bipartisan Commission was chaired by the late TX Congresswoman (D) Barbara Jordan. Its' recommendations were to reduce immigration to 550,000 annualy, enforce employer sanctions, and deport those here illegally.
Had our government followed through, we wouldn't have such a colossal problem now.
May 4, 2007
4:06 PM
Petey Pablo writes:
You guys are bunch of racist idiots. Wake up it's 2007....
Shut up and crawl back into your lown little world.
May 4, 2007
3:40 PM
anderson writes:
"Anderson,
40 million legal and illegal immigrants have entered the US in just the last 30 years. No other nation in world history has ever endured a similar wave of immigration."
Well, the United States "endured" at least as big a wave about 100 years ago. Might have even included your relatives.
"How much would longer would you impose record immigration levels upon America? For the rest of our lives? and that of our children?"
Those are questions we need to address. Our current policies are obviously inadequate. Again, an earlier immigration wave, at least by percentage of the population, was larger than this one so it may be a mistake to call this a "record". One thing we have to consider is that there's an unmet demand for unskilled labor in this country. Another thing we have to consider is that our native population is rapidly aging. I don't have all the answers, but those are things we need to consider in setting immigration policy.
"How much longer do you force US taxpayers to subsidize the failure and malfeseance of the Mexican government?"
Not sure what you mean here. Most economists say immigration is an economic benefit to the U.S. Do you not understand this? Secondly, there are many other factors at play besides the Mexican government, in migration. NAFTA for example.
" When is the Mexican government held accountable for their own citizenry?"
What do you propose we do about the Mexican government?
May 4, 2007
3:20 PM
truecitizen writes:
Anderson,
40 million legal and illegal immigrants have entered the US in just the last 30 years. No other nation in world history has ever endured a similar wave of immigration. How much would longer would you impose record immigration levels upon America? For the rest of our lives? and that of our children? How much longer do you force US taxpayers to subsidize the failure and malfeseance of the Mexican government? When is the Mexican government held accountable for their own citizenry?
May 4, 2007
3:00 PM
anderson writes:
Fellow Citizen, the bill you refer to is not the bipartisan legislation that finally came out of the Senate. I know false, misleading, and exaggerated claims are par for the course for you people but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't know.
If you really want to do something about immigration, besides showing how mean and nasty you can be to poor people, I suggest supporting a candidate (Republican or Democrat ) who will actually get something accomplished and not just make scary talk.
Your true American,
Anderson
May 4, 2007
2:35 PM
truecitizen writes:
Anderson, the Senate bill you refer to, S2611(McCain Kennedy) would be an unmitigated distaster. It would have further increased current extreme immigration levels, given amnesty to millions of illegals while not securing the borders or increase enforcement. It didn't address anchor babies, either. It was written by business groups, immigration lawyers, and ethnic lobbyists.
Immigration is at record levels. Americans deserve moderation and we're not going to be silenced by being labeled 'divisive' because we won't capitulate to mass immigration ideologues.
May 4, 2007
1:49 PM
Howard "Scrappy" Willis writes:
So John Campbell, clear something up for me: you're saying a news outlet must first support a candidate in order to critique their performance? That logic is absolutely befuddling, even from a partisan. Surely you have better ammunition than that.
In addition, methinks you must investigate the meaning of "condemn" as well. I offer kudos to the RMN, a masterful job .
An aside: As Mark Halperin of Time just wrote, "TALK ABOUT YOUR SINGLE ISSUE EVERY CHANCE YOU GET. " An altogether lackluster performance on Tom's part.
May 4, 2007
12:05 PM
anderson writes:
I don't think Tancredo is naive at all. I think rather he discovered that hate sells, and it will buy votes and attention. That platform has *always* worked in America.
As to the immigration issue, he's done nothing whatsoever, that I can see, to further reform of our obviously unworkable and unworking laws. If something meaningful were to actually pass, his platform would be defused and he'd have nothing to stand for anymore.
The Republicans and Democrats worked together in the Senate last year to fashion an immigration reform bill (it was all there to see on C-Span). Tancredo stood in opposition cause he and some of the other Republicans thought they'd use fear of immigrants to bolster their campaigns. By and large, it didn't work. Of course Tancredo is in a "safe" district.
Our Congress needs to get off the pot and get something done, again, but Tancredo's not doing anything to further these aims. All he's done is divide people. We can disagree about what needs to be done, but something needs to be done, and his "let's beat up on Mexicans" campaign has, and will, only result in a lot of beat up Mexicans. It does nothing to address the underlying issues or problems with immigration.
May 4, 2007
11:32 AM
Anonymous writes:
It's a fact in politics that you have to reach out to people to be elected. Americans want leaders who are positive and upbeat, like Ronald Reagan, for example.
Tancredo is either incredibly naive or he just doesn't care. I am as conservative as they come and think illegal immigration is a big problem, but Tancredo makes me cringe every time he speaks. The Dems are collecting years of soundbites that will come back to haunt us, thanks to Tommie Terrific. The sooner this guy fades back into obscurity, the better for America.
May 4, 2007
11:14 AM
anderson writes:
So T, you think Matthews was there to make them all look bad? That's a novel idea. Why not just stick with a tried true conspiracy, like "it's the devil's work" and Mexicans and Muslims are the devil? It works for Tancredo supporter(s). Best of all, no extra thinking required.
Ah, but you were maybe thinking a little and it's just you are unable to make a post without taking a shot at the Democrats, left, liberal, or any and every variation thereof. Conditioning, I know.
May 4, 2007
10:54 AM
Tancredo Supporter writes:
I think Tancredo did the best out of all open border supporters. It almost seemed like that Tancredo is GOD's incarnation, who descended to earth to fight illegal immigration ( or third world invasion take your pick), border securty and islamo facisim.
As Utah republicans I strongly believe that illegal immigration is a work of Satan to destory America and Tancredo will fight for this country with his heart.
Support Tancredo...fight illegals.
May 4, 2007
10:46 AM
T writes:
Chris Matthews is a stinking Democrat what the hell was he doing there being the "moderator"??
Something stinky and fishy about the whole debate.
Ann Coulter should have been the"moderator" for the Democratic debates!
May 4, 2007
10:07 AM
John Campbell writes:
First of all your paper stole the "The shrinking violet" theme from another news agency. What really does not make sense is that your newspaper (rag) is criticizing Tom for not doing well when you never supported him in the first place. Not one major media outlet in the entire state of Colorado supported Tom ( the only candidate in years to come out of Colorado ) in his bid for president, not a one. But yet you believe you have the right to condemn him for his performance? In fact The Rocky, the Post, KMGH, KCNC and KUSA has either condemned or ignored his efforts to run. He knew he was not going to win anyway, but it shows the true character of the people of the state of Colorado, and that would be nothing less than cowardice.