Thread: oh no tancredo

I think Tancredo needs to work on his speaking skills, he seemed a little outclassed. I liked a lot of what he said though.

He didn't use his time effectively to stick to the basics or effectively "zing" McCain.

I think he screwed up by calling for a time out on legal immigration. It may be a good idea, but he got steam rolled by Wolf and some of the other candidates as being anti-immigrant even though he said he welcomes legal immigrants. I think he/we needs to stick with:

Welcome legal immigrants and deport illegal immigrants

Most Americans can't stand illegals and do not want amnesty but most are not ready to put the cold freeze on legal immigration.

There is so much that Tancredo and others can go after McCain on his crappy illegal immigration mis-information, but they still seem to play verbal softball. It is like they rather not hurt another republican too much.

As a realist, I know Tancredo will not get the nomination, so why not take the opportunity to "knock" McCain and others on their heels?
Go after them, go on the offensive, what are you going to lose---the nomination?

Mass_Citizen

I disagree with Mass Citizen. I think Tancredo might be on to something here. Something that in my rage against amnesty for illegal immigration, I had not even thought of before tonight's Republican debate. And that is Tancredo's comment that it's time to take a time out on ALL immigration and assess the mess were in. Why are we charging ahead with any type of immigration, whether legal or illegal when it's evident that our government has no clue as to what they're doing and how to manage what is going on. This makes perfect sense, if you think about it. Why are we constantly bringing legal immigrants into this country as well as allowing illegal immigrants to scurry in over our broken borders, when we really have no idea how many specific types of immigrants are actually needed and in what capicity we need them? Of course, we don't need and shouldn't have illegal imigrants in any amount. As for legal immigrants, do we really need the types and numbers that are coming here, which is well over 1 million per year (not including temporary workers). Why 1 million plus? Who says thats a proper number or even a good fit for our economic and social systems? How about the data on the impact to the American worker. Is there objective data or acceptable studies that indicate this number is a net benefit to our economy and doesn't negatively impact our social systems? How many legal immigrants are enough, how many are too few? Are too many coming in legally and that number should be adjusted downward since the additive effect of the legal immigrant plus the illegal immigrant is too burdensome to us economically, socially and environmentally? There are 7 types of temporary worker visas. How many within each type of visa do we really need or are many of those temporary immigrant workers taking jobs that readidly available Americans could (and would) do if they only knew about them or were recruited to take them? Just because Microsoft says they need a bunch of H-1B visas issued because they need software engineers, has Microsoft searched for American workers to fill these jobs? Shouldn't Microsoft be required to certify that there are no
Americans available to take these jobs before pushing for an expansion of the H-1B visa system? There are 3 main types of immigration visas issued by the U.S.: immigrant visas, family based immigrant visas (containing 7 subclasses) and employment based immigration visas (cotaining 8 subclasses). Whose controlling the numbers wthin each of those categories and are those numbers justifiable? I used to work as a civilian contractor at a Naval Nuclear facility and whenever a catastrophe, serious accident, breach of security or the like occurred, orders always came to "stand down". That meant that before proceeding any further with that system or process a full and thorough assessment had to be done to come up with "lessons learned" findings to put new procedures in place or modify existing ones so that mistake would never be repeated again.

In my opinion, the ENTIRE immigration system is so broken, messed up, uncontrolled and flawed that a "stand down" (aka "time out") is needed to come up with "lessons learned" before any more immigration of any sort is allowed to proceed. Of course, let's secure the damn borders and enforce our current laws to the letter immediately so either self or enforced deportations of illegal deportations occur.

So, Tom Tancredo, is certainly onto something and he should be lauded for the courage to state a view so far out of the mainstream thought that he could be labeled an extremist by critics. But if you think about it, at least to me, it makes perfect sense. Should the mantra be "No immigration of any kind shall be allowed until our borders are certified as being secure and we complete a top to bottom assessment of our immigration laws. What lessons learned are discovered will be put into new laws to create a better immigration system that will function exclusively for the welfare of our citizens and will benefit the social, economic and health care institutions of our country."????????

Tancredo has served to place much more emphasis on illegal immigration than would have existed without his presence in the debates. This is all many of us wanted from him. He has no illusion of being president.

The top tier as far as I'm concerned was Hunter, Tancredo and Paul.

Americans deserve some honest patriots in government for a breath of fresh air, and sanity for a change.
I agree with and give credit to Tancredo for his courage and honesty regarding the immigration issue, that's more important than sound bytes and lies that the supposed top three are perfect at spewing out.

I have never been a fan of Wolfe Blitzer; in fact, the only CNN program I watch is Lou Dobbs. I hardly watch any other news because it's mostly about Paris Hilton or other non-issues

No way can this country stand Mckennedy as president.

Originally Posted by Dianne

I think Tancredo shot himself in the foot tonight with his restriction of legal immigration. Let's get through illegal immigration first !!!

I think he appeared an extremist which was very sad.

Yeah, but extreme times call for extreme measures. But I do understand that first we need to get illegal immigration dealt with before legal immigration!

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Well, I didn't get to see the debates, unemployment socked my Comcast bill,

I'm sorry to hear that, I wish you luck in finding employment. HEEEEY, maybe you can apply to be a guest-worker!

I thought Congressman Tancredo came out swinging hard on the illegal immigration issue. I appreciated his strong stance and I thought it set the tone for the others who might have been weaker on the issue to gain strength as well. He is reasoned and principled in his manner.

I immediately called his Littleton, Colorado office and left a message to say thank you.

Littleton Office
1800 W. Littleton Blvd.
Littleton, Colorado 80120
720-283-7575

DC Office
1131 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0606
202.225.7882

or use the 1-800 numbers

Jeremiah 29:11

I didn't watch yesterdays debate, but I totally agree with a time out on most legal immigration. IT is what Pat Buchannan called for in his book "State of emergency".
Hearing that is probably too rough at the moment for many to hear, but it is wise. We need a time out on immigration. Read last weeks Peggy Noonan's essay.

As for Tancredo's speaking ability, it is good! and for those who say it is not slick or polished enough. we need the correct policies and understanding, not more slick sound bites.

Originally Posted by MW

duece212 wrote:

I'm starting to think supporting Hunter might get our issue a little further just because he is a much more likeable candidate.

That has been my thinking all along. Well, maybe I wouldn't use the word likeable. However, I do think Hunter is much more comfortable in these debates and does a better job of expressing his views.

Hunter and Tancredo are almost identical in their voting history on border security and immigration (they're both very consistent), but unfortunately many voters view Tancredo as a little extreme. With that said, I like Tancredo and would have absolutely no problem voting for him but Hunter remains my #1 choice.

I thought Ron Paul did an excellent job tonight. However, I'm having a difficult time getting through his whinny voice and pansy look . He too would get my vote if he was the Republican nomination! My choices are: #1 Hunter, #2 Tancredo, #3 Paul.

Zeezil wrote:

[quote:q1q4d2us]Isn't it sad that a politician that calls for having a time out on ALL immigration could be labelled an extermist when there are so many politicians promoting absolute giveways of citizenship, benfits and entitlements to Illegal Aliens and be considered the norm?

YES![/quote:q1q4d2us]

Yes, yes you have MW. As per usual, I agree with what you are saying, especially the part of the whiny voice and pansy look of Paul

I didn't get to see all of the debate, but I taped it so I can watch tonight. I think Tom would be great President. I voted for Bush and boy do I regret it. I Think Tom would be a lot better than Bush. Bush is pushing for a one world government, so therefore, he wants to flood this country will legal and illgals to that eventually all pay will drop and production will rise. His policy hurts the american citizen workers and is wiping out the middle class. After all the wages are in the tank, then we would be able to compete with other countries with cheap labor. The rich would get richer and the poor poorer. We have to slow down legal immigration and completely get rid of illegal immigration. We as a country simply cannot support the kind of mass numbers the senators want to bring into this country over the next 20 years. Our culture will be gone. The republican party will be gone. There would be too many to ever assimilate. We would, infact, lose our country. Cee

Found this under Gen Discussions 'Tancredo: Typical Nacho Republican'

D.C. Shuffle

Tancredo: Nacho Typical Republican

CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER TancredoIf the Republican Party is anything like the Lucchese crime family, '08 presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) may soon get whacked for his ramped-up tough guy routine that has him brazenly going after the Party's made men like a Mexican-hating version of Joe Pesci.
Tancredo has unveiled a new "Save America Campaign" aimed at defeating the "sell-out" immigration bill currently being considered by the Senate. It actually involves Tancredo super-sizing his already turbo-charged bombast. Yesterday at lunchtime, for example, Tancredo "coincidentally" sat at the same diner as (and managed to out-crazy) immigration bill supporter Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and sent him a plate of nachos. And in last night's Republican debate, he told President Bush to go piss up a rope, praised the cutting of family ties abroad in order to become a real American, and outlined the scope of his new project: "I am willing to do whatever is necessary to try to stop this piece of legislation. And that includes go after any Republican that votes for it, because the Republicans can stop this."

And I stated here earlier in this thread that I thought Tancredo might come accross as a bit timid..NOT ANY MORE! Telling the Prez to go piss up a rope is just what the traitor needed! New rankings:

#1 Tancredo
#2 Duncan Hunter
#3 Ron Paul

dianasanchez wrote:

Rockfish wrote:
[quote:rmeg4ja0]Well, I didn't get to see the debates, unemployment socked my Comcast bill,

I'm sorry to hear that, I wish you luck in finding employment. HEEEEY, maybe you can apply to be a guest-worker![/quote:rmeg4ja0]