Thread: Tancredo misses opportunity

Received this in an email this morning:

America First 2008 Updates

Tom Tancredo made the most serious mistake of his bid for the Republican nomination in not appearing at the Spanish Television debates in Florida.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316268,00.html

Fox News Reported it as "This time, the only candidate who refused to attend was Tom Tancredo, a long-shot candidate who has made a tough immigration stance the centerpiece of his campaign."

Tancredo's press release says this.

"It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language," Tancredo said. "So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate? Pandering comes to mind."

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act an immigrant must show the "ability to read, write, and speak English" in order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Additionally, they must show "a favorable disposition towards the United States."

Tancredo concluded, "America has been a melting pot of people from all over the world but it can not survive as a nation if our immigrants do not assimilate. A common language is essential to that goal. Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual but it has perilous consequences for a nation. As such, a Spanish debate has no place in a presidential campaign."

This is all true, but wars are such that you do not always get to pick the time, date and place of battle.

Tom Tancredo had the opportunity in this debate.

To be the clear focus of the debate. Clearly, Tancredo has taken the lead position on this issue for years. He has been pushed aside in other debates as the moderators asked questions on every issue except immigration. He had the chance to be the focus of the debate and make the other Republican candidates follow his lead. He had a chance to push them further.

To be the tough leader. Tancredo had the chance to the tough guy. Take the fight to the opposition, in their ring, under their conditions, and speak whatever he wanted directly to that opposition. "Yes, will deport illegal aliens." Tell Vincente Fox that he is meddling in U.S. politics, that La Raza is by definition a racist organization, and that sooner or later all illegals are going home.

The opportunity to address Hispanics worldwide. He could have made the points in his press release to the Hispanic audience, on tv, live, in person. That a nation will destroy itself if it becomes, bi-cultural and bi-lingual.

The opportunity to address Atzlan, mass migration and the Hispanic invasion. He could have taken the debate, the issues to describe and outline the dangers to the United States. He could have stated that La Raza, MEChA and other Hispanic organizations are subversive organizations dedicated to turning the United States into MexAmerica.

The opportunity to stress that the United States takes its laws seriously. Hispanics are coming to the United States to live a better life. But they are undermining the U.S. law, which makes that possible. Hispanic countries are marked by tyranny, corruption and bribery, because the law is unenforced.

The opportunity to stress that Puerto Ricans are American Citizens. He could have said Puerto Ricans should start acting to defend the United States, not cozy up to La Raza.

The opportunity stress that this invasion is led by Mexico. He could state that forty consulates in the United States act like they are legal entities. That they should be closed.

The opportunity to stress that if this invasion continues unchecked, legal and illegal immigrants will not be living in the United States, they will be right back where they started from, living in MexAmerica, which is going to look a lot like Tijuana.

The opportunity to be the clear leader on the immigration issue. He had the opportunity to say that we do not need more laws, that we will enforce the current laws. That employers will go to jail and mayors who create sanctuary cities and ID cards will land there as well.

You cannot play defense or be pasive in a presidential race and assume the moral high ground. Tancredo adopted Jimmy Carter's rose garden strategy of doing nothing about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Abraham Lincoln in the beginning to the Civil War could not find generals who wanted to fight. Gen. Meade, Gen. Hooker and others were useless. Finally, he found Gen. Grant and proceeded to win the war. Grant was capable of ruthless and complex thinking on the battlefield. In the attack on Vicksburg, he brought his troops south by gunship past the City on its western (Mississippi) side. From the southern position, below the city, he marched his troops up the Eastern side and attacked.

Because Grant was inherently an aggressive commander, he sought the opportunities to attack and win. He recognized his disadvantages and turned them to advantages. He did not have the terrain, the place of battle to the time to become a disadvantage.

The Tancredo memo is moralistic, idealistic and simple-minded. It may be morally right, but his non-appearance did not help the immigration control cause. Tom Tancredo is a very decent man, moral man. But perhaps, he needs a Ulysses S. Grant as a ruthless commander by his side.

Tom Tancredo lost a huge opportunity.

Paul Streitz
amfirst@optonline.net

I too feel this was a missed opportunity for Tom Tancredo. He could have really had an impact at the debate. Furthermore, I think he would have drawn far more attention to his campaign had he attended because in view of the main subject matter, illegal immigration, the press would have really been focused on him. He'll get no better opportunity to speak on the topic than he would have at the debate (85% of the questions were on the topic of immigration).

I agree MW. While I respect his decision to not go, I think it was a dumb move on his part. He really could have used this debate to his advantage. If anything, Tom may have gotten more time to answer questions, rather than being a "book end" at the other debates.

I did like Duncan's responses though. He was a little more tame in his responses than in other debates, but he stood by his convictions.
Can't say that about mclamebrain, guiliani, chuckabee and romney. They all folded like a straw house in the wind.

He was probably afraid for his life

He was probably afraid for his life

I don't know how I feel about it -

Did he miss an opportunity to make some points - possibly. I am not sure any points he had to make would have been heard.

I am not sure there were many there whose minds are fertile ground for the idea of enforcing our laws.

I am not sure I don't see it as the pro-illegal bunch, and the government of Mexico forcing the candidates to accomodate them in their language - thereby showing their strength in this country. Showing they can even force candidates for the President of this country to bow to their strength - and do their bidding.

Rather, did he refuse to pander - by attending a debate in Spanish?

I respect his decision and yet I understand too the criticism for a missed opportunity. He would have received press of his comments and yet would he have changed any minds? This may have been posted previously. It comments more on the Romney stragegy, but does include Tom Tancredo in the article.

(quote)

GOP en espanol: Radio Romney, Tancredo boycott

by Mark Silva

“Mitt Romney -- Republicano para presidente. Por que? Porque es el más calificado y el más confiable.’’

These are the words of a new Spanish-language Romney campaign radio ad: translated as Romney, “the most qualified and reliable candidate.’’

And these are the words of Rep. Tom Tancredo, who will boycott the Spanish-language debate of the Republican presidential candidates that Univision will broadcast from Miami this evening: “It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language. So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate? "

What are they doing? Well, they’re competing for more than 5 percent of the vote in the next presidential election, and for a much greater percentage of the vote in the Florida Republican Party primary on Jan. 29.

They are competing for the votes of a constituency that leans Democratic nationally, and is tilting further in that direction lately, according to Pew Center polling. They are competing for a constituency that George W. Bush courted, with some success, only to see his party’s staunch opposition to rights for undocumented immigrants alienate many Latino voters this year.

Yet, these are the same candidates courting a broader voting constituency with their anti-illegal-immigration rhetoric, with Romney accusing Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, of presiding over a “sanctuary city’’ – Giuliani counter-attacked in the last Republican debate, also in Florida, by accusing Romney of running a “sanctuary mansion,’’ the Bay State governor’s mansion, where a work crew had some illegal workers on the job.

Giuliani heads into Sunday night’s debate at the University of Miami – airing for two hours starting at 7 pm EST on Sunday -- with a direct appeal to the Cuban-American community in Miami, a statement critical of the Cuban government’s treatment of dissidents: “"Unfortunately, this shows the true nature of the Castro regime. When churches are tear-gassed and teenagers arrested for wearing wristbands that say ‘cambio’ the world should see clearly that the time for freedom has come for Cuba."

And Tancredo, the most outspoken of his party’s opponents of illegal immigration, heads away from the debate with these words: “Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual, but it has perilous consequences for a nation," Tancredo said. "As such, a Spanish debate has no place in a presidential campaign."

The refusal of the Republican congressman from Colorado to take part in a debate that will be translated for the national, Spanish-speaking audience of Univision speaks volumes about his true intentions in this campaign for president. He is making a statement, not a bid for office.

The radio ad of Romney speaks volumes about his own seriousness: “Mitt Romney – republicano para presidente. ¿Por qué? Porque es el más calificado y el más confiable. El mundo de los negocios ha confiado en Mitt Romney, y muchos lo llaman el mejor empresario de los Estados Unidos Nuestro paÃ*s confió en Mitt Romney y Mitt Romney salvó las Olimpiadas de corrupción y le presentó al mundo entero un gran espectáculo estadounidense justo después de los ataques del 9/11 El pueblo de Massachusetts confió en Mitt Romney. Lo eligió gobernador para borrar el déficit que heredó y encaminar la economÃ*a del estado. Y asÃ* lo hizo – dejando un superávit y muchos nuevos empleos. Su familia confÃ*a en Mitt Romney también y él ha sido un gran esposo con 38 años de matrimonio, es un gran padre para sus cinco hijos y un gran abuelo para sus 11 nietos. Mitt Romney vive los valores que predica. Todos nosotros podemos confiar en Mitt Romney para presidente. Conócelo mejor –visita MittRomney.com. Soy Mitt Romney y apruebo este mensaje. Pagado por Romney para Presidente"

In Miami today, Romney will appear with Al Cardenas, a Havana-born, Miami-based attorney who served as chairman of the Republican Party of Florida during the heyday of Jeb Bush’s successful campaigns for governor – the younger Bush, whose wife is Mexican-born, is completely fluent and campaigned in Spanish in his own time as governor (1999-2005). They will hold a barbecue and rally at Jose Marti Park in Miami.

“We have a strong grassroots organization in South Florida and I'm pleased to welcome these prominent leaders to our campaign," Romney says. “I look forward to traveling to Miami this weekend and participating in the historic Univision Republican Presidential Forum to substantively address issues important to voters in South Florida and Hispanic-Americans across the country."

With a well-organized Florida campaign built by some of Jeb Bush’s closest advisers, the Romney team includes Cardenas, state Rep., Anitere Flores, a co-chair of the Romney for President Florida Steering Committee, Miami-Dade County Commission Chairman Bruno Barreiro, former Miami-Dade School Board member Frank Bolanos, former Broward County Commissioner Ed Kennedy, Coral Springs Commissioner Ted Mena, former Broward County Property Appraiser Rocky Rodriguez and City of Miramar Commissioner Troy Samuels.

“The addition of this impressive group of Miami-Dade leaders to our team indicates Gov. Romney's vision for building a stronger America with a strong military, strong economy and strong families is resonating with Republicans in South Florida," Cardenas says. "As we prepare for next month's primary, these men and women bring a wealth of experience to Gov. Romney's campaign in the Sunshine State, especially to our outreach efforts in the Hispanic community."

(quote)


http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/po ... ey_ta.html

Isaiah 9:6

Part II of missed opportunity:

America First 2008 Updates

On the debate:
1. The debate was conducted in English and simultaneously translated into Spanish for the Spanish speaking audience.
2. A good analysis of the debate and why it was such and insult and a pander fest for Hispanics can be found on http://www.vdare.com/indexb.asp There are many points about the debate, such as a Mexican national being one of the interviewers, that are obnoxious. Tancredo could have brought these out, live to the audience. "This is an outrage, and it should never happen again."
3. However, my point still stands that this was an opportunity to reach 44 million Hispanics, in this country and abroad. (I don't know if that is the size of the audience, however.) Nevertheless, Tancredo's comments would have carried far more weight than any other candidate there. Instead, he writes a piece for the Miami Times, which reaches what, 300,000?
4. Tancredo had the opportunity to take both the Hispanic audience and his Republican rivals to the woodshed and adminster a good licking to them. For their failure to protect the country, for their sell out. Etc. etc. etc. Tancredo was in effect the featured speaker at this debate. He could have set the tone, the agenda and driven the argument. But he did not.
You don't always get to chose the battlefield. And you must take advantage of the opportunities. Tancredo gave up that opportunity by establishing the moral high ground, but being absent on the battle ground where this battle was being fought in front of a very large audience.

Paul Streitz
amfirst@optonline.net

I completely disagree. Tancredo did the right thing by boycotting that bogus debate. He stood by his principles.

Originally Posted by americangirl

I completely disagree. Tancredo did the right thing by boycotting that bogus debate. He stood by his principles.

Agree