TANCREDO’S IMMIGRATION ORATION
Re: W. James Antle III’s The Trouble With Tom:
What debate were you watching? I thought Tancredo’s remarks about illegal immigration were clear and direct. An excellent answer. I agree with him but even if I didn’t, I would know exactly where he stood. I guess Antle III is not used to direct talk. It makes him uncomfortable. That is how low we’ve fallen — the packaging is more important than the message.
W. James Antle III’s attitude toward Rep. Tom Tancredo’s performance over the past several weeks can be best encapsulated in the phrase “to damn with faint praise.” Antle wishes that the congressman from Colorado would improve his poll numbers, but Spectator‘s scribe appears convinced that such progress will not be made. Should Congressman Tom, given that dreadful reality, throw in the towel and yell, “Basta?” If my judgment is correct, that will not happen, and most concerned Americans will, sooner or later, come to understand the importance of Tancredo’s candidacy.
Several weeks ago, I spent one afternoon making calls to Iowa’s Republican Party members for the Tancredo campaign. What struck me was the large number of folks in the Hawkeye State who seemed totally unaware of the problems illegal aliens present to this nation. Part of the problem Tancredo faces, then, is continuing to make the case that the current attempt to provide amnesty, SB 1348, will transform U.S. society negatively, but that will not be easy given the media’s domination by the “open borders” crowd. In the weeks prior to the November ’06 congressional elections, the editors of the Washington Post decided that illegal aliens posed no problem or were newsworthy — except when reporting on their Calvinistic work ethic. I assure you that the editors of the Washington Post and the other major urban media outlets are not disinterested observers, but calculated that an “out of sight, out of mind” approach would be helpful to their Democratic Party water carriers on the immigration issue — and they were right.
What is also missing from the Antle narrative is that Tancredo’s current low numbers in his bid for the presidency are a result of a phenomenon missing from the article: Tancredo has been basically ignored by the mainstream media. Did anyone notice that during the two GOP presidential debates to date that Tancredo has been basically passed over in the questioning by the moderators? Given the latitude that the wax-like Sen. McCain, the smarmy Giuliani, and the ever smiling Romney had to answer and amplify their responses, Tancredo seems to have been — shall I say intentionally? — left out. I would like to know if someone with a stopwatch has determined the air time Tancredo was allotted in these debates vis-a-vis his opponents.
Finally, if for no other reason, Tom Tancredo himself recognizes that his continuation in the presidential race is absolutely necessary, because as he demonstrated in New Hampshire, he, more than any other candidate, will not allow this president and his acolytes, such as McCain, to prevaricate and mislead about what SB 1348 — the amnesty that dare not speak its name — means to the future of this nation. My sense is that Tancredo not only understands the pleas of the “vox populi” to stay in the race, but that he also appreciates what his perseverance in running will mean to his constituents, his party’s conservative base, and to his country. He will, to use the felicitous phrase, “stay the course.” Tom Tancredo is no quitter.
— Vincent Chiarello
American Council for Immigration Reform
The Rove story shows that Tom lets his ego get in the way of his message. A politician without a big ego, is an unsuccessful one, unless his constituents just want an errand boy. But that ego must wear an attractive face.
— John Schuh
Lake Dallas, Texas
I am all for Tancredo fighting this bad immigration bill, but he really lost it last night when he said to stop ALL immigration. What we need to stop is ALL ILLEGAL immigration.
— Elaine Kyle
TAKE A BOW, FRED
Re: John H. Fund’s Star Power:
This is a wonderful interview. Fred Thompson sounds like a presidential dream.
At last, the free world can look forward to a man of substance. He is my “Man For All Seasons — the President we have all been waiting for.”
— Alexandra Taylor
Finally a man I can get excited over, RUN FRED RUN. The field now does nothing for me, to many RINO’s and flip floppers and then there is kook Ron Paul. I guess every party has to have at least one, but the Democrats have several.
— Elaine Kyle
First a disclaimer. I am an enthusiast for the candidacy of Fred Thompson and a fan that is signed up to do what I can to get him elected in Nov. 2008.
I believe that John Fund’s article in the May paper edition of the Spectator has pretty well nailed the reasons so many of us believe in Fred. By contrast, the articles by Mr. Tabin, Ms. Rubin, et al. miss the point either purposely or because their status among the political and/or journalistic activist elite will not allow them to see what is before their noses.
Yes, Fred is committed to doing things very differently then the conventional wisdom dictates. Yes, Fred is an entirely different type of politician from what we are usually subjected to. What entirely too many of your writers don’t seem to understand is that that is precisely why we like Fred. That is precisely what Ronald Reagan was, and that is why he was underestimated all the time, yet often left the professional pols in the dust.
What is wrong with Rudy McRomney and the rest of the field? They are conventional politicians determined to run campaigns in conventional ways, and then govern in conventional ways. They want the job entirely too much and for the wrong reasons. That makes them lower than a snake’s belly to a lot of us. Fred does not demean us. He doesn’t tell us that we don’t want what is best for America, or that we are too dumb or bigoted to understand. Fred, like Ronald Reagan, is one of us, or at least seems to be.
If Fred can do no more than cause the demise of sound bite news and television, he will have done the country a really good turn, and if he can return a modicum of old fashioned common sense and self reliance to the American citizenry, he will be a hero indeed.
— Ken Shreve
Well, here we are, with the Republican rank-and-file waiting for another candidate to declare. The problem, as I see it, isn’t that the declared candidates are bad — it’s that the whole process started too early. By the time someone actually gets to vote for these candidates, everyone is sick of them.
— Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida
Re: Jay D. Homnick’s Legacy Students:
If this immigration bill passes, Bush’s “salvation” will be the death of America as we know it. We do not need a bill on immigration; we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. Then we need to stop making ctizens out of babies born to illegals and stop the “family unification.”
We did not ask them to leave their families to come to America, let them make a choice, they can go home to their families.
Yes I voted for Bush twice, I mean there was not another choice. Come on, Fred.
— Elaine Kyle
The Democrat candidates’ buffoonery and poltroonery should give Virginians fair warning about the importance of our upcoming general elections this November. It’s chillingly horrible, yet sadly possible, that one of those Democrat dwarves could take the White House next year. And if that happens, we’re need veto-proof conservative majorities in the House of Delegates and the Senate to dust off and crank up the rusty old machinery of secession.
Sure, any Republican on the podium (or in the Hannity & Colmes studio) Tuesday night would, and most likely will, make a better President of the United States than any of Monday night’s Democrats. But Virginians should have a backup plan, just in case disaster strikes.
Rally behind, boys!
— Doug Welty
You nailed it!
Here’s what I think: The writing is on the wall — it’s time to buy GUNS!
The U.S.A. has an illegal immigration problem and a terrorist problem. With the Democrats likely to be in control of things for a while, both problems are likely to get worse. In California where we live, illegal immigration and its attendant problems are fast approaching a tipping point. Nearby Los Angeles is the biggest city close to the Mexican border and also makes an inviting target for terrorists with suitcase nukes and enough money to bribe their way across the border.
The illegal immigration problem has created disrespect for law and has resulted in criminals and gangs taking advantage of the situation. These criminals can prey on you and your neighbors, if not today then soon enough. One of the things each of us can do to protect ourselves and our loved ones is to be ready to shoot them.
Terrorists are already here, thanks to porous borders, mercenary corporations in league with venal politicians, and a complacent citizenry. One of the things we can do to minimize that threat is be ready to shoot any wannabe terrorists in our midst. If terrorists succeed in unleashing a dirty bomb or something worse, not only will many people die, but there will also be a period of anarchy and social upheaval like what we saw after Hurricane Katrina. You don’t want to be caught unprepared while waiting for things to settle down again.
Our elected representatives, Democrats and Republicans, won’t protect us — they don’t give a rat’s ass about us — they just want our money and our votes to keep their cushy jobs. Our local police can’t protect us because they can’t be everyhere at once. With a few guns, you have a fighting chance of protecting yourself, your loved ones, and your property when the veneer of civilization starts wearing a little thin.
With Democrats in control of things, guns could become difficult to get. Right now, it is easy to buy the guns you need. I intend to take full advantage of this God-given window of opportunity and I urge you to do the same.
We need to exercise our right to bear arms to protect us from criminals and terrorists, and to show our elected representatives that we intend to full exercise and defend our constitutional rights, and not allow them to run roughshod over us and our beloved Constitution.
— Dan & Mary Rigdon Smith
Simi Valley, California
I felt that I had to write to thank Mr. Dier for providing an effective introductory statement to my letter in response to Eight Blind Mice. Perhaps your editors at the Spectator deserve some of the thanks too. Mr. Dier’s letter was such an accurate depiction of the left wing lunacy that pervades the present democratic establishment that, had I known you would place the two so close to one another, I could have drawn arrows pointing toward Mr. Dier’s rhetorical regurgitation, strengthening my point immeasurably.
— Joseph Baum
If fellow readers of TAS question how the Democrat “Eight Blind Mice” can get away with such pitiful sophistry disguised as intelligent leadership, look no further than reader Roger Dier for your answer. Yes, the Democrats can get away with this pap because folks like Mr. Dier represent the intellectual baseline of the Democrat Party. Mr. Dier’s letter is nothing more than sophomoric slogans strung together into simple sentences. Why, he even knows that 9/11 took place when George Bush was just eight months into his presidency, with his cabinet barely in place, thanks to the Democrats’ foot-dragging temper tantrums. Talk about being up to speed on your current events.
Bill Clinton’s eight years of willful and cowardly neglect to the threats of radical Islam does not register with Mr. Dier and his ilk, hence the “Eight Blind Mice” are able to cobble an intellectually bankrupt version of recent historical events, with no fear that the Roger Dier’s of the party, or the MSM for that matter, will call them on it.
Same with Mr. Dier’s cherished notion of “international alliances” as the solution to world events. The eighteen member coalition President Bush put together on the Iraq War is a fact ignored by Mr. Dier and Democrats, or, demeaned by fools like John Kerry. All the while, Mr. Dier’s cherished U.N., France, Germany and Russia, were bribed into standing idle by Saddam’s petrol-dollars, as Saddam butchered his nation. The fact that the U.N. stands idly by now, while millions suffer in Darfur, speaks volumes to the empty rhetoric of the Dier’s in this world. The “Eight Blind Mice” must have a good belly laugh after each debate knowing that the Roger Dier’s are firmly entrenched in the Democrat Party.
— A. DiPentima
As frustrated as I am with “W” and his administration, I am also frustrated with my fellow conservatives and Republicans. Far too many letters and comments are coming from the left that are pure slander and we are letting them go unanswered or countered with tepid replies We have a prime example in the letter Roger Dier spit out at TAS .
In the space of five short paragraphs, Dier asserts: 1.) 9/11 was completely Bush’s fault and not Clinton’s, 2.) “terrorism” is just as phony, made up issue Republicans use as a tool for to scare the electorate and win elections. 3.) Bush and company would rather fight a war than improve the quality of life at home 4.) Bush was a “go it alone” cowboy full of belligerence and bravado who did nothing to build strong international alliances to fight terrorists. And 5.) terrorism has spread because Bush provoked it.
The odd thing about liberals is they think if they say something four or five times then it must be true. They’ll rewrite history and teach it to our children as fact. And what do we do? We think that if we jettison Bush or any other conservative under attack then our problems goes away. Fat chance. When has that ever worked?
As far as liberals and a good chunk of the public go, Bush is just a piece cut from the same conservative cloth as all of us. The “sins’ of Bush are our “transgressions” — manifestations of our “black souls.” There is foolish talk about campaigning “post Bush.” If we let these toxic lies go we will never hear the end of it. The left forgets and forgives nothing.
We have to defend our past — not uncritically — but stand our ground. We have to continually tell the public who we are and what we believe. And in the face of potential reprisal, we have to point out our opponents and tell everyone precisely what they are about.
In my twenty-seven years of being a conservative, one of the essential things I have learned is that if we don’t fight for our vision for America no one else will. If we don’t ask, we don’t get. No one will admit us to the forum just because we exist. “Diversity” doesn’t mean us until we demand a place at the table.
— Michael Wm. Dooley
Dear Mr. Dier — Dubya’s not a conservative. Anything but! Can’t imagine what he’s done to give you that idea, despite labeling himself as a “compassionate conservative.” True, he likes Godly things and is anti-choice, but, really, almost everything he’s done (‘cept for appointing a few judges and cutting taxes — which he and his party were unable to make permanent) has been from the Big Government/Big Spending Songbook. He’s a bigger spender than LBJ or Bill Clinton, and that doesn’t count defense; he caved on everything from education to prescriptions, didn’t push for ANWR or reforming government waste. Conservative? You can’t be serious…
GOP Terror Tactics, you say? That’s a laugh, and I’m NOT a Republican!
Its “promotion of terror?” Can you say JFK-fuel bombing plot? Or Fort Dix Islamic crazies? And that’s just the last week or so.
His Democrat candidates in contrast to Bush? As awful a president as he is, I sure hope none of them win the White House! And, don’t you just love Hillary R. Clinton paraphrasing Karl Marx?
As an independent Independent, I detest the Republican wimpiness nearly as much as the socialists on the other side of the aisle, and view so much of this crap as the consummate “effort in futility.”
Yet, like so many others, we persist in seeking something better. As of right now, Rudy Giuliani appears to be the ONLY option — the only guy strong enough to straighten up this mess we’re in. I hope. And pray.
— Geoff Brandt
JIMMY’S BS DEGREE
Re: Mark Fallert’s letter to the Editor (under “Can Fred Be The One?”) in Reader Mail’s Frothy Musical Numbers:
Contrary to popular myth (spread in part by the very subject of the myth), Jimmy Carter was never a “nuclear” scientist, and probably not a scientist at all. He did graduate from the Naval Academy with an “unspecified” BS degree. Even Carter’s own bio web page(s) don’t specify what the degree was. He did serve as a surface warfare officer and volunteered for submarines, but BEFORE there was a nuclear Navy. While he did interview for and did attend some Nuclear Power school courses, he ended up leaving the Navy prior to commanding a nuclear submarine. Carter left the Navy circa 1953 and the USS Nautilus wasn’t even commissioned until about 1955. For more precise info, do a web search. I just found this page, which talks to the subject.
— Karl F Auerbach
(MS in Nuclear Engineering, BTW)