Tancredo a future CP candidate?

Politics1.com-

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R)—a 2008 Presidential hopeful—announced Monday he will not see re-election next year. “It’s the fact that I really believe I have done all I can do in the House, especially about the issue [immigration] about which I care greatly,” Tancredo explained to the Rocky Mountain News. Tancredo also said that if his White House bid fails, he’s thinking of running against US Senator Ken Salazar (D) in 2010. No word as to whether Tancredo would also consider continuing his Prez run as a third party candidate under the Constitution Party banner—but his decision not to seek re-election gives Tancredo the third party option without negative repercussions in a messy House renomination fight.

31 Responses to “Tancredo a future CP candidate?”

  1. Chris Says:

    If he seriously wants to run for Senate in 2010, then he will not touch the CP nomination.

  2. Jay Harris Says:

    The Tancredo camp also approached Daniel Imperato and his people about running as Imperato’s Vice President. Imperato has yet to give him an answer.

  3. Cody Quirk Says:

    Yeah right!

  4. Sean Scallon Says:

    Agreed, its either the CP nomination now, which could be his for the taking, or wait until 2010 for the U.S. Senate.

    Of course, he could have ran for an open U.S. Senate seat right now as we speak but his ego got the best of him. If doesn’t want to serve in the U.S. Senate now, why does Senate seat look more attractive three years from now?

  5. Austin Cassidy Says:

    I don’t think he’ll run for the CP nomination in 2008.

    It’ll be 2008 for President as a Republican. Then 2010 for Senate as a Republican. If he loses the Senate race, then he might be game for a 2012 CP race to cement his legacy.

  6. david Says:

    I would be glad to support Tom Tancredo as the Constitution Party Candidate for president. I am already supporting him in the republican primary race.

  7. G.E. Smith Says:

    99% of the time, he’s talking about immigration; severely overstating the “problem,” and evidencing nationalism and xenophobia, if not outright racism.

    The other 1% of the time, so long as he’s not talking about Iraq, he is a fairly sound constitutionalist. Much more than any other candidate, with the one obvious exception.

    I do not understand the jihad against immigrants. Why not instead fight a jihad against the welfare state? I’ll tell you why: Because anti-immigration nuts are not concerned as much about the small degree to which illegals impose a financial burden—they are more concerned about the degree to which they force them to accept market wages for unskilled work, or, worse yet, their concerns are tribalist/nationalist/racist.

  8. Cody Quirk Says:

    I think they’re more concerned about keeping the workforce American and making sure no illegal makes little money at their jobs; because they don’t want illegals working here, period. They want a all-American workforce, blue or white-collar.

  9. matt Says:

    Tancredo as a presidential candidate would probably kill the CP.

    People don’t want a pro-war conservative alternative, they want an anti-war conservative alternative. For a while, before they started courting Corsi, Keyes, et al, it appeared that they were going to provide that.

    Now, it’s anyone’s guess. I sure hope they start making Iraq a litmus test for candidates, because if they don’t, they’ll just end up being angrier Republicans, and that isn’t much of a market niche.

  10. SovereignMN Says:

    I agree with Austin. If Tancredo fails in his Senate bid in 2010 then I could see him going for the CP bid in 2012 if the immigration debate is still around. By then he would be 4 years removed from Congress and will have time to politically distance himself from the Iraq ware and appease people within the party.

  11. Guy Garofano Says:

    Imperato’s Website is partially bilingual - and Tancredo would run on that? I certainly hope not.

  12. Trent Hill Says:

    “For a while, before they started courting Corsi, Keyes, et al, it appeared that they were going to provide that.”

    Corsi isnt pro-war. He is against the War in Iraq, and although he is wary of Iran—-he doesnt want to invade it or anything.

  13. matt Says:

    I guess I’m not properly educated about Corsi. All I know about him is that he was involved in the Swift Boat thing, and those seem like strange bedfellows for someone who isn’t pro-war in Iraq. That said, I don’t know.

  14. Ben Miller Says:

    I’m thinking that its possible that we may be seeing both Alan Keyes and Tancredo on 2008 CP ticket.

  15. G.E. Smith Says:

    “Keeping the workforce American” is a mercantilist, nationalist, and anti-capitalist goal. Ensuring national security and preventing non-citizens from receiving welfare benefits is a worthy aim. At least you admit that you’re a protectionist, Cody. It takes a lot of guts to stick up for the philosophy that gave us the Civil War, the Great Depression, and the welfare state.

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    Ben,

    Dont count on it. Alan Keyes’ pro-war record and support for the UN are HUGE turnoffs for the CP crowd. The Tanc will be going after a Senate Seat.

  17. Hugh Jas Says:

    Ron Paul would probably have a better chance of being drafted as their nominee than a pro-war “conservative” like Tancredo or Keyes.

  18. Cody Quirk Says:

    Ensuring national security and preventing non-citizens from receiving welfare benefits is a worthy aim.

    =As a start, yes.

    At least you admit that you’re a protectionist, Cody. It takes a lot of guts to stick up for the philosophy that gave us the Civil War,

    =Yeah, and the protectionist North won- the Confederacy was pro-free trade and anti-tariff, In fact the CSA was very dependent on foreign trade and even had a anti-tariff Amendment in their Constitution. Did I mention that the CSA was VERY dependent on slave labor?

    the Great Depression,

    =Protectionism didn’t cause it. It was a factor of various problems, that included bad supply & demand and paying off WW1 debts. Add to that, the Dust Bowl.

    and the welfare state.

    =Today’s wefare state includes open borders and dependacy on globalization and job outsourcing.

  19. Cody Quirk Says:

    Ron Paul would probably have a better chance of being drafted as their nominee than a pro-war “conservative” like Tancredo or Keyes.

    =Correct!

  20. jr Says:

    “Ron Paul would probably have a better chance of being drafted as their nominee than a pro-war “conservative” like Tancredo or Keyes.”

    Ron Paul would be aa better fit. But those darn sore looser laws. It won’t happen.

  21. Trent Hill Says:

    Loser laws only apply in a handful of states. And could be challenged in court.

    In Paul’s case—the most Important is Texas.

  22. G.E. Smith Says:

    Protectionism is responsible for the welfare state, Cody. As you admit, protectionism is responsible for the Civil War—I guess your cause was worth all of that death and destruction, huh? Your cause was worth and requires federal centralization and the suspension of individual liberties, as shown in 1860. Of course, the muscle for your cause can only be provided by a government fiat currency. It was the re-conversion to gold from the “greenback” in the post-War era that led to the Populist revolt, a direct effect of which was the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century that has given us the welfare state that you claim to despise, and yet, what are tariffs but a tax on consumers, as Ron Paul himself says.

  23. Cody Quirk Says:

    Protectionism is responsible for the welfare state, Cody.

    =No, WW1 and poor banking was.

    As you admit, protectionism is responsible for the Civil War

    =It was only a small factor, there were too many cultural and economic differences between the North and South that the South wanted to break off. They lost.

    It was the re-conversion to gold from the “greenback” in the post-War era that led to the Populist revolt, a direct effect of which was the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century that has given us the welfare state that you claim to despise, and yet, what are tariffs but a tax on consumers, as Ron Paul himself says.

    =No GE, FDR gave us the welfare state, not the Progressives- without them, there’d be no safeguards- do you want to go back eating food with rat droppings in it? Do you want a bigger business take over your company a the snap of a finger and kick you out? The ‘welfare state’ didn’t happen until the 30’s. In fact getting rid of tariffs and quotas on immigration seemed to make it worse, and even with Libertarian globalization going on in the world, it only seems to add to that welfare state.

  24. G.E. Smith Says:

    Cody - You are a welfare statist. Government has no business inspecting rat droppings in food. The market can handle that. Government has no business regulating mergers and acquisitions—that is Communist thinking, well beyond welfare statism, in fact.

    Tariffs are taxes on consumers for the benefit of industrialists and, to a much lesser extent, their workers. They are a welfare redistribution program. And as for your assertion that this was not the true cause of the Civil War, you are simply wrong. The South, rightfully, did not want to be armed at gunpoint by the North via your beloved tariffs, so it seceded. The North, in an effort to suck the South’s wealth, went to war with it. It is also illustrative that the North did this in the name of white supremacy, just as admitted protectionists such as yourself do it in the name of some racial/national entitlement of native-born Americans. This is Know-Nothingism, another forerunner to the GOP.

    The welfare state requires an energized, activist government. FDR did not come out of nowhere. In fact, your history is once again incorrect, because FDR only expounded on the programs set in place by the grand protectionist and poverty monger, Herbert Hoover. But regardless, neither Hoover nor FDR came out of nowhere. Their roots can be found in your heroes—the original big-government statists like Lincoln, TR, Wilson, etc.

    You have some truly Communist leanings, Cody.

    “Do you want a bigger business take over your company a the snap of a finger and kick you out?”

    What does this mean? How can a company take mine over with the snap of a finger? They have to do it at a mutually agreed upon price. I cannot be forced to sell my company. It can only be taken over with my consent.

    Or do you mean “my” company is the company for which I work? i.e. rank socialism, where the workers control the means of production?

    Or worse yet, do you mean my company is “taken over” as in defeated in the marketplace? Do you bemoan the fact that “my company” was defeated on the basis of giving better service in one form or another to customers, and think the government should prevent capitalistic progress that serves the market’s desires?

    Your philosophical underpinnings are very weak, Mr. Quirk.

  25. G.E. Smith Says:

    More directly: Protectionism > Lincoln > Civil War > Greenbacks > Inflation > Angry bankers > Reinstitution of gold standard > Deflation > Farms being foreclosed by bankers > Populist movement > William Jennings Bryant overtaking the Gold Democrat wing and Grover Cleveland > Progressive Movement > Wilson > The Fed and the income tax > the welfare state.

    Where am I wrong?

  26. G.E. Smith Says:

    Not to mention I could throw in an even more direct: Protectionism > Great Depression > The New Deal

  27. Vote for Al Goldstein Says:

    Oy vey. You people scare me. Like a fire hydrant on mescaline.

  28. Tom Bryant Says:

    An all-American workforce can be achieved by granting every immigrant citizenship.

    Problem solved.

  29. Cody Quirk Says:

    Cody - You are a welfare statist. Government has no business inspecting rat droppings in food. The market can handle that. Government has no business regulating mergers and acquisitions—that is Communist thinking, well beyond welfare statism, in fact.

    =Hey, you support the right of a bigger business to take over your company and throw you out on the street without any rules or restrictions, it’s your funeral.

    Tariffs are taxes on consumers for the benefit of industrialists and, to a much lesser extent, their workers. They are a welfare redistribution program.

    =I believe Tariffs usually go to the federal government. It can go to welfare or funding the military or whatever.

    And as for your assertion that this was not the true cause of the Civil War, you are simply wrong. The South, rightfully, did not want to be armed at gunpoint by the North via your beloved tariffs, so it seceded.

    =And it lost! Plus they wanted to still keep slavery legal.

    The North, in an effort to suck the South’s wealth, went to war with it. It is also illustrative that the North did this in the name of white supremacy,

    =At first. They mainly wanted to stay a single nation and fulfill the manifest destiny.

    just as admitted protectionists such as yourself do it in the name of some racial/national entitlement of native-born Americans.

    =I’m LDS, I believe that was wrong for the government to do, the fed. government should’ve taken Brigham Young’s approach to feed and clothe the natives instead of fighting them.

    This is Know-Nothingism, another forerunner to the GOP.

    =I could give a damn about race, we need to protect our borders and our economy from any country or any race- even it it’s from Sweden.

    The welfare state requires an energized, activist government. FDR did not come out of nowhere. In fact, your history is once again incorrect, because FDR only expounded on the programs set in place by the grand protectionist and poverty monger, Herbert Hoover. But regardless, neither Hoover nor FDR came out of nowhere. Their roots can be found in your heroes—the original big-government statists like Lincoln, TR, Wilson, etc.

    =Basically they couldn’t leave a good thing alone.

    You have some truly Communist leanings, Cody.

    =I’m not the one whole’s a former Communist, err, I mean GP’er.

    What does this mean? How can a company take mine over with the snap of a finger? They have to do it at a mutually agreed upon price. I cannot be forced to sell my company. It can only be taken over with my consent.

    =In your world, businesses will have no restrictions, so there’s no guarentee your own business will stay safe or legally protected for long.

    Or do you mean “my” company is the company for which I work? i.e. rank socialism, where the workers control the means of production?

    =So you admit your company has a socialist structure to it? How hypocritical.

    Or worse yet, do you mean my company is “taken over” as in defeated in the marketplace? Do you bemoan the fact that “my company” was defeated on the basis of giving better service in one form or another to customers, and think the government should prevent capitalistic progress that serves the market’s desires?

    =So you don’t understand what I’m asking. I do it like this- in your world, a business like ‘Globaltech’ can come to you and stay “We want to aquire your business and make it part of Globaltech”, you tell them ‘no’, but they tell you “then we’ll force your business to merge with us anyway”, even if you try to stop them, they’ll probably bring in some pinkertons to beat you up and force your legal representative (if you have one) to alter some legal documents for your business and then it becomes a local ‘Globaltech’ company. If you don’t think business shouldn’t have any rules or restrictions, then you’ll be the one hurting in the end and there’s nothing you can do since the big businesses like Globaltech can legally buy off the courts and has the best lawyers protecting them.

    That’s why I don’t support fascism.

  30. G.E. Smith Says:

    Cody - You’re an idiot. No one can “force” a company into a merger. You don’t know how business works. You are a welfare statist through and through, and a typical byproduct of the socialist education system.

  31. Cody Quirk Says:

    You’re an idiot. No one can “force” a company into a merger.

    =In a world with no economic regulations, like your dream-world, it can happen. And it can bite you in the ass.

Leave a Reply