Okay, it’s a given: Tom Tancredo (who has now officially thrown his hat in the ring for President) is pretty much the quintessential One Trick Pony. His gig is Illegal Immigration and Illegal Immigration only.
On Wednesday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Tom Tancredo and did his best to excoriate the man. I missed the interview but, courtesy of Hewitt’s blog, you can capture the entire interview here.
I only heard the aftermath, but I had never before been present for the literal negative crescendo of Hewitt’s callers expressing their displeasure. So many callers made their voices heard that Hewitt began to dismiss them simply out of hand. I’ve never before heard Hewitt, a massively well-spoken, credentialed and educated man, succumb to the Talk Radio Host Standard ‘Pass Them All Off As Moonbats’ ploy. But he actually stooped this low. I instantly transmigrated from grinned to chagrined.
First, the up-front insult:
HH: Well, you’re shortening the Hugh Hewitt Show, Tom, but nevertheless, I’ll get right to the chase. Is this a protest candidate or is this is a real campaign?
TT: No, sir, it is for real. I mean, once you make the decision to do this, to actually announce, you’ve got to do, you can do everything you can to win the race. And if you just simply say I’m running because of an issue, one issue, and I want to make a statement? Forget about it. I do want to do that, and it is certainly an issue that propels me. But no, you have to do it 100%.
Please bear with me, and continue reading the following:
HH: Congressman, tough question for you. We’re going to get an immigration bill this year.
TT: Yeah.
HH: It’s going to be…McCain-Kennedy is back, and I’m calling it, as radio talk show hosts are oft to do, it should be called the McCain-Kennedy-Tancredo bill, because I think your opposition last year to compromise made certain this year what is in essence rolling amnesty. In other words, you fought so hard against everything, that we’re now going to get stuck with Kennedy’s bill.
TT: Actually, I didn’t fight hard against everything, I fought hard for the passage of the House bill, and the House bill was a great bill. And it was an enforcement only bill. And it got a majority of Republican support. And of course, we couldn’t get the Senate to go along with it, but that’s exactly where we should go again, and we should fight just as hard against a McKennedy bill this time. And we should not, you know, the idea that we’re going to get rolled, and that we’re going to get this bill, I don’t agree with you. I think that frankly, we’ve got as much strength now in the House. I talked to the leadership in the House. They’re not happy with this, they’re not going to go along with it, and so the battle is enjoined. We will see what happens, but I don’t think it’s a given.
HH: If, in fact, I’m right, though, and that because the Republicans lost the House and lost the Senate, we get stuck with McKennedy again, as you call it, that’s going to be at your feet, isn’t it, Tom?
TT: Are you saying, do you believe, Hugh, honestly believe that we lost the House because we lost the Hispanic vote?
HH: No, I’m saying that we lost a majority because you scared so many people with anti-illegal immigration rhetoric into not compromising at a critical moment, that we lost all sorts of momentum, all sorts of credibility, we’re not getting the fence built, that you played to win. You tried to shoot the moon in Hearts terms, and we ended up with nothing, and we’re going to end up with Kennedy’s bill.
TT: So if you stand for principle, if you actually believe in what you’re saying, and you’re not willing to compromise on something of this nature, then of course you, in some way, have harmed the nation? Well, I’ll tell you, if that’s the case, then I do not for a moment, well, I don’t believe for a moment that that is the case. I think that if everybody in this Congress, and the past one would have stood on principle, then…and everybody in this Congress does so, and especially Republicans, we will be rewarded with a great win in the next election.
HH: I mean, that’s Goldwater rhetoric, and I appreciated Barry as much as anywhere.
TT: Well, I’m sorry. Am I supposed to be, apologize for Goldwater rhetoric? Too bad.
HH: Well, no, I mean, do you believe that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, right? I mean, not a bit of compromise, and thus, if prudence is out the window…
TT: No, not on this issue. It’s the country we’re talking about. It is the nation.
Hewitt is essentially blaming Tancredo for a watered down version of an immigration bill because Tom refused to compromise.
This is beneath Hewitt. And many of his listeners realized it. Myself included. And they subsequently took him to task — whereupon he blew them off collectively as airheads.
Then Dear Reader, I too must be a Moonbat.
Perhaps I should place myself into my own Moonbat of the Week category.
Yes, TT is the proverbial One Trick Pony. C’mon, that’s a given.
But we ignore Tom’s message to our entire National Detriment.
Consider, just Thursday on Paul Harvey’s nationally-syndicated “The Rest of the Story” show, he clearly stated that for every dollar paid in tax by illegal immigrants, they drain three dollars in various social services and benefits. A direct quote:
Homegrown Americans are moving out of the metropolitan areas of the United States. Homegrown Americans are moving out of Battle Creek, Michigan, and Ames, Iowa, and Corvallis, Oregon, and New York City. Americans want out. And yet, all of those places have a greater population than a year ago.
Because the Census Burea says immigrants are moving in, taking their places. Metro New York has added a million immigrants in five years. Atlanta added the most population in the last five years, then Dallas, Fort Worth, then Houston, Phoenix, Riverside, California — they continue to sprawl and congest and pollute because they added 36 million immigrants.
About a third of whom are illegal.
Recent immigration reforms, by the way, are in their favor. For every dollar they pay in taxes, they will collect three dollars in government benefits: Medicaid, food stamps, public housing.
I suggest you read that again:
For every dollar they pay in taxes, they will collect three dollars in government benefits, Medicaid, food stamps, public housing.
Tancredo is indeed a One Trick Pony. But I suspect his bet is to make all of us think about this topic:
That, if we are to survive as a nation, fiscally, collectively, proudly — illegal immigration simply cannot stand. And that does not even take into account the extreme Mexican Aztlan goal.
Racist, eh? As MEChA wrote: “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada (For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing).”
“Aztlan” is the group’s term for the vast southwestern U.S. expanse, from parts of Washington and Oregon down to California and Arizona and over to Texas, which MEChA claims to be a mythical homeland and seeks to reconquer for Mexico (reconquista).
Note to potential GOP candidates: this issue had BETTER be on your screens.
BZ Presidential Goals For 2008:
1. Protect this nation from external danger;
2. Protect this nation from internal danger.
Simple as that.
BZ
Although I like Tancredo’s stance on immigration reform I think Fred Thompsom is the one republican that can get the independant vote needed to take back the white house. God help us if Shit-lary or McRino get it.
WMD: I’m not an individual to vote for a proverbial One Trick Pony. My point was that EVERY candidate had best make this a MAJOR SELLING POINT in their candidacy. I posted about Fred coming into the race and I believe he will — in a month or two. In my opinion, anything later than that and he’ll lose the momentum he definitely needs. Also in my opinion, some of the other candidates on both sides jumped in too early and are already leaking steam.
BZ
I would welcome his input and his ideas, but in the end there are other issues, including the equally dangerous Jihad and PC dominated courts that also need to be dealt with.
Shoprat: indeed; one cannot afford in the American climate TO be a One Trick Pony.
BZ
Mr. Tancredo is a one-issue candidate and abrasive for that. He has the right idea, and should just be presenting the over-runs from Mexican Federal Police and Military, automatic weapons fire directed at US police from Mexico and just state each and every instance of armed conflict coming *from* Mexico and putting Americans in danger. DHS has a nice long list of hundreds of violations over the last few years along the entire border, and a number of towns can add to that. Tell folks you will *not* be intimidated by Mexican goons, thugs and narco-traffickers nor with any terrorist of any stripe around the globe. Hard to find the candidate today that will go after FARC after it tried to assassinate President Clinton during a state visit to Columbia in 2000. Apparently attempted assassination can get you goodies from Democrats. That is their hope, at any rate…
A one trick pony will not do it… but as emblamatic of a *theme* of an America willing to protect Herself and call enemies by Name and go after them? One doesn’t even need to scream and rabble-rouse, just state incidents and facts and say: These folks are out to kill Americans, will not stop, have given no sign of remorse and deserve what is coming to them.
That takes courage, spine, backbone and willingness to address enemies as enemies.
I gave the current SecDef room to move away from his Bakerlite past and he appears to have gotten a clue on that. Fred Thompson needs to do the same and address *why* Baker and the rest of the ISG are living in an unreal world divorced from how to deal with dictators and fanatics in power.
No candidate is willing to put forth concrete policies of any sort. I have questions for the entire field, and yet see few that are willing to address what America is about and *why*. I have had it with the concept of programs to address National Ills but then forgetting to tell us why this program will make things better and stronger, and not just hand out goodies from the Nation’s coffers.
We are, indeed,being eroded as a Nation inside and outside… the entire system of Nation States is. While one is born with inalienable rights, the only thing that has ever been invented to help *secure* those rights is the Nation State. Empires tell you what your rights *are* and change those to meet imperial need. That is what the Elite want to return to… I not only support my Nation but the entire concept *of* Nations to be Sovereign for their People. Some may be deplorable in their outlook, and so long as they keep it to themselves that is their problem. When they look to export it *here*, then they have a fight on their hands.
We can work with our friends and neighbors in this Global Village, and make sure those in the bad sections know they can get support if they start cleaning them up. It is when they send thugs, goons and terrorists to hurt others that they deserve a response. America is in the cross-hairs of this, and best we learn that or we will have no Nations left… including this one.
Until I hear a candidate lay out what their idea of Government *is* and *why* and what that means for the Nation, I remain hard to move by all of them. When I hear about ‘programs’ I hear someone not serious about addressing the true problems we have as a Nation, but one just looking to bribe people. If you can’t tell me what a program does that is good for the Nation and *why* that is good for the Nation and *why* the Federal Government needs to do it, then I, instead, see someone looking to take responsibilities, rights and money from We the People for their own cause. And diminish the Nation in that doing.
I, for one, have had enough of that.
I don’t like the I want it all right now attitude many have about immigration either. I want to do things one step at a time.
First close the border to unauthorized traffic. Then celebrate that victory before moving on to immigration reform. Immigration reform is far more tricky and closing the border would make many of the problems disappear before we would even need to deal with immigration.
This is not to say I agree with Hewitt and blame Tancredo for anything. Because I happen to think he is level headed. But the all or nothing attitude of the public is very trying.
BTW, I wish Tancredo would just stay on the Hill. His job there is more important than the Whitehouse right now.