Tancredo Looking At Independent Bid For Governor

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

The Rothenberg Political Report is reporting that Tom Tancredo is interviewing potential running mates in preparation for an independent bid for Governor.

According to the article, Tancredo confirmed that he is looking at an independent bid and will have a formal announcement of his plans within the next couple of days.  Petitioning on the ballot is out of the question at this point as the deadlines have passed, so Tancredo is apparently trying to convince one of the other third parties to dump their candidates and let him take up their mantle.

Here is a link to the story:

http://rothenbergpoliticalrepo…

0 Shares

185 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Diogenesdemar says:

    – Ron Zappolo? — Got that pre-scandal McInnis look.

    – Ted Haggard? — Because even a long, ugly story needs a happy ending.

    – Doug Bruce?  —  Because that long, ugly story seems to still have some chapters to be written.

    – Jon Caldera? — Crazy is as crazy does.

    – Scott McInnis? — looks to be available soon.

    – Bill Owens? — the kids should be off to kindergarten/1st grade soon.

  2. Diogenesdemar says:

    from the same Rothenberg Political Report article:

    As for Tancredo, he says that scenario wouldn’t be his fault.

    “I’m not doing it to the party, the party is doing it to itself,” Tancredo said.

  3. Dan WillisDan Willis says:

    The only way he could do this is if one of the 4 minor parties (Libertarian, Green, American Constitution, or Unity) has party rules that allow them to run a candidate who has not been affiliated with their party for very long.

    CRS 1-4-1304 sets the date at 1 year prior to the nomination, but does allow minor parties to set their own window, so the 1 year is a default if party rules are silent.

    If he is shopping for a Lt.Gov., perhaps he has found a party whose rules suit him.

  4. COSDem says:

    I posted a similar diary not seeing this. I apologize.  

  5. bjwilson83 says:

    Leave it to Tom to throw a wrench in the works. Although I must say, he might have a chance at actually pulling it off.

    • Arvadonian says:

      this is the best thing that could happen to Bennet/Romanoff, Kennedy, Garnett, Buescher.  Tancredo in the mix will drive up latino participation in the fall elections.

      As far as the Governor’s race, if Tancredo couldn’t win a Republican Primary, which is why he didn’t run in the first place, what makes him think he can win a general?  He can’t and he won’t.

      • bjwilson83 says:

        Legal immigrants don’t like illegal immigrants taking their jobs. Tancredo might be able to win just based on the relative quality of the other candidates.

        • AristotleAristotle says:

          See, it helps your arguments if you can show them. That’s why we ask for links. It’s not that we don’t trust you (although we don’t), it’s that it’s good to be able to see the source. After all, we ought to be allowed to see if there were issues with how the poll was conducted.

          • bjwilson83 says:

            In today’s news, check this out:

            http://www.politico.com/news/s

            Hispanics are defending the bill. Those who came here legally.

            • AristotleAristotle says:

              … are also Republicans.

              Just going off the top of my head, a majority of Hispanic voters are registered Democrats, or vote Democratic most of the time. Pardon me if I don’t take the actions of a specifically Republican Hispanic group as indicative of how Hispanics in Arizona generally feel about that law.

              Also, did you read this bit from your link?

              A recent LatinoMetrics poll shows that eight in 10 Latinos disapprove of SB 1070. Of those surveyed, 20 percent said they would be less likely to report a major crime such as assault if a similar law is passed in their state. The number climbs up to 30 percent for minor crimes such as theft. Perhaps more telling is that since 2009, immigration has jumped into the top four issues of personal concern among Latinos, tied with jobs and the economy.

              BTW, what does your little remark mean? Are you aware that many Hispanics are born here? I’m sensing racial insensitivity in your posts.

              • bjwilson83 says:

                Hispanics don’t count if they’re Republicans? Typical plantation Dem. Talk about racism.

                • AristotleAristotle says:

                  You’re alleging that 60% of Hispanics – obviously meaning ALL Hispanics – support this bill, then you produce a link that a) only comes up with a Republican Hispanic group that does, and b) actually says that even more Hispanics than 60% OPPOSE it.

                  “Hispanics don’t count if they’re Republicans?” Let me respond by asking if you think the Log Cabin Republicans represent all gays and lesbians, or at least are more representative than groups like PFLAG?

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  “60% of Latinos support the AZ bill,” and when called on what was obviously a false statement, you linked to a poll of Republican Latinos. News flash: Republican Latinos are not all Latinos, or even a majority of all Latinos, and certainly not an unbiased sampling of Latinos. Then you defend this ridiculous association of a biased sample with a claim about the overall population by claiming that any criticism of it is an exclusion of Republican Latinos from consideration. Here’s how it works: Inclusion of Republicans in an unbiased sample of the Latino population would involve inclusion of non-Republicans as well. It’s not that hard a concept (a phrase that seems to be required rather frequently in discourse with you).

                  By your “logic,” it would have been legitimate to say that “all Latinos support AZ bill,” and then link to a poll of Latinos Who Support the AZ Bill (which would poll at 100% support by definition) as proof of your statement.

                  Among the seemingly limitless range of concepts that you seem unable to grasp, we now have “biased polling data” to add to the list.

                  • bjwilson83 says:

                    and just call you racist. If it worked for the Journolist, it can work for me.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      … you were just accusing people of not taking on your posts, and now you’re doing it.

                      Did I hurt your feelings?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      How can you guys defend the Journolist. For the last two years we have been screaming about left wing media bias and you guys vilified us. Now that it comes out that there was indeed a coordinated media plot to elect Obama, it’s no big deal? I don’t think so; I’m not going to let this one slide.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      so I have never defended it.

                      You sometimes proclaim “you can’t answer me!” (which, in my case, is never true), but you sure change the subject when we post arguments that YOU can’t answer.

                      All will be forgiven if you admit that you pulled the “60% of Latinos support the AZ immigration law” figure out of your ass. Let’s see if you have the personal honor required to make such an admission.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      it’s never true in anyone’s case. Every crumb of overly-generous credit or benefit-of-the-doubt that Beej receives feeds his omniverous little ego, a bizarre creature completely devoid of substance or justification, and yet as bloated as a blowfish on steroids.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Get help for your Turrets.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      and not just left wing outlets – of course they don’t want anybody to know about it. It’s on Politico though. The 60% figure is a widely quoted figure pulled from Rasmussen. I admit it was actually those left over after whites and blacks, but most of those are definitely Latino in AZ.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      then it should be no trouble finding that link.

                      Til then, spare me. I ONLY read mainstream news sources, and even Fox News doesn’t have this anywhere.

                      (News sources =/= blogs, BTW)

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      you’ve linked to two polls as evidence, that absolutely did not say what you are claiming they said.

                      No one had any doubt about the inaccuracy of your claim from the moment you made it, and no one has any doubt now. What distinguishes you, aside from your routinely disproven insistence that you’re particularly bright, is your complete lack of any factual or rational foundation for any claim you ever make.

                      But you do make such a sweet little inflatable clown, bobbing back up with the same stupid grin every time, only to get knocked down yet again….

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      get called out on it, and then, rather than owe up to it, arbitrarily accuse those who called you out of some unrelated evil for having done so? Got it.

                  • bjwilson83 says:

                    I was thinking of this poll.

                    http://www.greeleytribune.com/

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      “61% of Coloradans Want Arizona Law”? Being a sporting kind of guy, I’ll let you figure out what’s wrong with your latest shift-and-shuffle attempt to pawn this off as support for your claim that “60% of Latinos support the Arizona law”. Hint: notice the difference in the two words I’ve italicized in bold print.

                      Beej. I have to ask again: Are you trying to be as big an idiot as possible, or does it just come naturally? Because, really, you’re in a class all your own….

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      I never said it wasn’t in Colorado, so don’t claim that I’m shifting my argument. It doesn’t make a difference in my larger point: legal Hispanics support this bill.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      You make a typically arbitrary (and transparently false) claim, back it up with first one poll, then another, neither of which support your claim (one refered to a sampling of Republican Latinos, the other to Coloradans of all ethnicities), and then, when called on it both times, you return to reliance on the original arbitrary and unsupported claim. No sweat, Beejie; it’s just another tennis match with an earthworm.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      The first one wasn’t a poll backing up anything. It was merely an article showing more evidence that Latinos support the bill.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      that one particular group of Republican hispanics (not even Republican hispanics as a whole) were the only hispanic group of any kind anywhere in the country to voice support for the Arizona law, don’t you?

                      That’s evidence that Latinos support the bill in the same way that people with six fingers on each hand are proof that everyone really has six fingers on each hand. (Hint: It helps to learn how to distinguish the exception from the rule. Phrases like “first (and therefore only)hispanic group in the nation” offer a bit of a clue).

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      think Hispanics don’t count when they’re Republican. Racists.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Liberals are inclusive, and Republicans are exclusive.

                      Obviously, if you refer to “Latinos” without qualification, you are referring to Latinos of all ideologies, including both Republicans and Democrats, because in our world, everyone counts. You seem to think that if a Republican refers to what “Latinos” think, a link to what only Republican Latinos think is sufficient, because in your world, all others (of all kinds) are excluded. That’s the definition of racism. (As I’ve written in other posts, this penchant for excluding and villifying “others,” along various dimensions and various contexts, is the defining characteristic of the far right).

                      Of course, even among Republicans, few have difficulty understanding that what one (and only one) group of Republican Latinos believes can’t be used as evidence of what all Latinos believe. If you want to keep proving that you are so stupid that you can’t grasp even that simple concept, that’s fine with me.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      (i.e. opposition to the bill) can’t be used as evidence of what all Latinos believe. Thanks for making my point for me.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      Read your own fucking link. Jesus…

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      the others really are right; there’s absolutely no way to reason with this clown, and no point in our continuing to try. I honestly can’t remember encountering anyone this far removed from reality, including the several clinically schozophrenic individuals I’ve known! He’s an absolutely phenomenal sample of pure, impenetrable ignorance.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      It’s like explaining sines and cosines to someone who’s still trying to grasp the concept of prime numbers. There’s some education there, but nowhere near enough to understand anything beyond a 6th grade level of comprehension.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Riiiiight.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      Not anything that would require you to demonstrate your ability to understand or intelligently discuss politics. Even a non-accredited community college in a third world country would admit you if that were your pursuit.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      in math and letters, and graduated magna cum laude with an honors degree in both. So deal with it.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      a thing about politics, or indeed anything about the real world.

                      I’ve no doubt you worked hard in your chosen fields. But it’s no qualification to even know why you believe in the things you do, let alone try to debate them here. It’s why you’re a failure in this forum. You don’t know what basic terms like “liberty,” “ad hominem,” or “legal” mean because you never studied them. You only parrot what you hear on right wing radio and TV.

                      Stick to math. Leave the political discussions to people who get it.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      that is self-evident to all. What do you think “ad hominem” means, oh wise one? And legal is by definition not breaking the law, dummy.  

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      It also implicates all three branches of government, which are delegated the tasks of legislating, executing, and interpreting the law.

                      It is at the root of the word “legislate,” which refers to the drafting and enactment of laws. Prior to breaking or not breaking laws, is creating and refining them.

                      That process continues in the executive branch, where enacted laws are administered, in a process which itself generates another layer of law: Regulatory law.

                      And when disputes or accusations arise, and cases in controversy come before the courts, the law is interpreted, again generating yet another layer of law, called “case law” or “common law.”

                      What “legal” really means to people who understand the term is all of this at once, and all of the nuances and subtleties embedded within it. It means understanding the canons of legislative interpretation, and the jurisprudence generated within the various legal fields. It means knowing the rules of evidence, and the rules of civil procedure, and the constitutional jurisprudence which defines criminal procedure. It means understanding administrative law, and how it functions, and under what circumstances it is subject to judicial review.

                      It means understanding the difference between bright line rules and balancing tests, knowing how factor tests are used in a variety of circumstances, understanding the role of both precedence and of distinguishing cases. It means knowing about standards of review, and burdens of proof. It means knowing how much can hinge on the presence or absence of a comma.

                      What “legal” emphatically does not mean to people who actually know what they’re talking about is that there is some set of clear, unambiguous, and unmalleable rules by which we live, and that all there is to it is to make sure that everyone lives by them.

                      (“Libery” is also a far more subtle and interesting concept than you seem to understand as well, but I’ll save the prime rib for someone other than the coprophagic monkey, as Diogenes puts it.)

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      legislate from the bench. The problem with this is the inherent subjectivity it introduces. Follow the law as written, dang it!

                      “What “legal” emphatically does not mean to people who actually know what they’re talking about is that there is some set of clear, unambiguous, and unmalleable rules by which we live, and that all there is to it is to make sure that everyone lives by them.”

                      Wow. I suppose we should just let everybody out of jail, no matter how bad the crime, because they just live by their own “different rules”. No wonder you guys support illegal immigration. I hope you’re not a lawyer.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      are platitudes in which it’s possible to plug whatever definition you see fit. Personally, I’ll stick with the Bill of Rights. If you can show me how any of those liberties are impinged upon by the bailout, I’m all eyes. (And, just to make it easier, tell me how nationalizing industry, which is a much more radical step no Democrat has even entertained, let alone proposed or implemented, impinges any of those freedoms.)

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      is diametrically opposed to freedom and liberty. The more the government tells you what to do, the less freedom you have. How is this not obvious?

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      … they have this in other free countries, like those of the European Union.

                      Remember – state controlled industry doesn’t equal oppression. Being arrested without habeas corpus, on the other hand, is.

                      Now, if you can point out where the Bill of Rights guarantees that industry be allowed to do as it wishes, then you’ll have a point. Until then, you got a whole lot of nuthin’.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Powers not explicitly granted to the federal gov’t are reserved to the state or the people.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      The Tenth Amendment reads:

                      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

                      Unfortunately, the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) also says this:

                      “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”

                      And (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18):

                      “The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

                      Here’s some light reading about that.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C

                      Enjoy!

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      not a lawyer. So pardon me if I don’t accept that statement at face value.

                      Nonetheless, liberals are all good capitalists and don’t propose such a thing. But it’s neither unconstitutional nor oppressive if it were to happen.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Are you a capitalist?

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      It doesn’t make a difference in my larger point: legal Hispanics support this bill.

                      Yes it does. It makes a HUMONGOUS difference. Because I can arbitrarily say “gays support DOMA” because there probably ARE a handful of gays who support marriage inequality. 60 years ago, it was possible to find a few blacks who supported Jim Crow laws, too. Do you think therefore that the sentence “Blacks support Jim Crow” is accurate and truthful?

                      When you say “legal Hispanics support this bill,” you’re lying in two ways. One, you’ve found a minority of Hispanics support this bill and by dropping off the fact that they’re a minority, you make it sound like a lot more, maybe even a majority of Hispanics support this bill. That’s false.

                      Second, your phrase “legal Hispanics” is offensive because, by saying “legal,” you’re saying all Hispanics are immigrants, either legal or illegal. But most Hispanics are Americans by birth – not immigrants. Yet you cast aspersions on their citizenship, as though by being born Hispanic they might not be American. Try using the term “legal Hispanics” to a crowd of Hispanics and see how they like it.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Legal Hispanics include those who have immigrated here legally and those who are American citizens by birth. A large portion of Hispanics are indeed born in Mexico, and hence not American. Those who illegally sneak across the border are the illegal Hispanics.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      you still think the ones born here want to see themselves described as “legal?” Please, do so. Do your part to ensure that Hispanics stay overwhelmingly Democratic. You’re doing a fantastic job.

                      Still can’t admit that you pulled that other quote out of your ass? I noticed you didn’t answer those direct challenges. Pathetic.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Why wouldn’t they?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Michelle Obama was never proud of her country, and neither are Dems. If you don’t like America why don’t you go live in your beloved Mexico, with it’s stellar record on crime, drugs, and gangs?

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      We believe in liberty and freedom for ALL.

                      This country, I love it too

                      I think I love it more than you

                      I care enough to fight

                      The stars and stripes of corruption


                      – DK’s

                      You don’t care about that at all, or about anyone who is different than you. That’s why all Hispanics are classified as legal or illegal in your mind; they’re all DIFFERENT from you, so they aren’t entitled to being regarded as fully American.

                      And teabaggers wonder why they’re regarded as racist.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      “Liberty and freedom for ALL”. This is the most oppressive government ever elected. They’ve nationalized half of our industry already, beat up businesses and shaken them down for money, and enslaved generations of future Americans through irresponsible spending.

                      I care about corruption a good deal, which is why I fight it in the Republican Party. I care about people who come here LEGALLY not having their identities stolen and their jobs taken by criminals who sneak across the border illegally. Every person is classified as legal or illegal depending on whether or not they are breaking the laws about living here. As I have proved many times over, liberals are the true racists. Why is the line up at NBC all white? As we have seen from the Journolist, calling the Tea Party racist is a plot orchestrated to deflect people from scrutinizing the real racists.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      none of those actions are an example of “oppression” or “loss of freedom.”

                      No wonder teabaggers are all out to lunch. You don’t even know what freedom is.

                      Why weren’t you protesting Bush’s irresponsible spending?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Well that’s your problem right there. You’ve been lulled to sleep by your captors. Apparently, freedom is “government cheese” to you. You have not lived my friend.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      “Legal Hispanics include those who have immigrated here legally and those who are American citizens by birth”

                      “Hispanics” are never either legal or illegal, and that is part of what Ari was referring to about the offensive nature of your terminology. There is never anything wrong with being an Hispanic. Immigration law refers to the legal status of presence in the United States, regardless of ethnicity. When referring to one’s immigration status, applying the adjectives “legal” or “illegal” to the individual’s ethnicity betrays a racial prejudice, since you are associating ethnicity with immigration status when no such association is inherently accurate or particularly relevant.

                      “A large portion of Hispanics are indeed born in Mexico, and hence not American”

                      You apparently don’t understand the concept of naturalization.

                      “Those who illegally sneak across the border are the illegal Hispanics.”

                      As stated above, “those who sneak across the border” are commonly referred to as “illegal immigrants” (technically, they’re not immigrants, because the word “immigrant” has become a legal term of art that refers to those who are entering the country legally on a citizenship-track. The legal term of art is undocumented migrants). Referring to them as “illegal hispanics” demonstrates the racist bias that all of your comments demonstrate.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Same goes for any other race.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Adjectives modify the noun they are attached to. If you use the adjective “illegal” to modify the noun “Hispanic,” than you are implying that it is the act of being Hispanic that is illegal. I understand that, in a sense, it’s just an expression of your complete incompetence with any systematic form of thought or expression, including English grammar. But it is also a subtle expression of your bigotry, that you fail to differentiate between “illegal immigrant” (anyone who has crossed the border illegally) and “illegal Hispanic” (literally, someone who has committed the crime of being Hispanic).

                      Race is irrelevant, as people who aren’t racist realize.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Race is irrelevant to whether someone is an illegal immigrant or not, despite the fact that it is relevant, as a function of geography, to the racial distributions of those “guilty” of it, and is relevant, for a variety of historical and cultural reasons, in a variety of contexts (such as which American citizens are most likely to have their civil rights violated as a result of the AZ law).

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      should be illegal Americans. If you’re so smart, how do you explain this? When I’m out walking precincts, an American flag is virtually synonymous with a Republican. Does not a single Democrat fly a flag from their house? I suppose Michelle Obama was never proud of her country, maybe no Dems are.

                      And apparently, calling someone a racist has the same effect on someone on the left as it does on those in the Tea Party. Racist.  

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      And in what way can flying the flag be a measure of that? (You’re a math major – I KNOW you can do it!)

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      there is almost a one to one correspondence between “Republicans” and “people flying the American flag on their house”. Doesn’t that strike you as slightly odd? What is your explanation for this mathematical relationship?

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      What statistics are you referencing? Anecdotes don’t prove anything.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      anecdotal evidence generated by oneself is a “mathematical relationship” raises serious concerns about that individual’s competence to be teaching college math classes.

                      Furthermore, he has, on a political blog, managed to demonstrate an inability to understand that non-intersecting sets (money earned only by one’s own labor, and money earned by means other than one’s own labor) do not intersect, that the elements of one set (all Coloradans) are not identical to (or representative of) the elements of another (all Latinos) that both includes elements exterior to and excludes elements interior to the first set, and that a single overtly biased sample (one isolated group of Hispanic Republicans) is not representative of a more inclusive broader population (all Hispanics).

                      The feat of a college math TA managing to demonstrate repeated profound mathematical incompetence on a political blog must merit some kind of special recognition.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Stop trying to pretend you know anything about math. To any real mathematician, you sound pretty silly.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Ok, why is this the case in Fort Collins? Happy now?

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      I ask for statistics, you respond with the same anecdote. Typical.

                      You have nothing. Case closed.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Virtually all houses show this pattern. It is not just one anecdote.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      Look up the definitions of ANECDOTE (specifically “anecdotal evidence” and “statistics.”

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      I’ll tell you this, I’ve visited enough houses for a good statistical sample.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      As long as you’re going “yadda yadda yadda, Fort Collins, yadda yadda yadda, flags” it’s an anecdote and not a statistic.

                      Just don’t make shit up.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      I have been to hundreds of houses and all the Republicans have flags up; nobody else does. If you were out there walking you would know it is a fact. Ever knocked on Democrat doors before?

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      Head-up-his-ass basket case kid (that’s you) sees what he wants to see and calls it “statistical” proof of… something. You can’t say what – vague words about “supporting the USA” but not really saying how flag flying shows that.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      does not equal supporting the U.S.? What did I miss? I guess all those people just think it looks pretty.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      You’re the one using vaguely defined phrases. When I fly my flag, I’m showing that I love my country, but I don’t think that’s the same as “supporting” it. A country can’t be “supported.” An administration’s policies can, but I certainly wouldn’t misinterpret flag flying as a symbol of that.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Only Republicans love their country.

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      Supporting an administration (Bush’s, duh) that stripped citizens of their rights, installing activist judges to make sure that those unconstitutional laws aren’t found to be that, ruining the economy – your side has a lot to answer for.

                      I guess it’s the way a wifebeater shows his “love.” Thanks, Republicans! You’ve done a swell job.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Now that’s just silly. /sarcasm

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      n/t

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      still waiting for your “statistics.” And supporting links, of course.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      there’s BJ blowing it.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Hey Steve, are you a capitalist? And do you fly a flag from your house? If not, would you be opposed to doing so? Why or why not?

                      Given your academic bent, you should be able to answer this essay without resorting to insults, ad hominems, or cuss words.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      You’re irrelevant. Your questions are irrelevant. Your preferences are irrelevant. If I started to ignore you completely, I would earn nothing but praise from everyone but you (assuming that you have something other than praise for me for choosing not to dance to your tune). Whenver I choose not to ignore you, I do so on my terms, not yours. That’s the nature of complete and utter contempt.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Whenever you can’t debate my logic, dodge the question. Typical Steve.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Being a good American means respecting both the spirit and letter of the U.S. Constitution, and expecially the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment of which guarantees free speech, political speech most of all (as fleshed out by later jurisprudence). There is nothing more American than stating sincerely held and carefully considered criticisms about our country’s policies or actions at any given time, and nothing less American than condemning your ideological enemies as “un-American” for expressing their patriotism in precisely this way.

                      Waving a flag doesn’t make you a good American, or a bad one. But relying on jingoistic attacks does make you a poor citizen, because good citizenship requires reliance on mutual tolerance, reason, and cooperation in service to the public interest.

                      As for calling someone a racist, I don’t know what effect you’re referring to, because when you call me a racist it is exactly as arbitrary and meaningless as everything else you post here. You might want to recall that you were the first person to use the word, the first to direct it at anyone here, and are now the first to complain about its use. But I have confidence that you’ll come up with something even more absurd before long.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      The MSM has been calling the Tea Party racist for months now. You are racist because you don’t accept minorities unless they are Democrats.

          • bjwilson83 says:

            I was thinking of this poll:

            http://www.greeleytribune.com/

        • Steve Harvey says:

          de lo que piensan los hispanos. Yo estoy casado con una hispana, he trabajado con los hispanos de este estado, he vivido en Mexico, y yo se que la ley de Arizona no es popular con los hispanos de este pais. De los docenas de hispanos que yo conosco personalmente, ni uno esta de acuerdo con esa ley. Si hay una incuesta que dice el contrario, estoy casi seguro que la incuesta es un fraude.

          • bjwilson83 says:

            Might not be such a bad idea.

            • Steve Harvey says:

              and your post was a reply to one written by me in Spanish, one can only assume that you are implying that mere knowledge of other languages is un-American. Congratulations on your continued commitment to enlightened points of view.

              • bjwilson83 says:

                What is un-American is expecting everybody else to know Spanish here just because you’re too lazy to take the time to learn a few simple words and phrases to get around. When I went to Russia for two months I learned enough Russian to buy food, etc. It’s not that hard.

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  Americans travel the world expecting everyone to speak to them in English when they’re abroad, and then come home expecting everyone who visits or arrives from other locales to speak to them in English here as well. People who come to live in the US almost all try to learn English, some faster than others. If you were really the “laissez-faire” advocate that you claim to be, you’d let the inherent incentives play their role, and then live and let live as people respond to them. Instead, you’re nothing more than an ideological hypocrit, an amalgam of inconsistent belligerences, held together only by chauvinism and ignorance (and, in your case, a healthy helping of self-delusion).

                  • bjwilson83 says:

                    You should probably check your assertions before you let fly with the Turrets. I am a conservative with libertarian leanings. The libertarian part is mostly due to Obama’s drastic increase in the size of government. One of the federal government’s few actual responsibilities is to deal with immigration. Inside the U.S., I’m all for free markets, but I certainly support the rule of law. Mexico has a shaky track record on this, especially near the border. They have rule of gangs and drug lords there.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Strange, though, that the subject was language acquisition of people residing in America (without any specification of their immigration or residency status), and not crime on the border. But, hey, as long as you keep tap-dancing, maybe you’ll remain the only one who doesn’t notice how full of shit you are.

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  when you reply to a post, the assumption that your reply relates directly to that post is called “an inference,” and is particularly warranted when the reply is on the same general topic as the post to which it is replying.

                  The funny thing is, I’m pretty sure of a few things:

                  1) You are not as oblivious as you pretend to be to the validity of the almost endless cascade of complete dismantlings of every “fact” you present and every “argument” you make;

                  2) Though you pretend otherwise, you know that virtually everyone who posts here (on both the right and the left) considers you an obnoxious moron, and I strongly suspect that there are few people anywhere (at least in the bloggosphere) who think otherwise;

                  3) You don’t enjoy the fact that everyone who posts here considers you an obnoxious moron; and

                  4) I suspect that even you can’t escape the occasional searing recognition of the fact that you’re an obnoxious moron. The degree of literal insanity required not to know it at this point strains credulity.

                  The question that remains is: Why on Earth do you keep doing what you’re doing, knowing that the only thing you achieve by doing it is your own utter humiliation?

        • GottaFindaBetterUserName says:

          You really need to start blogging over at Alice in Wonderland.com or my head is up my butt.net or something because you are soo far out there.

          I can’t wait until this political season is over and people like you (the ones that say crap just to throw a point out there) are done with this blog.

          I prefer to read the ones that actually make cogent arguments and even if they support a candidate I don’t, they give out good information and reasoned points.

        • MADCO says:

          You should encourage your candidates, and county party to adopt policy and planks or whatever is they do to do something exactly the same… except farther reaching.

          In fact, write it up as a diary then contact Buck for a comment.

          • Steve Harvey says:

            is that anyone able to get their head that far up their ass deserves some kind of recognition. Maybe the Self-Colonoscopy Award (SCA), or the Holy F***ing Sh*t Nobody Can Be That Dumb! Award (HFSNCBTDA). We’ve got a gold medalist on our hands here!

    • MADCO says:

      If you mean win the 2010 general election gov – no way.

      If you mean get his name ot he ballot. Sure.

      If you mean get frequent media coverage through the end of AUg or even OCt – sure.

  6. TCU2011 says:

    Tom says we have an opportunity to recapture what we had lost (the governor’s mansion) and so he thinks he will win as a third party?  No this is just all about him.  If he runs, he splits the vote.  The minute he announces he’s running somehow is the minute the moving van rolls up and Hick starts moving in.  Bad idea Tom especially if you care about the ideas you talk about.

    • Ralphie says:

      I thought he just hated brown people.

    • Barron X says:

      .

      I don’t happen to agree with that.  

      Dan or Scott on the GOP line is a guaranteed loss.  With or without a Tancredo candidacy.

      Without Tancredo on the ballot anywhere, about half of all ballots in the general will go unmarked for Guv.  The Republican half.  

      The only folks who will vote for either Maes or McInnis at this point are family and staff.  And BJ Wilson and Ellie.

      Scott was in the Springs yesterday.  http://www.gazette.com/article

      He was speaking to 6 people at one of 3 stops.   Apparently all 6 were campaign workers.  Some commenters suggested that only the paper and his campaign knew he was coming.  

      .

      • TCU2011 says:

        I believe that Republicans across the state will not vote for Hickenlooper in a general election.  He does not have a primary opponent but when the election comes and 527s become active across the state the dirt will come out and we will see a very close election.  

        With Maes on the line I agree it is a loss because no 527s are helping him and he can’t raise money on his own. He also can’t win moderate Republicans because he is so extreme let alone independents.

        With McInnis on the line against Hickenlooper there is a person with a bit of fundraising power that can also get larger organizations (527s and PACs) into the race to help out.  This will motivate the base again and also will bring in independents and moderates that are upset with the Democrat party and are looking for someone to bring a bit change that will work.  

        • Ralphie says:

          Maybe they’ll just stay home.

        • Automaticftp says:

          the 527s you mention will also be active against the GOP candidate, whoever it turns out to be.  And the Democratic 527s have a lot more ammunition than what people will find on Hickenlooper–if there were anything huge to find, someone would have found it by now.  

          The 527s are likely to cancel each other out (in effect) and to leave the race to the candidates.  And both potential GOP candidates have fatal flaws that are not shared by Hickenlooper.  

          I’d be more likely to agree with you if Gov. Ritter were running for re-election, but given the field as it now stands, I don’t think the 527s are going to have the impact you believe, and I think Hickenlooper wins by a comfortable but not overwhelming margin.

      • bjwilson83 says:

        I don’t know why people have jumped all over Maes. He hasn’t done anything bad except commit a minor clerical error.

  7. I’ve gotten to know Congressman Tancredo very well over the campaign trail and we’ve become friends

    Do I still disagree with many of his stances? Absolutely!

    But is he racist? No way

    After getting to know him, I really cannot find a racist fiber in Tancredo’s soul – he’s definitely passionate about what he believes in, but it is important to note that Tancredo’s tune has never changed since he got into office – thus proving that he’s rarely, if ever, said anything just for the ‘sake’ of getting elected

    Overall, Tancredo is consistent and he’s honest – while I disagree with many of my friend’s stances, it is important to recognize his qualities of consistency and honesty, no matter the political climate… it’s definitely the reason why he remains beloved amongst many Republicans

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      for his nativist, xenophobic views to be odious?  

      • Steve Harvey says:

        And Ali doesn’t understand the historical and logical connection between extreme nationalism and racism. The concept of “nation” originated as a concept of “micro-race,” identifying a supposedly racially and culturally homogenous “people,” and asserting that the boundaries of political states should coincide with the geographic locales of such (always fictionally) circumscribed “peoples”. Though the U.S. is a nation that has shed much (though not all) of the basing of nationalism in a mythology of racial homogeneity, its nationalist wing plays the same game of identifying “a people” in opposition to other “peoples”.

        To me, whether Tancredo is “racist” in the modern narrow sense of the word, he carries the same cognitive and emotional germ in another closely related form.

        I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The defining characteristic of the modern far-right is an in-group/out-group orientation, defining national, religious, cultural, and sexual “in-groups” (who “we” are), and striving mightily to fortify the intersection of those overlapping in-groups against the union (mathematically speaking) of all of those villified out-groups (all of the “theys” out there, and in here).

        It’s a small-minded, tribalistic, and belligerent attitude to the world, of the variety that future generations always end up looking back upon with utter contempt.

        • Arvadonian says:

          to The League of the South which advocates the secession of the southern states from the union, I would argue that he is not nationalistic at all.  

          • Steve Harvey says:

            and especially in its historical, racist form, that is just one more expression of his nationalism, rather than any refutation of it. Nationalism was born of the notion that the “nation” to which one belongs is not necessarily coterminous with the political “state” to which they belong (and with the agenda of making the two coterminous). Opposing the state in deference to your perceived nation is as nationalistic as it gets. Modern American patriotic loyalty to the nation-state (which, ironically, the members of that movement most accustomed to calling themselves “patriots” today are somewhat tenuously committed to) is a variation on the theme, rather than the theme itself. What you mean to say is that, given Tancredo’s link to The League of the South, he’s not a patriotic American. That’s something else altogether.

              • Steve Harvey says:

                I know it was tongue in cheek, but it’s actually an interest of mine: The interactions (both mutually reinforcing and mutually competing) across levels of organization and identification, from the individual to the global.

                Being an egomaniac isn’t completely incompatable with being a “nationalist”, but doesn’t increased loyalty to oneself syphon off some of the loyalty promised to some larger social entity? Sure. On the other hand, few are completely selfless, and few do not identify with some group that, at least, serves their self-interest, so it all falls along a continuum.

          • Steve Harvey says:

            was “stirving mightily to fortify the intersection of those overlapping in-groups against the union of all of those villified out-groups.” Tancredo, and those like him, do live in an inclusive America, but rather where all of the in-groups to which they belong converge: White, Christian, Heterosexual, Xenophobic, English-speaking, inegalitarian America. That’s his nation.

    • TCU2011 says:

      I agree with you completely.  He is not a racist but that being said I do not agree with all his positions.

      He is like you said honest and very passionate about his views and that is to be respected.

      I still believe that him running for Governor does not help out Colorado but hurts as it would split the Republican vote and let Hick walk into the Governor’s Mansion.

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        Who has good interpersonal skills so people who meet him come away impressed. Mostly…

      • EmeraldKnight76 says:

        but wasn’t there video circling the net not long ago of Tancredo speaking at a Tea Party event in which he states that Obama was elected because we no longer have a civics literacy test to vote. Now I’m not a student of history but I do know my civil rights fights. If Tancredo said this he either doesn’t understand the vile history of using literacy tests to keep blacks from being able to vote after civil rights legislation was passed or he does and has no problem returning to those days.

        So explain to me again how he isn’t a racist?

        • EmeraldKnight76 says:

          He uses a vile practice perpetrated against blacks to disparaged his favorite target: brown people. Here he is in his own fucking words:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

          Spin it however you want. He’s either completely unaware of the use of literacy tests in that past which makes him complete fucking stupid for bringing it up or he’s a complete racist. Or both.

    • Arvadonian says:

      speeches to The Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremicist organization; and League of the South, a neo-confederate organization?  We are judged by the company we keep, afterall.

      http://cofcc.org/

      http://www.splcenter.org/get-i

      http://dixienet.org/New%20Site

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.