September 01, 2010 10:28 PM UTC
Tom Tancredo Interview
65 Comments- by: DavidThi808
This was a surprising interview. I expected to mostly be discussing illegal immigration and why that was the key issue in the race. Instead I found Congressman Tancredo to be primarily concerned with the lack of integrity in Dan Maes and secondarily concerned with the state of our public schools. And yet, Tom’s instinct is to discuss illegal immigration to the exclusion of most everything else.
So I started off by asking him why he choose to enter the race. He started off by saying that he is a strong believer in working within the party and that he was very comfortable supporting first Josh Penry, and then Scott McInnis. Tom then discussed the last couple of months.
He first discussed Dan Maes saying that he found him an unacceptable candidate early on because in his initial discussions with Dan, Dan told him he supported immigration reform with amnesty and therefore he could not support him. He then discussed how over time he (and all of us actually) found that more and more of Dan’s background as he listed it was untrue. But this was also not a big deal at the time as he was not going to win.
Tom then discussed Scott McInnis and his concern that he was “not grounded in conservative governance.” I pointed out that the core issue was Scott could appeal to people like me and Tome replied “yes and we had to do something about that.” So Tom & Josh came up with the Contract for Colorado, Scott signed off on it, and life was good. Tom further listed how he worked hard to support Scott, how Scott had the money, the votes, etc.
He then discussed how, when the “allegations of plagiarism came out” it was impossible for Scott to win. And Dan was unacceptable. So that is what lead to Tom’s deciding to run. This is key to Tom’s purpose in the election now, that “Dan shouldn’t win.” I then asked what if the Republicans had a candidate that could not win, but who did not have questionable integrity and who was very conservative – what then. Tom replied that he would strongly support them. I then flipped it and said still had personal integrity, but they were a RINO. Tom in that case said he would “stay out of it,” but would vote for them.
My $0.02: The key point of this is Tom Tancredo’s primary goal in running is to be a spoiler. To split the vote and insure that Dan Maes does not win. And he is doing so because he believes that Dan Maes lacks the integrity to be governor. First off, this means Tom is not dropping out unless Dan does first. Second, it means Tom will hammer Dan on his personal integrity and that could not only put Tom ahead of Dan in the final vote, but could give Tom a shot at winning.
I next asked what would be the major item he would concentrate on as Governor. He first discussed how the big money is the federal money. And at the state, as well as the federal level, the discretionary funding was a very small part of the total and therefore you can’t effect much change there. Therefore he says real change requires structural change and “that will require going to the ballot, going to the people.” Tom brought up the specific cases of union contracts and PERA. And to address them will require going to the courts and to the ballot. He then discussed the mandates backed into the constitution such as Amendment 23.
He next brought up illegal immigration. Congressman Tancredo went on for a bit about the costs to the state, primarily in educating their children, and the reduction in available jobs for citizens. The main action he would take as Governor is to mandate eVerify by employers. And with those jobs opened up to citizens only, he believes the market will adjust to make the jobs of interest to citizens.
Skipping this part: There has been boatloads of interviews with Congressman Tancredo on this issue and even if the whole hour was devoted to this subject, nothing new would be learned. So go to those other interviews for his thoughts on this, and the counter arguments.
I then asked what else he would do. Tom said the next issue is that the state is not welcoming to business. He first discussed a poll of Oil & Gas executives that ranked Colorado the best place to do business in 2008 and then ranked us worst in 2010. He then said “something happened there.” He then talked about the recent legislation that has split the oil from the gas guys and he termed that “divide and conquer.”
He talked about making Colorado a place where “if you come here and do things the right way, if you play by the rules, We’re not going to give you any special exemptions, but on the other hand we’re not going to focus on you and pull you out and say this is not the kind of development we want in our state.” He then went on to say “it’s not I want a green economy, I want a thriving economy.”
He then brought up the example of Colorado Springs where they asked the major employers what are the problems they see in the city. And the businesses told them what concerned them, and they were mostly very mundane things. Tom would like to see the state do the same thing. He then discussed the permit processes that exist for so many businesses, and working to make that process as smooth and quick as possible. In all of this he never discussed removing or changing the rules, he discussed making them as easy and straightforward in practice as possible.
Tom then suggested offering cash bonuses to state employees who come up with ways to streamline the process in their departments.
My $0.02: This is a message the business community will find very compelling. The state of Colorado at present is very antagonistic toward business. And that impacts jobs because time spent trying to figure out what the state wants is time not spent growing a company.
Congressman Tancredo next brought up a superb idea. His question is “why is Indiana, a rust belt state, why are they better off than we are?” He wants to look at what the differences are that explain Indiana’s economy doing better, find out which are government related (he thinks it’s a lot) and address those items. He wants to figure out what we need to do to become attractive to business and industry.
One interesting point as Tom went through the problems we face attracting businesses, and that corporate headquarters have left Colorado, is that he did not take cheap political shots at Ritter and Hickenlooper. Instead he discussed how we have a problem and he wants to find out what the real causes are, and fix them.
I next asked who are the top 5 people he will bring in in his administration to help him accomplish all this. His reply was “I have absolutely no idea.” He then went on to say that he only got in to this race 3 weeks ago. He then followed on to say they will be conservatives and they will mostly be Republicans. He then did say that John Tipton is one of the first people he will ask to serve.
My next question was his view on 60, 61, & 101. Tom’s reply was that he fully supports them. His reply was “the first two came about because people were being taxed without their permission.” He discussed how the government kept working to use the word fees instead of the word tax to get around TABOR. And if 60, 61, & 101 pass, you can then put together a tax increase proposal and present it to the people in the ’11 election. And that it is an important lesson for the state to learn, that they need to ask first.
He does see the cuts they would force as being dramatic. But he does not see them as destroying civilization as we know it. He does think it will force the state to make some major decisions and to address core cost issues that have been avoided. It will force the state to address state salaries that have climbed much faster than inflation. He thinks the result will mostly be salary cuts. He also thinks that a lot of the decisions forced will be changes that will be better for the state long-term.
My $0.02: I think Tom is right that the state has done everything it can to dance around TABOR rather than bringing tax proposals to a vote of the people. And I think he’s right that the state has avoided addressing cost issues that drastic cuts would force it to address. But I also think 60, 61, & 101 would have a brutal impact on the state.
I next asked Tom about my idea that we replace TABOR, Amendment 23, etc. with an amendment that says total receipts to the state cannot exceed X% of the state’s GDP averaged over the previous 3 years. This is taxes, fees, everything. But the legislature is then free to adjust and tax, fee, etc. without a vote as long as the total stays under the limit. He said “that’s quite interesting… I like it.”
Next up was what I think would be the easiest question – name a program he would end. He talked about how when Colorado passed the tobacco tax it increased Medicaid eligibility from 250,000 to 480,000. He would undo that extension.
I then asked the flip side, to name one he would create or significantly extend. His reply was “creating a new program is not really on my agenda.” So nothing new added (which is a fair answer).
Ok, so my next question was what will he do to fix K-12. At this point Tom Tancredo became more impassioned than at any other part of the conversation (including illegal immigration). He started off by saying “I would take my magic wand…” So I then asked, ok let’s say you do have a magic wand, and you get one use – do you use it to fix K-12 or to eliminate illegal immigration. (An interesting thing about a question like this – most candidates love it because the idea of being able to truly fix a big problem is so compelling to them.)
Congressman Tancredo thought about it for a bit and then said K-12. He then discussed his background, as a teacher, the education bills he had carried in the legislature, and his work for the Department of Education. He has a lot of history in this area. He wants to bring in full choice, public schools, charter schools, and vouchers. He sees the marketplace of multiple schools competing for students will force an improvement in schools. He also wants to see schools do a better job teaching children civics, giving them a better understanding of our government and what it means. (Of course, then they’ll all be Democrats.)
I asked about SB-191 and he does not think that will help much, because it is still a centrally controlled top-down single system. He comes back to giving each parent the freedom to determine what school works best for their child. He is fine if we can just get vouchers for children in poor districts (where the schools tend to be terrible). He brings up the very valid point that a lousy education means that those children will cost society more because they’re left in a life of economic poverty.
Next I asked for a vote that hurt his political future. He immediately answered TARP. Tom said that this would harm him in any future run for any office. And the smart move, as many other reps did, was to vote no and hope it passed. He talked to the presidents of 25 banks from 1st Bank to Wells Fargo. You have this highly technical bill that “if it doesn’t pass, then all inter-bank lending stops in 24 hours.” And you have millions of companies depending on this. He was told by people on all sides of the spectrum that the results would be a collapse of biblical proportions if it didn’t pass. He also talked about where people turn when things go this bad, and it’s not Democracy and free enterprise.
My $0.02: I think Congressman Tancredo’s vote here shows strong moral character in that he voted what he thought was necessary over what was in his own political interest. And he did so voting the opposite of what his political philosophy is. And to those who are upset with him on this vote – he was right. We did face a complete economic collapse and that vote was key to avoiding the collapse. None of us liked giving the banks all that money, especially when they responded by giving all of us the middle finger by watering down the financial reform bill and bringing back even larger bonuses. But it had to be done.
For my last questions I asked him, if he’s elected, then 8 years from now what will be his biggest accomplishment. His reply was that the majority of people in this state will say they are better off than they were 8 years earlier.
Conclusion
Tom Tancredo is an interesting guy. I don’t agree with him on much, but I think he comes at his decisions and policies in a thoughtful way and tries to do what is right. He comes at the question of Governor with a very good big picture approach and some very interesting ideas. He’s very conservative, but is not a drown the government in a bathtub type – his support of 60, 61, 101 is grounded in respect for the rule of law, but also that he thinks the impact would be manageable until a tax increase could be put on the ballot.
And then there’s immigration… I think Tom Tancredo is his own worst enemy on this, because he gravitates to discussing it exclusively, which then hides all those other facets of him and labels him by this one issue. So can Tom win as Governor? Maybe, but only if he STFU on immigration and instead talks on these other points. (I’m not saying he hides from immigration, but that if he focuses on the rest.) And if he stays Mr. Immigration, he still guarantees a loss for Dan Maes, and that is his primary goal.
And if Dan drops out then I’m guessing Tom will drop out the next day. And that would be a shame because he makes the discussion between the candidates a lot more interesting. On the flip side, if he’s in to the end, I’m guessing he’ll easily beat Dan Maes and may give Hick a run for his money.
Audio of interview at Tom Tancredo Interview
Thanks Much.
BJW on today’s thread posted a link to an article at the Constitutionalist today that indicates there is a significant legal problem with Tank being on the ballot, if challenged. It seems he would need to have been a member of his party on Janurary 1st in order to be eligible to run.
What is your sense as to whether he would continue on as a write in candidate if he loses the party line?
So the question would be, what is the most effective avenue. And would it have an impact.
I think it’s a total pile of puffy nothing. He wasn’t voting his own way out of bravery. His obvious goal has been been to grab the spotlight since he figured out how much easier and more profitable a future as a fringe celeb was going to be. And the two cents taking eight paragraphs to explain that one revelation resulting from this interview is, stop the presses, that his goal is to be a spoiler? Well duh. Eight words would have been overdoing that gem. And, by the way, if the business climate has been so hostile here, why have so many lists in places like business mags, those dens of liberal bias, rated Colorado so high on that score, good climate for business, in multiple recent Ritter and Dem controlled legislature years? Your silliest interview and two cents analyses ever. Sorry.
It’s to get their policies and views. It’s not for them to hear my views or for me to argue with them. Arguing isn’t going to do much good, it’s unlikely I’ll come up with an argument that they haven’t heard before.
It isn’t a matter of arguing. It’s a matter of challenging in a way that forces a candidate to tells us something besides what’s on their own website. And your 2 cents? Grossly over-priced, even by the word.
TO take Tancredo’s, there’s a lot there about K-12 that is not on his website. Especially his reasoning behind his view.
And his comment about looking at the differences between Colorado and Indiana, I think that is a really good idea and again not on his website.
A couple of weeks ago people were asking about Buck’s view on the Dept of Education and I could point them to the earlier interviews I had done with him where he discussed his views. So again, that was of use and was information people could not find elsewhere at that time.
That’s not true. Buck’s views on the Department of Education have been widely reported for months.
But there were a number of people here asking what exactly was Buck’s stance on ED. I pointed them to the interviews.
And it’s unlikely to have much effect on the election unless the plaintiff can get a judge to issue an injunction.
I read BJ’s link and I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk. The clauses in the law and the bylaws of the party are ambiguous. Fertile ground for lawyers, poor guidance for mere mortals.
Interesting to say the least. Nothing much like it in the annotations to the election law.
changed its rules to allow Tancredo to run. State law provides for this. But if H-man and the beej want to get activist judges involved, have at it.
However, I don’t see Beej being a part of this. He doesn’t put his ass on the line for what he pretends to believe. Witness his record of military service. Or lack of it.
BJ has the same military record as our fearless leader, as I recall. I guess he doesn’t put his ass on the line for what he pretends to believe either.
I have opinions.
My opinion of BJ is consistent with what I wrote.
He’s a chickenhawk. If he’s your friend, that’s between you and BJ. I don’t care who your friends are.
Do I need to be more specific, or was that picture clear enough?
You can be patriotic without having served in the military. Unless this is a military blog, why would you single me out in particular?
Unless bjw was Commander in Chief for 20 months sometime that we all just didn’t notice.
.
finding some sort of equivalence between actually serving in the military, and being President.
Being President can teach a person a lot, but not so much about serving in the military, IMHO.
.
“same military record”
Clearly, being CinC and leading the natioanl command authority from the top is military.
But I generally agree that active military service is unique and shapes an individual’s perspective in a way that no other experience does.
It’s one thing to talk tough on the Interwebz, but entirely another to ask tough questions when you’re talking to a real, live, breathing politician?
If you mean immigration, there have been so many forums in which Tancredo has spoken on that issue – what new could I have asked on it?
I mean why bother to ask him about the sole issue upon which he has based his entire political career?
That’s for sissies.
You would have been much better off asking him where he got his tie.
Spend the entire hour on immigration. Do you think you’ll learn anything new that he hasn’t said 100 times before?
each way to drive to and from the interview. Don’t forget that.
He actually hasn’t said a lot about what he can do as governor to resolve the federal problem of immigration, or had to explain why he’s attacking Hickenlooper for some restaurant he owned having hired a guy who went on to shoot a cop. And the TPM reporter got some interesting new revelations about what’s in Tancredo’s imagination about Hamas and the Mexican border, among other fun topics, but then he probably didn’t have an entire hour to chat.
Is there were numerous times where I expected part of what he was discussing to include pounding Hickenlooper on that subject. And he never did.
On the immigration issue, he did discuss a lot more than what I listed above. But none of it was new so I didn’t write it up. You can hear it on the audio though.
The no. 1 Tancredo issue is that he has proven so hypocritical on so many personal issues that he has little political integrity.
Questions that were suggested in response to your prior diary that you didn’t have the guts to ask:
1. After leading pro-Vietnam War rallies on several college campuses, Tancredo then sought and obtained a mental deferment to get out of his own Vietnam military service. He got the paperwork from a Boulder psychiatrist whom he refuses to name. How can he lead the Colorado National Guard when he’s a hypocrit about military service?
2. The Tank is one of the nation’s foremost immigrant-bashers, yet he used cheap illegal labor to renovate his own house. Why?
3. The Tank was one of the state’s leading spokesmen in favor of term limits for Congress, but after he was elected to Congress he broke his promise, ignored term limits, and ran for re-election. Why?
It’s a little harsh to call someone Neville Chamberlain (as others are doing below) but you shouldn’t be expecting attaboys for pap.
Didn’t get to it. I figured on 2 & 3 I would get his standard answers.
But at least he does have ideas and opinions that are relatively consistent with his declared value system, and he’s reliably entertaining and personally likable. Tank vs. Hick head to head would have been a really interesting contest. As is, the debates will nonetheless be hilarious.
Though he seems like a nice, thoughtful guy, I’m afraid I’m still glad he doesn’t have much of a chance–the xenophobia really takes him off my list of reasonably acceptable Republicans for public office.
I totally agree with the Tank. No special exemptions for different groups in state law. Take oil and gas, for instance. I stand should-to-shoulder with the Tank in rejecting the exemption to the Clean Water Act that the gas companies got with fracing. I look forward to his active leadership on this issue.
..of keeping this an interview about Tancredo instead of about you.
But who’s reading anyway? Certainly not you.
I agree with you Ralphie. On THIS interview David constrained his opinion to the $.02 paragraphs; that’s why I complimented him.
Of course I never would have known that if I hadn’t read this (or other) interviews.
Clearly I am completely missing the point of your comment (not unusual).
I’ll give you this, Mr. Chamberlain, you have an uncanny ability to make the most extreme politicians seem reasonable, at least to you.
Yet, in a telephone interview with Talking Points Memo, Tancredo revealed his true craziness. Among the nuggets from Tancredo’s mouth:
–“Ms. Obama didn’t want any Christmas artifacts in the White House during Christmas time.”
–He “doesn’t know” if Obama wants to impose Islamic law on the US.
–He believes Hamas is operating along the country’s border with Mexico.
I recommend Pols readers check out this TPM interview with Tancredo: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…
David “Neville Chamberlain” Thielen could make you know who appear reasonable. Hopefully, this is the last of these ridiculous interviews. You are waaay out of your league.
Is there anyone whom David could interview without concluding he’s basically a good, thoughtful, problem-solving guy? Hannibal Lecter, maybe?
such discriminating taste in matching proper side dishes and wine to his main dishes of choice, such a lovely accent and diction and such refined manners. I’m sure 20 or 40 paraagraphs on how surprisingly charming and urbane the man is would have turned up in Dave’s 2 cents. I’m afraid nobody civil enough to say yes will fail to qualify as a surprisingly warm and fuzzy person.
but his interests are actually surprisingly broad. Sure, that came up–when I asked about the budget crunch, he said eating the frail would be cheaper than giving them health care–but I didn’t dwell on that since that’s what everyone asks him. He agreed with me that schools need to be run like businesses, and he also agreed with me that Colorado needs to start spending more on software from a certain Boulder company.
My $0.02: Hannie Lecter is a thoughtful and charming person. While I wouldn’t see myself agreeing with his cannibalism every day, if you got him and Rachael Ray in a room together and made them come up with dietary solutions, I’m sure they’d work something out, and it would be an idea that both sides of the human-eating debate could get behind.
Instead of wanting to be on the inside of the tent pissing out, or on the outside of the tent pissing in, David wants to be on the inside of the tent pissing in.
It doesn’t work.
Try to get over it…
Ralphie must still be steamed about that. The utterly insipid quality of your interviews can’t have a thing to do with it.
Ralphie did not have any problems with the interviews I did. In fact, most here love the interviews I do of Democrats, they just seem to get steamed at the same treatment of Republicans.
What’s your basis for that claim?
Previous three interviews prior to Buck & Tancredo. Two Dems and 1 Repub.
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
So either I’ve gotten soft or the approaching election has people wanting fresh blood in the interviews…
David, you have got to be kidding when you link these three interviews as evidence that “most here love the interviews I do of Democrats.” The first interview had 4 people say they liked it; the second and third each had 2. How do you possibly extrapolate from eight positive comments that most people love your interviews?
It’s this kind of substance-free proclamation that makes me double check (or ignore) most of what you write.
As time goes on, you’re interviews are just the same old puff pieces that tell us nothing we couldn’t find out by going to the candidates’ websites. That is besides how darned surprisingly nice they are to an interviewer who is so obliging.
Your softball questions and focus on your own pet issues and projects have long been the biggest complaints.
And please keep in mind that I don’t want to ask questions he’s already been asked and answered already – that’s a waste of both of our time.
Those questions that have been asked before are actually what’s on people’s minds. Don’t dare go there.
It’s why waste time on something where I know what his reply will be.
That’s why in the Buck interview, on abortion, I asked about the conflict between what he believes and the majority believes. That actually got something new.
Is that why you go for the left-field queries like
Because no one’s every raised that one before!
Or this one:
David, it’s a fine interview for what it is. Tancredo is a charming guy — what politician isn’t? — and he can talk for an hour. I’m not sure we found that much out from all this, though.
My first question was meant as why did he first go in to politics, but he took it as this race. His answer was a lot of detail about what he thought of Dan Maes so I thought that was worth following. But then time wise I didn’t want to go back to what I intended in my original question because of the time he spent discussing Maes.
The concentration question was to see if he was a single issue guy or if he had the depth and breadth on the issues we need from a serious contender for governor. I was pleasantly surprised at what he brought up. So I think that question turned out well.
But I’ll offer one that didn’t get much, his reasons for supporting 60/61/101. I had hoped to get more on them, but his answer there was what he has said before. You never know which ones will provide the most (or any) new info.
but I appreciate the time and effort it took to get the interview. Good for you David. Interesting read.
you no longer have to beat him up for having the temerity to stray from the fold. He is back.
David does not think all politicians who are not sent here by Barry are bad people. I don’t know. Maybe it was a flaw in his upbringing and should be corrected. But he honestly believes that. Entertain the possibility that he is right or at least do a better job of humoring him. He did take a lot of time and effort to do the interview and some people here learned something and enjoyed it.
but calling President Obama “Barry” is just fine.
If David did as glowing an interview with Bennet and posted it here, you’d be in tears, sobbing about how biased he is. So save your bullshit for dumber people.
If you go to David’s site, liberal and loving it, he has already done two interviews with Bennet as I recall.
I don’t recall saying you have to respect Republicans. Frankly if I was looking for a place where Republicans are respected I must have taken a wrong turn to end up here.
Barry is the name the president used to go by when he was younger and does not lead to the Muslim confusion that apparently exists out there. I believe Barry is not Muslim, rather some combination of left wing idealogue, revolutionary and Christian. Is it disrespectful to call him by his Christian name? I don’t think so and none was intended.
It’s extremely disrespectful, and you know it, so fuck off with your dumbass rationalizations for it. It’s like calling the previous President “Junior.” Yeah, it’s what he was called when he was a kid, but he doesn’t go by that anymore.
If you want people to respect Republicans–if you think they’re worth respecting–don’t be a dick. This lesson has been brought to you by your local kindergarten teacher.
some lame-ass excuse for repeatedly calling Bennet “Mikey” too (it involved some Polster being disrespectful or something). H-man just likes putting Democrats in their place.
When I was in Hawaii everyone called him Barry. But most of them know him from back then when he went by Barry.
I have a lot of respect for Tom as a person. I agree with many of his positions but I disagree with nearly all of his rationale for taking those positions.
If he could grasp the bull by the horns and run as a “states rights” conservative then I think he would be the best governor CO could have going into these economic times. Hick would absolutely be the worst thing CO could endure, economically. With Tom in charge and willing to stand up for Colorado against the Feds then Colorado could emerge as a great place to live and do business as the new economy emerges from the rubble of Obamunism.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Well, I for one enjoyed reading another thoughtful interview. My question is this – is the guy crazy or crazy like a fox? He says some very thoughtful stuff, and then he just goes psycho (a la talking points memo). Does he go psycho to get attention, or does he really believe that stuff? Why the obsession over immigration? Did an immigrant break his heart, or what?