Video: Tancredo calls on Bush to pardon convicted Border Patrol agents; Update: Patterico defends prosecution
posted at 9:34 pm on January 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He’ll do it, too. He’ll sign the pardons on the very same day that he signs the Comprehensive Amnesty Act of 2007. That’ll be the spoonful of sugar fed to chumps like you and me to make the medicine go down a bit smoother.
The agents turned themselves in today to begin serving their prison sentences. The case has drawn enough heat that the U.S. Attorney who convicted them prepared a fact sheet reciting, and then debunking, the various myths surrounding it. That won’t satisfy everyone, but I found it useful.
O’Reilly also pressed Tanc on his presidential bid. An early frontrunner to be his veep: the little man who lives in his brain and whispers to him about the North American Union.
Update: Antagonized by Hot Air commenters, Patterico reads the fact sheet and wants to know: what’s the big deal?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Border? What “border” are you talking about? We still have an actual border with Mexico?
I thought that Enlightened People did away with all that foolishness
We don’ got to show you no stinkin’ border……
Janos Hunyadi on January 17, 2007 at 9:39 PM
That’d be Ron Paul. And he’d split the conservative base…
Go Obama, go!!
Theworldisnotenough on January 17, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Appeasing the nativist loons Allah? Hey go over to KFI and get the podcast from today’s show. The counter protestor were chanting “This is Mexico!”. Red. Meat.
Theworldisnotenough on January 17, 2007 at 9:42 PM
So red…so marbled.
Just the way I like it.
Slublog on January 17, 2007 at 9:44 PM
I’m not sure its technically possible to pardon the Border Patrol agents. The reason, of course, being that in order to be pardoned, you actually have to commit a crime.
Wolfman on January 17, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Zing
But, you’re confusing logic and reason with the “criminal justice” system.
Janos Hunyadi on January 17, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Oh… That would be the John and Ken show.
Theworldisnotenough on January 17, 2007 at 10:04 PM
If you have’nt seen it yet, Slublog has a good post on his site called “Tancredo’s Disturbing Ties”. Worth reading.
Scot on January 17, 2007 at 10:07 PM
TANCREDO – POE 2008
Ropera on January 17, 2007 at 10:12 PM
It “appears” someone is making this up since this quote isn’t backed up with any facts, such as his past voting record.
So, where’s the evidence that Tanc is pro-abortion?
Voting record people. You should all know by now that politicians will take money from just about anyone. It doesn’t excuse the practice, but it shouldn’t be used by people to spread false innuendo either.
I’d say Tanc bashing is at a fever pitch around here and that’s unfortunate.
CliffHanger on January 17, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Tanc’s a politican. He’s fair game, as far as I’m concerned.
As I also said in my post, I do not think Tancredo is pro-abortion, but if we’re going to ask Democrat candidates to repuidate the beliefs of the extremists who support them, it shouldn’t be too much to ask conservative candidates to do the same.
Slublog on January 17, 2007 at 10:26 PM
OT – You all should take a look at the new video posted at Fox News with Bill O and Dennis Miller.
CliffHanger on January 17, 2007 at 10:26 PM
It’s fair to do it to you, too, slub. Since you seem to support those with the idea that FAIR’s immigration positions are extreme and repugnant, please tell us what exactly is so extreme and repugnant about their ideas. Here’s a refresher for you, their reform agenda for the current congress.
thirteen28 on January 17, 2007 at 10:30 PM
So, who’s NOT accepting money from so-called “extremist groups”?
Voting record.
CliffHanger on January 17, 2007 at 10:32 PM
So we should just accept the fact that all of our politicians are basically whores?
Higher standards.
Slublog on January 17, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Let it be noted for the record that I chose that screenshot specifically for Slu’s amusement.
Allahpundit on January 17, 2007 at 10:37 PM
About time you got around to getting me a Christmas present.
Slublog on January 17, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I repeat Campean and Ramos deserve a post not another excuse to take potshots at Tancredo. Please Allah don’t sell these men short just to amuse yourself and Slublog.
Theworldisnotenough on January 17, 2007 at 10:43 PM
According to the U.S. Attorney they did commit a crime. If the fact sheet is true, and I don’t have any reason to believe that the U.S. Attorney would commit fraud for this case, then these two are not the “Angels” that some perceive them to be. They had a fair trial of their peers and their peers didn’t believe the story they told. They are entitled to the appeals process just like everyone else. We’ll see if they succeed through that gauntlet.
Troy Rasmussen on January 17, 2007 at 10:44 PM
It does appear that way.
Miller is my favorite pundit, and he’s not even a pundit. I just like his tell it like it is sarcasm.
R D on January 17, 2007 at 10:44 PM
I heard a report the scumbag drug dealer who was shot by the border patrol agents is filing a multi-million dollar civil suit.
Fortunately Ramsey Clark wrapped up his latest case and is now available to represent the plaintiff.
fogw on January 17, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I think “The Rants” are some of the best political commentary on the market. They were concise, funny and insightful at times.
And I’d much rather listen to Miller than most other pundits who fill the airwaves.
Slublog on January 17, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Yes, that’s right. They were tried and convicted by a jury. A two and a half week trial, according to the fact sheet. This reminds me of a Haditha thread insofar as the actual facts are treated as wholly incidental; all we know is whose side we’re on, and once that’s established, their right to use whatever degree of force they choose on the enemy is essentially carte blanche.
Allahpundit on January 17, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Slublog
New book on my reading list. Thanks.
R D on January 17, 2007 at 10:52 PM
That’s a crack-headed conclusion. Bush accepted my campaign donations so does that mean he actually embraces my “No Amnesty/Secure The Border” policy position?
Perchant on January 17, 2007 at 10:53 PM
That was actually a quote from the article I linked, not my own writing.
Now, if you folks really want to discuss this, perhaps my comment thread or my email would be the best place. Not because I’m looking for traffic, but it seems rude to use Michelle’s bandwidth to debate a point made on another blog.
Slublog on January 17, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Yes, and the FACTS made publically available in the Haditha case come nowhere close to proving those soldiers are guilty of the crimes of which they have been accused – and that’s one fact you seem to treat as wholly incidental.
thirteen28 on January 17, 2007 at 10:58 PM
“What’s the difference between you and Dennis Kucinich…?”
OUCH.
CP on January 17, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Yes, because it’s true. We can always have another round of campaign finance reform if it bothers you that much.
No one’s innocent.
CliffHanger on January 17, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Sorry, I refuse to simply sit back and BOHICA on this one. I’m not in favor of campaign finance, as I think it’s a violation of the first amendment. I support full disclosure, however.
No one may be innocent, but that doesn’t exempt them from criticism.
Slublog on January 17, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Yup! And a jury let O J off. Don’t mean it’s right!
R D on January 17, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Maybe if the guy would not have crossed the border illegally they could not have shot at him…just sayin…
EnochCain on January 17, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Agreed, so long as the criticism is fair and backed up by cold hard facts.
Higher standards.
CliffHanger on January 17, 2007 at 11:20 PM
That’s true. The jury in that case ignored a mountain of evidence. What evidence did the jury in this case ignore, besides CBP = good and illegal = bad?
Allahpundit on January 17, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I’m turning my comments off.
d1carter on January 17, 2007 at 11:28 PM
“Cold hard facts?”
We’ve never let that criteria stop us from being critical of liberal politicians. Why should we hold ourselves to lower standards when dealing with those on our own side.
I’m just calling for some consistency, some intellectual honesty. Tancredo has taken some serious money from a guy who supports Planned Parenthood and Zero Population Growth. I don’t think he agrees with Tanton on those issues, but taking serious cash from a pro-abortion zealot makes it a lot harder to sell yourself as a pro-life conservative.
Tancredo could just refuse the money. Perhaps the question we should ask is why doesn’t he?
Slublog on January 17, 2007 at 11:28 PM
I wasn’t there for this trial so I couldn’t begin to know. On the other hand, I watched nearly every bit of the OJ trial.
R D on January 17, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Run Tom, Run! Keep Illegal Immigration on the forefront of the issues. Make the Dems explain why they will not fund the border fence.
Kinda like all the Dems being for the war in Iraq, untill Mr. Dean was about to win the primary being funded by Mr. Soros and the anti-war, anti-American, anti-Bush far left, then…….. then “the swimmer” goes to middle-America, and Mr. Kerry (did you know he served in Vietnam?) got the establishment nod.
And if you don’t think he (Tom) has any support, just ask Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Citizen who are sick and tired of footing the bill for 20 million illegals who have infested this country, are sucking the resources, health care, schools, and prisons dry, all the time sending green backs back home to La Raza and the Great Repulic of Mexico!
I live in Southern California, I live with “choose English or spanish” in order to do anything, including vote, I see the damage that inaction for votes have done.
Run Tom……….. just Run!
He might not win, but since I pledged not to give a $0.10 to the RNC until the border was secured, he might be worth a $.
PinkyBigglesworth on January 17, 2007 at 11:32 PM
O”Reilly was so rude to Tom Tancredo I sent him an email. That was the last straw for me and his show. And earlier this week he was questioning why the kid Shawn who was kidnapped didn’t call his parents. He doesn’t know the facts, and yet he slanders the kid. Sometimes O’Reilly is such an arrogant A**!!!
I saw the movie I Know My Name Is Steven about Steven Staynor who was held for 7 years. It was haunting. And that kid went thru hell
he went home. I would guess this kid felt his future was ruined forever!
Tom Tancredo has a good chance. He is fighting for the survival of the nation. None of the other morons are, looking instead in the mirror to check and see that their overblown egos aren’t blinking too much!! I would vote for him, already sent him a donation and would be happy to volunteer in his campaign. The rest of you brush up on your spanish…you are going to need it if he doesn’t win
Mellen on January 17, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Sorry, I missed Allapundits insult to Tom when I first saw the post…..
No
Mr Smart Guy??? Did you know the democrats will respond to El Presidente’s speech on the State of the Union in two languages…oh it’s not French and Pig Latin….(too bad for you)…
It’s English and Spanish. Wasn’t that nice of them to talk to us in English one last time???!!!
Mellen on January 17, 2007 at 11:38 PM
I read the fact sheet and it’s quite compelling. We just all hate to see the tables turn on the men and women who patrol our borders.
It’s just like Abu Ghraib, a few bad apples can inflict great harm on a just cause.
CliffHanger on January 17, 2007 at 11:43 PM
I’m stocking up on Ameros.
Just in case.
Slublog on January 17, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Oooo a fact sheet!! Well why didn’t you say so? Hey in the fact sheet does it tell you why Johnny Sutton can’t prove his case against the drug dealer with his own testimony, but can use his testimony against these officers? His word is good enough to convict them, but not himself… He must be in the business of trading up to convict Americans. Oh wait the evidence against
Does the fact sheet explain why the government too the bullet out of his butt? Does it seem odd at all that he could tell his mommy, she could call her Border Patrol relative, initiate an investigation by Homeland Security, AND after that chain of events he still has the bullet in his buttocks? That’s what you would do right Allah? Bullets in the behind are only a minor discomfort, it can wait until you lawyer up… But the breadth of this case will become clear once the civil suit comes…
Does the fact sheet explain why he takes a personal dig at agent Ramos? He was in fact NOMINATED for agent of the year but did not win the award. Lawyers they wield words as a samurai wields sword. What an A-hole!
Illegal Aliens have Constituional Rights. They sure do, they are also entitled to due process. What is their due process you ask? Deportation. The government doesn’t seem to mind denying them that. Sutton traded up , period. He could have gone after Osbaldo but did not want to, what a prick.
That fact sheet sure was helpful, burnt the midnight oil reading didn’t you Allah?
Jurors say they were misled to convict agents
How about those facts?
Theworldisnotenough on January 17, 2007 at 11:52 PM
You don’t “think” Tanc is pro-abortion rights? Look at his voting record.
I don’t know. Could it be he agrees with their strong stand against illegal immigration?
CliffHanger on January 17, 2007 at 11:54 PM
They’ll only be spendable in Mexico and Central America, but they will good for deposit in banks. You really think if the SPP pulls it of Mexico will continue using the Peso? Honduras will continue to use the Lempira? You know me, I’m paranoid, its not like countries not in the EU are using the Eur- wait nevermind…
Theworldisnotenough on January 17, 2007 at 11:57 PM
So I guess my policy of shooting all illegals as they cross the border would not go over very well, eh?
C’est dommage. :-(
SouthernGent on January 17, 2007 at 11:58 PM
While some of the “facts” on the “fact” sheet may seem compelling — I don’t buy it all. It appeared that Johnny Sutton was making excuses and trying to cover up the fact that immunity was granted to a MEXICAN drug smuggler in exchange for testimony against the federal agents.
And that crap about the 4th amendment applying to everyone in the United States — not just citizens, is just that — crap. Because the courts have upheld something does not mean that is what the Constitution says. Sheesh.
wytammic on January 18, 2007 at 12:04 AM
It is legal to use deadly force to protect property in Texas.
DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person isjustified in using deadly force against another to protect land ortangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against theother under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes thedeadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission ofarson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during thenighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.
Theworldisnotenough on January 18, 2007 at 12:05 AM
No, stock up on Pesos, man. You can now buy pizzas with Pesos in the good ol’ USofA.
mmmm… pizza, the Planet’s perfect food.
CliffHanger on January 18, 2007 at 12:05 AM
S
I’m with you. Are you running or just exploring? ;-)
R D on January 18, 2007 at 12:08 AM
You’re right. They are criminals. But, I’m not sure I agree with the law that a cop can’t shoot you for not stopping. Are the days of “Halt or I’ll shoot!” really gone.
They shot fifteen times and hit him once? Sure they weren’t just trying to scare him back?
There’s alot of politics in that “fact sheet” The length of sentence is one. It says they were convicted of “discharging a firearm during a crime of violence”. What was the “crime of violence”? Shooting their guns, wasn’t it?
More goblety-goop.
Chuck on January 18, 2007 at 12:11 AM
And on that point, you and I completely agree.
Pizza has all four of the food groups. Yes, yes…I know they’ve switched to the ridiculous “food pyramid,” but I choose to live with what I was taught.
Slublog on January 18, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Excellent question, and well defined.
How about “Is it legal to use deadly for to protect the borders and citizens of the United States?”
Apparently not………
PinkyBigglesworth on January 18, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Not to be picky, but that is a statement, not a question. A statement that should be able to be made in all 50 states, BTW.
R D on January 18, 2007 at 12:28 AM
How about canning the attitude for a second and looking at the facts? The only way they got his statements was by offering him a limited immunity, that they wouldn’t use those statements against him. Without those statements, which he didn’t have to provide, they had no case against him, according to the U.S. Attorney.
Patterico on January 18, 2007 at 12:44 AM
So he traded up. And justified it by saying he didn’t give up much anyway.
Theworldisnotenough on January 18, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Do you have no reservations as to the method with which these officers were prosecuted?
Theworldisnotenough on January 18, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Worked for Stacey Cornell Koon, Laurence Michael Powell, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind. *shrug* but they assaulted an American…
Theworldisnotenough on January 18, 2007 at 12:58 AM
What method is that? The jury system?
Patterico on January 18, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Sounds like he traded away nothing, based on his fact sheet. He had no case against the smuggler.
Patterico on January 18, 2007 at 1:14 AM
R D, no insult or disrespect intended, and forgive me for the original mis-statement, but the question still stands for all to answer……
This IS what we are really talking about…. No nuance, no “what the defenition of “is”, is…”
PinkyBigglesworth on January 18, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Greeeaaat. The lawyers in residence giving a hearty endorsement to this scumbag DA offering immunity to a pos drug smuggler so they could prosecute two border agents for shooting at his fleeing ass.
What a joke.
Jaibones on January 18, 2007 at 1:32 AM
The answer is YES. The “is” question is something I really never understood anyway. It”is” Clinton speak, and that in itself is confusing.
R D on January 18, 2007 at 2:12 AM
The fact that there’s early efforts to smear Tancredo make me even more likely to vote for him. I’m going down with the ship!
PRCalDude on January 18, 2007 at 2:14 AM
Whats worse, whores or traitors?
Tough choice.
Speakup on January 18, 2007 at 2:16 AM
I should have answered this first.
YES! It’s in the oath of office of every elected official of the three branches of government.
The “is” question is a clinton thing.
R D on January 18, 2007 at 2:22 AM
Not so tough to me. Traitors. Whores that become traitors should be treated as such.
R D on January 18, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Do you have no reservations as to the method with which these officers were prosecuted?
Tell me how Osbaldo got back to Mexico, told his mom, his mom calls auntie Border Patrol agent, auntie Border Patrol agent calls Homeland Security, Homeland Security does a very thorough investigation (wink, wink), then Johhny Sutton gets involved, does his own due diligence, then decides to use this guy as a witness. How does all that take place in time enough for Johhny Sutton to get this guy into the U.S. so Army doctors can remove the bullet. That sounds to me like a series of neccesary but highly unlikely events. Seeing as you point out that Sutton gave up nothing, since he had no physical evidence. The only physical evidence he had against these officers was the bullet, the ways and means of acquiring that bullet are of great interest to me. Was he unscrupulous, did he see a chance to secure the good faith of the citizens of EL Paso by getting these border agents? I would like to know the actual series of events, not Johhny Sutton’s CYA/Leave me alone press release. But who am I, right?
Theworldisnotenough on January 18, 2007 at 3:10 AM
AP it’s like you are arguing with truthers on this one. “Facts shmacts, I know the way the game is played around here!”
- The Cat
MirCat on January 18, 2007 at 3:19 AM
They are TREACHEROUS WHORES!!!
Ropera on January 18, 2007 at 3:23 AM
Sorry Theworldisnotenough, It seems facts don’t matter. It also doesn’t matter that a f*ckin illegal came across the border again to deal drugs, or the fact that he was a multi-time offender. It just matters that we do the PC things again. Fu*cing appeasers.
R D on January 18, 2007 at 3:35 AM
I like the part of the fact sheet that talks about how Compean ham-fisted his gun and got slide bite. That might explain why he was having trouble hitting the unarmed fleeing drug salesman, despite having 16 chances to do so. What’s even better is that Compean was packing a Beretta 96. The 96, like its brethren the 92 and the M9 is a full-sized pistol. Andre the Giant would have trouble getting slide bite.
Mark Jaquith on January 18, 2007 at 5:26 AM
Not to take the side of a drug dealer
But you may want to peruse the fact sheet from the United States Attorney for the Western district of the United States an extremely conservative area
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2007/compean_ramos_suttonstatement_1_17_07.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2007/Compean_Ramos_factsheet1.pdf
They persued with out cause, they beat an unarmed man and when he tried to surrender they tried to murder him
they were turned in by their own brethern their own Coworkers and fellow Border Patrol professionals
EricPWJohnson on January 18, 2007 at 8:17 AM
The World, truly, is not enough. At least the Mexican border isn’t. This is a great call.
Maybe Patterico, AP and the other lawyerly types simply are not ready for a world where the campaigning DA uses criminal prosecutions — i.e., whom to prosecute, and whom to let slide — as their campaign platform, a la Nifong.
I don’t buy one word of the self-serving statement from Sutton, because it does not explain how they placed the importance of prosecuting these two guys so far above the importance of an illegal alien smuggling 700-1000 pounds over the border from Mexico.
I always heard that law enforcement involved a series of value judgements, and I don’t share his values apparently.
Jaibones on January 18, 2007 at 9:09 AM
PS i.e., why aren’t we granting Compean and Ramos immunity for their adventurous behavior in order to prosecute this pos international drug dealer?
Jaibones on January 18, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Mark Jaquith on January 18, 2007 at 5:26 AM
Or he might be a really bad shooter with a handgun, which would not be too surprising. He’s not a cop, he’s not a Ranger; he’s a $20,000/year border patrol agent.
Jaibones on January 18, 2007 at 9:25 AM
I dont buy one word of the self-serving statement from Sutton, because it does not explain how they placed the importance of prosecuting these two guys so far above the importance of an illegal alien smuggling 700-1000 pounds over the border from Mexico.
Yes, it does.
Read it again.
Patterico on January 18, 2007 at 9:28 AM
From what I understand the accused were returning fire and the entire incident happened on the Mexican side of the border.
Though I do not doubt the prosecutors would rather take the side of an illegal alien drug smuggler over United States Border Enforcement agents. Thanks for your service boys!
mojowire on January 18, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Cui bono?
Slublog on January 18, 2007 at 9:32 AM
When I saw this story, it just didn’t pass the smell test the way it was presented as this cut and dry injustice. When something seems to bad to be true, it probably is.
frankj on January 18, 2007 at 9:45 AM
sounds like they didn’t have a case.
pullingmyhairout on January 18, 2007 at 9:54 AM
“They persued with out cause, they beat an unarmed man and when he tried to surrender they tried to murder him.”
Are you sure you read the “facts?” Sounds like you (and a lot of the people here) have a ridiculous bias. It is far too easy for people like you to form absolute opinions on things for which you have no basis to comprehend.
It is a war zone on the border. Do you think they are running into American Citizens, or non criminals in the Border areas?
99% of the people they encounter are illegals, smuggling drugs or people, and a very high percentage of them armed and willing to do serious bodily injury to anyone who gets in their way. But you can “know” that a. there was no cause (even though every person in those areas is 99% likely to be a criminal engaged in criminal activity) and b. the guy wasn’t armed AND they not only were aware of that but also felt like shooting at an unarmed person. Your contentions (and those of like minded people ) are idiotic at best.
Day in and day out they deal with a massive influx of CRIMINALS who throw rocks, shoot guns and basically try to hurt or kill them if they get in the CRIMINALS way, but you and others like you demand absolute perfection. Mistakes are therefore deliberate and people who should get the benfit of the doubt are vilfied and railroaded. Nice work.
America1st on January 18, 2007 at 10:59 AM
At what point would they have offered the agents immunity to testify against the smuggler? 700 pounds of Cuban cigars in the van? 700 pounds of cocaine? 700 pounds of suitcase nukes? There has got to be some kind of line where the focus turns from prosecuting agents to prosecuting the smuggler so why didn’t 700 pounds of marijuana reach that mark?
Perchant on January 18, 2007 at 11:10 AM
I suppose AP, Patterico et al. are afraid of a police state enforced with Border Patrol Storm Troopers. Oh, nevermind, this is about justice. My mistake.
spmat on January 18, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Slublog’s logic here is ridiculously flawed.
Let me get this straight. Tancredo should not be trusted because he accepted a donation from F.A.I.R. … because F.A.I.R.’s founder supports abortion? So we should ignore the fact that Tancredo’s main goal is to solve the illegal immigration problem and lack of border security, and that F.A.I.R. happens to be the country’s leading group in that area? And F.A.I.R. is a radical and extreme group due to the fact that some of it’s supporters are racist? I would give you good odds that a few of the HotAir readers are racist too. Does this mean that Allah Pundit should be suspected as having ties to extreme and repugnant individuals?
Slublog … I would love to hear you explain what you base your accusation that F.A.I.R. possesses “extreme and repugnant policy positions.” Can you list the positions which you feel are “extreme and repugnant?” Or did you just feel that labeling the group that way might help in defeating Tancredo?
You seem to imply that Tancredo is dirty because his views on immigration and border security are shared by some groups who might have racist views. I would bet that many of your own views are shared by groups such as this also, so I guess if you were to receive a donation from one of these groups who might want to support your fight against abortion … it would be fair to label you as being supported by extremists and racists?
As Tanton himself wrote in the article you linked …
It seems to be a personal agenda with you because I’ve noticed that you have routinely attacked anything relating to strict immigration controls and border security.
Slublog, are you Hispanic? Is your wife Hispanic? Do you support a border wall? Do you support the complete enforcement of our immigration laws? Do you support heavy fines and penalties against employers who hire illegals? Do you support George Bush’s “comprehensive immigration reform?”
I believe there’s some personal issues involved in your hatred for Tom Tancredo.
I have another question for you. A really simple one. Which candidate are YOU supporting, who you feel is going to end abortion in this country? Which candidate are you suggesting would be better than Tancredo, based on the topics you discussed in this personal agenda post of yours? Please give us a candidate who you suggest is going to be more “conservative” than Tancredo, and who you will not be able to find has accepted a donation at some point from someone who might support abortion. I can almost guarantee that your answer would show your entire post to be hypocritical and agenda driven.
Gregor on January 18, 2007 at 11:51 AM
They’ve been Nifonged.
right2bright on January 18, 2007 at 11:54 AM
For the third time on this thread, that is a quote from the spectator article. I did not write it and made it clear in my post that I do not think Tancredo agrees with them.
Do I think Tancredo is a racist for taking money from these groups? No I do not. Do I believe he, and all politicians, should be more careful about who they accept multiple donations from? Yes, I do.
Actually, I believe in both. The meat of the linked post appeared in a thread on this site, and was linked by Ace. Your assumptions are not based in fact.
Yes.
No.
Do you support a border wall? Do you support the complete enforcement of our immigration laws? Do you support heavy fines and penalties against employers who hire illegals?
Yes, need more information on what you mean on the second question and yes on the third.
No.
Not really. I dislike Tancredo for the same reason I abhor all demagogues – they make sound policy more difficult to achieve with their bloviating. My disagreement with him is not based in some seething hatred for who he is, but for the slouch toward nativism he represents, which I believe is bad for the prospects of future Republican and conservative rule.
Honestly, I don’t believe any political candidate can end abortion in this country. That work will be done one person at a time, through the hard work of crisis pregnancy centers. So I do not send donations to politicians, choosing instead to support our local crisis pregnancy center, which does more than just talk about abortion – it actually fights against it every day.
And actually, I haven’t chosen a candidate to support yet.
Actually, I was simply holding Tancredo up to the standards conservatives have long held for liberals – we on blogs and in comment threads consistently ask liberal politicians to decry the extremists in their midst and refuse donations from groups on the fringe.
This is not simply “a donation.” This is multiple donations taken over many years from a man who not only supports abortion, but was the chair of his local Planned Parenthood chapter. Personally, I would have turned his donation down with a polite no thank you.
Well, if you’ve made up your mind as to my motives before I post, then it seems answering your questions has been a waste of my time.
Slublog on January 18, 2007 at 12:15 PM
How ironic. You can post links to articles to support your views, quote lines from those articles, and write a complete post based on them … but then somehow defend your position by claiming that they aren’t your views, but merely that of a writer you linked to.
Your entire post is accusing Tancredo of various things based on who may have given him donations in the past, and you now want us to not assume you share the views of writers you quote in your post? Interesting.
Based on your post … you won’t be able to vote without acting hypocritally. You won’t find a candidate out there who will not have someone on their donor list with remote ties to someone holding extreme views on at least one subject, and you will also not be able to find a candidate who will share every single conservative view.
And most importantly, there is not a single candidate – other than Tancredo – who has any chance at all of winning, who will fight to end abortion. So the only possible way you can hold to your standard is to waste your vote on someone who will have no chance of winning.
I don’t think it’s too harsh a request to expect that you would be able to list a few candidates who might fit your gold standard of acceptability.
Gregor on January 18, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Gregor, it’s no use debating with you if all you’re going to do is make assumptions and declare that I’m either a)wrong or b)hypocritical before I even have a chance to answer your accusations.
So I’m just going to stop wasting Michelle’s bandwidth here.
Slublog on January 18, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I should add that if you want to question the views expressed on my blog, it would probably be more polite to do so on my site – bandwidth ain’t cheap and I can only imagine what our conversations are costing the hot air folks.
Slublog on January 18, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Who? The DA? No, hard to “tie the guy to the van” full of pot that he was driving before he ran back across the Mexican border. Nope, no case there. Best to put the agents in jail for 11 years.
Jaibones on January 18, 2007 at 12:55 PM
HUH?!
“Assumptions?”
Name one assumption I made.
My comments are in direct response to your answers. That made no sense.
Here’s another question based on one of your responses …
Not really. I dislike Tancredo for the same reason I abhor all demagogues – they make sound policy more difficult to achieve with their bloviating. My disagreement with him is not based in some seething hatred for who he is, but for the slouch toward nativism he represents, which I believe is bad for the prospects of future Republican and conservative rule.
You routinely attack Tancredo based on what you call his “bloviating” rather than his policies.
I would ask you to list any of his actual policies, voting histories, or political actions which you do not agree with. So far, you seem to claim that you agree with everything he is fighting for, but yet you attack him on his “bloviating?”
Give us an example of something he’s actually said or done which supports your claim that he “slouches toward nativism.” Something substantial.
Also, again … I don’t think it’s too harsh a request to expect that you would be able to list a few candidates who might fit your gold standard of acceptability.
Gregor on January 18, 2007 at 1:07 PM
When a liberal nut job like Alan Dershowitz takes the side of common sense on one issue, should we distance ourselves from Dershowiz or should we give him extra praise for his stance and talk about how he “gets it”?
Perchant on January 18, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »