Video: Tancredo’s new campaign ad
posted at 12:04 pm on June 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
He’s not running a presidential campaign so much as a campaign against illegal immigration, which explains in part why this spot is notably light on Tancredo and heavy on the Terminator. But only in part. Given the attention it’s likely to get, why not take the opportunity to include some of his own thoughts on how to address the issue? For that matter, why use the original Terminator instead of T2, which would let Tanc slide easily into the analogy of himself as a good-guy Arnold, blasting away at this Robert-Patrick-esque amnesty bill that simply won’t stop coming?
Using T2 also would have allowed them the obligatory scene in which the Terminator describes the horrible future — one in which Canada, Mexico, and the United States have merged to form a union. A borderless North American Union…
Tanc’s team seems pretty happy with it, especially the “Kyle/Kyl” resonance. Whatever gets them through the night, I guess. Exit question: Am I the only one who didn’t remember the first Terminator movie as being remotely as cheesy as it looks here?
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
Tancredo. The last hope. The best hope. For humanity. Save the Republic. Stop the NAU. Tancredo.
(a slight modification of my Ron Paul chant)
lorien1973 on June 13, 2007 at 12:09 PM
I’m not a Republican strategist, but I think Tanc should expand his message. Everyone knows where he stands on immigration. In his book he displays a good understanding of the threat of militant Islam and yet I rarely if ever hear him speak on that (debates, tv appearances, etc). I do think border security is the predominate issue in the era of nuclear proliferation, but there are lots of balls in the air at the same time.
Spirit of 1776 on June 13, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Tancredo looked cheesy. Terminator looked great. Love Linda Hamilton. Love the big hair.
Oh what memories…
Christoph on June 13, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Tancredo is not in this to win the office; he’s in it to keep immigration on the platform. Each party has a few single issue candidates, who only care about 1 or 2 issues. He’s one of ours.
Asking him to expand his message just diminishes him from what he wants to be.
Tancredo wants to make sure the NAU doesn’t happen. And that’s what he’s campaigning on.
lorien1973 on June 13, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Yeah, that point isn’t lost on me. I know he is in it to keep immigration on point. The point I attempting to convey is that at some junction he is just preaching to his choir. Accessibility to the remainder of the conservative hive must by necessity involve expression of comprehension of the other key issues. It may be true that he is ‘what he wants to be’, but what then would he have addressed the other issues in his book? I think he could expand his message with other diluting his core focus. Our 13 colonies went to 50.
Spirit of 1776 on June 13, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I feel sorry for whoever thought this was a good idea.
Right Tracker on June 13, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Tancredo’s “single issue” is one that touches and influences every domestic issue we are faced with. To ignore his “single issue” and still try to address all of the other domestic issues is foolish in my opinion.
voiceofreason on June 13, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I don’t disagree with that statement including national security issues. I don’t mean that he should ignore his core issue, and I’m not attempting to criticize. And maybe I’m speaking from a poor perspective, as I’ve read his book along with Steyn, Spencer, and a few others this summer, so maybe it’s unfair for me to comment about his outreach when I am already familiar with his perspective.
My suggestion would be to express a clear understanding of all the issues at hand and then tie them back to illegal immigration, instead beginning everything with illegal immigration. I don’t mean a complete retool. But I’ll give two quick examples from last debate – when commenting on the surge he said he didn’t support it, but hopes it succeeds. Why not preface that with a statement that he understands global jihad? And at the end of the debate when he suggested ending legal immigration for a time for purposes of assimilation. Without context (which I don’t know right now what policies have been re: immigration during times of war) I don’t see that helps his message resonate. Legal immigration (if!) it needed to be addressed, surely would follow dealing with the illegal issues at hand.
But as I said, I’m not a strategist.
Spirit of 1776 on June 13, 2007 at 12:49 PM
The terminator music gets my blood pumping every time.
And this will resonate with plenty of people. It was cheesy, for sure, but effective.
unamused on June 13, 2007 at 12:50 PM
check out this anti-Ron Paul video, King of the Hill fans will love it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9otmQwjcc0U
hilarious
jp on June 13, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I mean compare that to Duncan Hunter, both have gotten similar air-time in debates and I know he stands for: manufacturing back to US, strong military, restoring trade balances, and he wrote the bill for the border fence, and built some in San Diego. So I read him as serious on border security, plus well versed on other issues.
Spirit of 1776 on June 13, 2007 at 12:52 PM
The other issues will tie themselves back to illegal immigration so long as he is there talking about it and only it. His goal, as you said, is to keep this issue alive, not to win the presidency. His goal is to force the other candidates to continue to talk about this issue. By doing that he will no longer be preaching to the choir. He will have the other candidates preaching to many different choirs. His goal is to expose the open borders candidates like McCain for what they are and injure their campaigns by not allowing them to avoid the issue. His goal is to help candidates like Romney who want to enforce the law become more electable.
The Tanc wants to do the opposite of what you are suggesting. If he’s asked about taxes he should answer the question by talking about illegal immigration. If he is asked about healthcare he should answer the question by talking about illegal immigration. If he is asked about spending he should answer the question by talking about illegal immigration. If he is asked about foreign policy he should answer the question by talkin about illegal immigration. Every question should be answered by talking about illegal immigration. The only candidate who wants him to branch out and clutter his message is McCain.
Zetterson on June 13, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Nope, you’re not. I thought it technically brilliant when it came out, but now it looks like “Jason and the Argonauts” to me.
Matticus Finch on June 13, 2007 at 1:17 PM
The only reason I watched Terminator. ;)
Connie on June 13, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Yeah, I watched it recently and the scene where Arnold removes his eye really doesn’t hold up well.
Slublog on June 13, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Heck, the senators won’t even pass an ammendment to get CRIMINAL illegal aliens out of the country. They’ve lost their minds in DC.
Mojave Mark on June 13, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Some lower teir candidates when they know they cant get the nomination try and get one of two other things
1) Building upon name recognition for a future run for president. If you do well enough in one campaign can build upon that
2) Get enough support to be the VP on the ticket. VP means you then have a shot at President at a later time.
if T(1)ancredo bombs then dont look for T(2)ancredo.
William Amos on June 13, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I only remember it being cheesy because I saw it not too long ago on TV right before the third one came out.
The second one’s still good though.
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I agree almost in entirely with your second paragraph. I think we might be closer in mind then it would appear. What I mean is that he should address every issue and conclude by connecting it to illegal immigration. For example, this speech by Patrick Henry, 1775, is an extremely powerful, and at the time extremely effective speech. In it he first addresses the concerns of others and by acknowledging and enveloping their concerns into his speech, he is able to recruit the force of their political weight behind him. That is what I am suggesting, not a ‘cluttering’ of his message. So if you are suggesting that when asked about taxes he should answer with illegal immigration, I disagree. If you are suggesting that when asked about taxes he should connect it to illegal immigration, I agree completely. If he ended every answer with, “…and that’s why border security is so important” I would agree completely with strategy.
Let me cite the practical application of this: in the last debate regarding the Libby question, two answers stick out in my mind, Rudy and Tanc, because Rudy answered it also involving his NY days, and Tanc answered it by involving the border agents. But he DID address Libby. I think he has to do this on everything. Rudy does this extremely well, he ties everything back to what his strength is: his rep from NY.
Having said that, I have to challenge some of your assertions. And if you will be so kind as to address them, I’ll check back on this thread. First:
In an interview (I believe it was posted here, I thinking Tanc and Laura, but maybe Tanc and Bennett) Tancredo said one of the first priorities was to move from second tier to first tier. Aside from the rhetoric, I don’t believe the evidence supports the assertion either; he interjected himself (if memory serves) into the Koran/Ellison issue didn’t he? Moreover, as I previously stated, he clearly has an understanding of some of the other key issues of our time, and they are important to him…he did write about them.
I agree that is his primary goal. My question is how effective can that be without momentum and a wide base of appeal. Meaning, why does McCain or any other candidate have to respond to him at this stage? They don’t. Unless he affects their polling numbers, and unless they perceive a political advantage to it, I don’t think they have to address him at all.
My follow up question to that would be, how much power does a candidate have to keep the issue alive? For example, in the debates the candidates are asked questions as determined by the moderators. Immigration came up in a significant fashion in the last debate, but I would suggest that was a factor of the immigration bill, and not Tanc’s presence. I don’t see how he can set the tone or influence the discussion without a wider base of appeal. (I’m open-minded here, so, if you can address that I’d like to know why you think that.)
Tancredo has clearly influence the national discussion on immigration, but I don’t know that he has influenced it within the discussion of presidential candidates. I’ll go one further, he said he was changing the structure of his campaign to address the more immediate battle over this most recent bill. Does that sound to you like he feels he is bringing the issue in the context of the presidential race the attention he thinks it needs?
Lastly, do single issue candidates affect the overall platform? Can you give me an example? The first one that comes to my mind is Sharpton and the result of that is what? Hillary adopting artificial accents, ‘Uncle Tom’ slurs, and PS’d blackface? Again, I’m open-minded, I would like to know. Do single issue candidates really alter the landscape?
Spirit of 1776 on June 13, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Like the Govenator said, the bill will be back.
Kini on June 13, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I thought it was pretty funny.
A lot funnier than robots humping ; )
The Ugly American on June 13, 2007 at 4:32 PM
I support the Tanc with my wallet not because I think he has a snowballs chance to win but because his message is important, needs to be heard, and he has the huevos to say it. Cheesy it may be but this comprehensive amnesty giveaway is looking more like Terminator I (the evil robot) every day.
Buzzy on June 13, 2007 at 5:15 PM
It worked.
Whatever its stylistic flaws, it got here.
Tancredo/Hunter would beat the hell out of any other more “polished” (focus grouped/sanitized) team and I’ll support them until I have to pick a “real” candidate in the primaries.
Tanc keeps the fire under the weasels’ feet.
Even if he doesn’t win, he’s a winner.
profitsbeard on June 13, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Agree. He is a straight shooter, and there are precious few of those.
Spirit of 1776 on June 13, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Spirit, hope I didn’t take so long to get back to you that you’ve moved on entirely. I think I agree with you on almost everything you said. It seems that we are on the same basic track and on second read I probably should have picked my words more wisely when I said that the Tanc wants to do exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. Thats sounds confrontational when, in fact, that wasn’t my original intent. I think what needs to be said is the issue of illegal immigration can be easily tied back to every other issue that comes up in the campaign. Just about every other issue is effected and influenced by illegal immigration. The Tanc can stay on message while still discussing the other various issues he has, in the past, expressed knowlege of as well, so long as he explains how and why whichever issue he’s talking about is effected by illegal immigration.
Zetterson on June 13, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Nah, didn’t take it that way.
I wish him the best of luck.
Spirit of 1776 on June 13, 2007 at 6:37 PM
For its time the special effects and the storyline made The Terminator a great movie. However, I think the Terminator analogy would be best suited to describe our enemy the Islamo-fascists then to describe the immigration debate/bill.
Liberty or Death on June 14, 2007 at 12:44 AM