Exit question: Am I the only one who didn’t remember the first Terminator movie as being remotely as cheesy as it looks here?

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.

Thats sounds confrontational when, in fact, that wasn’t my original intent.

Nah, didn’t take it that way.

I wish him the best of luck.

Spirit of 1776 on June 13, 2007 at 3:50 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.

Even if he doesn’t win, he’s a winner.

Agree. He is a straight shooter, and there are precious few of those.

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.

A lot funnier than robots humping ; )

Zetterson on June 13, 2007 at 1:15 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:

The Tanc wants to do the opposite of what you are suggesting.

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.

His goal is to force the other candidates to continue to talk about this issue.

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?

Am I the only one who didn’t remember the first Terminator movie as being remotely as cheesy as it looks here?

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.

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.

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

Yeah, I watched it recently and the scene where Arnold removes his eye really doesn’t hold up well.

Am I the only one who didn’t remember the first Terminator movie as being remotely as cheesy as it looks here?

The only reason I watched Terminator. ;)

Sen. Tancredo’s got an interesting idea for a campaign ad, and what to compare the illegal immigration issue to: the Terminator!…

Am I the only one who didn’t remember the first Terminator movie as being remotely as cheesy as it looks here?

Nope, you’re not. I thought it technically brilliant when it came out, but now it looks like “Jason and the Argonauts” to me.

Spirit of 1776 on June 13, 2007 at 12:49 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9otmQwjcc0U

hilarious

And this will resonate with plenty of people. It was cheesy, for sure, but effective.

Tancredo’s “single issue” is one that touches and influences every domestic issue we are faced with.

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.