Video: Tancredo rips GOP opponents for Hispandering at Univision debate
posted at 10:35 am on December 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
He’s being a trifle disingenuous — none of the candidates retreated from their immigration positions at the Spanish-language debate, their treacly rhetoric notwithstanding — but just listen to the cloying soundbites culled by Rick Sanchez and co. It’s not that what they’re saying isn’t true; it’s that their motives, and their basic condescension to their audience, are so transparent. For pure tin-eared groan-inducement, I give it to Mitt on points.
Speaking of pandering, is Giuliani kidding? If I understand the article correctly, he wanted to deport every last illegal in NYC, except the feds wouldn’t help, which is why he then apparently had to go around delivering speeches encouraging illegals to come to the city. Is anyone in the race, Mitt and Huck included, as shameless about their political reversals as Rudy is on this subject?
One more little tidbit for you, from the new Times poll. Drudge is leading right now with a headline about how the Democrats think Huckabee’s an easy kill in the general election. Don’t be so sure:
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
That is the first time that word has ever appeared in Texas. Thank god for Dictionary.com.
Ref the debate: What a waste of time. How many Blue heads will be turned into Red heads by this stuff? 100? 1000? Gee that’ll help.
Limerick on December 11, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Duncan Hunter and Tancredo for Pres and VP.
400lb Gorilla on December 11, 2007 at 10:47 AM
He could easily beat the Dem nominee but:
1. Do we want him to? I will not vote for a liberal Democrat or Republican.
2. The campaign would be sleazier than usual if it is an all Arkansas race (Huck v. Clinton). Lots of skeletons in there.
Valiant on December 11, 2007 at 10:58 AM
It’s all in the wording of the poll, though I give them props for actually saying “illegal”. If they asked “Do you support illegal immigrants (not CHILDREN of illegal immigrants) who graduate from high school in the US should pay taxpayer-funded in-state tuition rates just like legal state residents?
Notice how they say “should be allowed to attend”? They throw that in there on purpose, nice wordsmithing. That is to confuse the person being polled into thinking that the immigrant may even be DENIED admission. Yeah, the question deosn’t really say that, but when you say should they be allowed to attend, it plants the seed subconsciously. The pollwriter really knew what they were doing here.
RW Wacko on December 11, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Yep, Mitts’ was the treacliest.
captivated_dem on December 11, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Where’s the clip of Ron Paul pandering to Hispanics? (Asking seriously here — did he leave it out, or did Paul refuse to pander?)
Mark Jaquith on December 11, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Tancredo’s right. Who were they talking to?
I’m not from New York and I’m not an evangelical, (but at least I’m an American and speak English). My vote for Fred in the primary is probably not going to account for anything so instead I’m going to vote for Tancredo on principle.
FloatingRock on December 11, 2007 at 11:54 AM
I don’t like Paul, but he refused to pander. God booed out of the joint.
RW Wacko on December 11, 2007 at 12:05 PM
I’m with you Gorilla!
shick on December 11, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Tancredo has a good point, where’s the guts?
We already know who Sanchez is pandering to.
Speakup on December 11, 2007 at 2:06 PM
or Tancredo and Hunter for the Pres. and V.P. the 2 most believable of all candidates on all issues. They get limited media coverage, thus no chance.
oldernslower on December 11, 2007 at 3:52 PM
That bit about tuition-breaks really gets me mad. I started going to the University of Arizona as an undergraduate, but couldn’t afford to keep paying the out-of-state tuition, so I went back to my home-state Oregon. Didn’t do me any harm, sure, but…
why am I, who have a state, on a lower level from someone who has no state at all?
Tzetzes on December 11, 2007 at 7:07 PM