Video: Tancredo on dropping out and endorsing Romney
posted at 5:26 pm on December 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Mission accomplished declares Tancelot, pointing to the notably Tancredo-esque positions the rest of the field have taken this year on immigration. Is it true that they wouldn’t have tacked right if he hadn’t run, though? After the uproar last year over comprehensive immigration reform and then the shamnesty rebellion this summer, I’m skeptical. They might not have gotten there as quickly, but they’d have gotten there. If anything, Tanc being in the race insulated them a bit from criticism that their positions were too hardline. Whenever they were accused of “nativism,” they could simply point to the moment at one of the early debates where they rebuked Tanc for calling for a moratorium on legal immigration and that would be that.
But credit where credit is due. When it came to gratifying his pride by sticking it out until the caucus versus freeing up his supporters to do some good for the cause by voting for another guy, he went with principle and fell on his sword. He makes no bones about it here either in explaining why he endorsed Mitt: “He’s got the best shot” against Huckabee and McCain. An honorable end.
Below the vid you’ll find Steve King’s response to Tancredo’s endorsement. There’s virtually nothing to it; the only reason Fred’s camp is circulating it, I assume, is as a perfunctory reminder that not every immigration stalwart thinks Romney’s their best hope. Duly noted, but between the Tancredo brand and the King brand, no one would choose the latter. No offense, congressman. Click the image to watch.
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:
Nice vid from Steve King
bnelson44 on December 20, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Precisely true.
Spirit of 1776 on December 20, 2007 at 5:31 PM
True, dat. It’s likely the end of Fred. Ho, hum. Mitt it appears to be.
Editor on December 20, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Tancredo and many others contributed to forcing the issue of illegal immigration into the national conversation. Amongst the Presidential primary candidates the Tanc owned the issue though so he deserves much credit.
I have a feeling the Tanc’s enlightening discussion with Mitt this morning sounded very similar to when Gov Romney sat down for the interview with the Hotair crew. That interview is the reason Romney is #1 on my list this election season. I’m still perplexed as to why Fred never felt compelled to take the time to do the same.
Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 5:38 PM
I think a LOT of conservatives picked a candidate to get behind early on and they aren’t fairly considering any of the others. In psychology it’s called motivated reasoning. I wish people would be open enough to give Mitt a fair shake and to not just oppose him because he isn’t “their guy”. I’ve posted this at more than just this blog, but I definitely do not work for Romney’s campaign. I want some conservatives, who I feel haven’t given Mitt a fair shake thus far, to seriously reconsider their positions. Romney is clearly now the anti-illegal immigration candidate. What candidate can win the support of ALL conservatives…fiscal, defense, AND social? Mitt’s the man!
davenp35 on December 20, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Tancredo’s vid vs King’s vid…winner Romney. Gracious to pat a friend on the back, like King did, but not enough to make up for the boost this has to give Romney.
Limerick on December 20, 2007 at 5:40 PM
@ davenp35 on December 20, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I would give Mitt all the support in the world if I didnt think he was going to fold on the gun control issue. He wants another assault weapons ban, and I cannot support anyone who wants that.
muyoso on December 20, 2007 at 5:40 PM
You can’t ever pick a horse in the first lap. If you’ve watched and participated in many elections (which some of you appear not to have) there are so many things that can happen in months, weeks and even days that can deform or transform a candidate’s chances at the nomintation (and the presidency).
Notice I didn’t say “a candidate’s poll numbers”. As many of you know I pay 0 attention to poll numbers since most of them are push polls anyway.
This will have little effect on Fred (for good or bad) in the long run.
amend2 on December 20, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Mike Bloomberg!
Big S on December 20, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Woo Hooo..
Steve King for Fred Thompson!
I hope this really lights a fire under Fred’s belly. He needs to be rolling with this.
msipes on December 20, 2007 at 5:44 PM
How very Roman of him… In a good way.
Oderint Dum Metuant.
Frozen Tex on December 20, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Banned.
Allahpundit on December 20, 2007 at 5:44 PM
How is Huckabee going to spin this?
Will that Gilchrist tool jump ship and join the Romney camp because of this?
Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 5:50 PM
@ Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I am guessing with biblical references and reaffirming he is still a christian.
muyoso on December 20, 2007 at 5:54 PM
seriously?
Big S on December 20, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Yeah, I think thats a pretty safe guess.
Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Good one AP.
ChrisM on December 20, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I’m still trying to wrap my head around that. I must have missed something somewhere.
Editor on December 20, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Oh, I guess not. Heh. I was just pointing out that many believe that Bloomberg would get in if it looks like a strong anti-immigration candidate was nominated on the Republican ticket. As long as Rudy was the frontrunner, there wasn’t a whole lot of room for ol’ Mikey, but now that it looks like Romney might take it, Bloomberg’s gotta like his chances a little more. He always said he’d get in if “extremists” (his word) were nominated in both parties, and he’s very pro-immigrant. With Tancredo endorsing Romney’s position, that has to make him look more extreme to the likes of Bloomberg.
Big S on December 20, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I should say anti illegal immigration…
Big S on December 20, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Big S
If Bloomberg gets in as a pro-illegal immigrant candidate, he’ll only help Romney (or whomever gets the Rep nomination). I know I wouldn’t mind that one bit.
davenp35 on December 20, 2007 at 6:09 PM
With Hagel hanging around his neck, he couldn’t win even if he was loved like Rudy. Talk about an anchor.
a capella on December 20, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I’m not so sure about that. Although business-oriented conservatives (the Wall Street Journal crowd) are a minority of the party, I could definitely see them breaking for Bloomberg over Romney, especially if Romney takes a hard line on immigration in the general election.
Big S on December 20, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Its not even close Big S. The Wall St Journal will weigh the political consequences and realize that supporting Bloomberg will damage their credibility. They will happily support Romney come day #1 of the general election. Then they will say, “thank you sir may I have another.” Tancredo will be smiling in the background.
Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 6:29 PM
First Brownback now this. Proof positive that there are precious few real conservatives left.
Romney is as much a country club Republican as Nelson Rockefeller was. We conservatives will fare no better with him than we have with Bush 43.
If Tanc can so casually throw out an endorsement, the HE was a fraud as well.
If all we care about is winning the we are no different than the Dems. Ideolgy is paramount to me, and as El Rushbo says, there is only one real conservative out there. And it aint Mitt.
edgehead on December 20, 2007 at 6:34 PM
It might be a bit of sour grapes on my part, but since it’s a choice between ending illegal immigration (the King brand) and ending all immigration (the Tancredo brand), put me down as choosing the King brand.
I guess flopping at the right time has its advantages.
steveegg on December 20, 2007 at 6:39 PM
edgehead
Loose the cynicism and start thinking about the actual election consequences. Yeah. Mitt has changed some positions, but if you think he won’t be more conservative than Bush, I’m not sure how you are forming your opinions. I like Fred as well, but he can’t woo the social cons like Mitt can and Mitt is just as good for fiscal cons, if not better. Think about it!
davenp35 on December 20, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 6:29 PM
I’m not talking about the paper specifically, but the kind of people who read it. I would guess that the WSJ would probably either endorse Romney or nobody in such a race, but there are plenty of secular, pragmatic, business-oriented conservative-ish voters who could go for Bloomberg.
Big S on December 20, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Tom’s Campaign: R.I.P.
jaime on December 20, 2007 at 6:53 PM
can I have your stuff?
amend2 on December 20, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Ok gotcha. Appreciate the clarification.
Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 7:17 PM
There are two distinct sides to the WSJ- the editorial side which is conservative, and the rest which is not. I don’t see the editorial side endorsing Bloomberg.
No doubt a lot of New Yorkers like Bloomberg because he is a liberal, but are “business oriented conservatives” really a minority in the Republican Party? How much of a minority?
What about small business owners?
Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 8:09 PM
I’m not interested in “wooing” anybody by being disingenuous. I don’t care about winning for the sake of winning.
I AM a social con. And I don’t trust Mitt as far as I can throw him.
Mitt has a PROVEN RECORD of being a social lib and do you think he stands a snowball’s chance in hell of cutting spending with Pelosi in charge? Do you honestly think Mitt will keep steering right of center once he gets the nomination?
As Governors, Bush was a Barry Goldwater conservative compared to Mitt. Romney is a go-along-to-get-along, middle of the road, moderate who is desperately trying to appear conservative to win the nomination. That’s not good enough for me.
edgehead on December 20, 2007 at 8:53 PM
davenp35 on December 20, 2007 at 6:40 PM
News flash: Fred IS a social con. Mitt is not!
edgehead on December 20, 2007 at 8:54 PM
edgehead
Do you honestly think ANY christian would pick Fred over Mitt if they were just looking at social issues? I doubt it.
davenp35 on December 20, 2007 at 11:21 PM
You’re kidding right?
- The Cat
P.S. Bad timing on the Fred laugh on the 2nd clip. Also the setup on this was just plain bad, it shines a light on the defeat.
P.P.S. If I get married and have three kids we could be the Cat5. Man, I’m such a geek.
MirCat on December 21, 2007 at 1:29 AM
Comment pages: