Tancredo: Why I’m backing Romney

posted at 6:21 pm on December 21, 2007 by Allahpundit

He’s got the money, the machine, and a better record on immigration than any other major candidate with executive experience. “Can you go the distance?” says Tanc, identifying one of the four criteria he used to decide. The answer to that question seems to be yes for Mitt, no for Fred. Hence the endorsement. Sounds like Romney was also forced to pledge his troth to the cause in a private conversation. That’ll be useful later if he’s elected and goes squishy, as Tanc will be on every cable news outlet that’ll have him to hammer Mitt for his betrayal. The grassroots reaction will be fierce enough without that, but with it? Nuclear. And Romney surely knows it.

He also thinks McCain’s riding a bubble that’ll burst once the Huck/Mitt prizefight works itself out. Exit question: Does the coveted Tancredo endorsement make Romney the boss’s presumptive favorite? Or is she … on the list?

Link: sevenload.com


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Also, he is sick of seeing all those illegals in video games.

muyoso on December 21, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Tancredo, you’re the man but you made a mistake backing Romney the gun and game grabber.

FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 6:27 PM

gun and game grabber.

Mitt Romney, rated GGG

FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 6:29 PM

He’s just pissed that Fred got in after he was already in and it cut into his support.

There is no logical reason to support a RINO.

TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Sounds like Romney was also forced to pledge his troth to the cause in a private conversation. That’ll be useful later if he’s elected and goes squishy, as Tanc will be on every cable news outlet that’ll have him to hammer Mitt for his betrayal. The grassroots reaction will be fierce enough without that, but with it? Nuclear. And Romney surely knows it.

I trust Tom Tancredo, he’s in a much better position to make a choice, if Tom says OK its Governor Romney then its hard not to give that some credibility.

Speakup on December 21, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Gun grabber, game guillotiner, and government generated geriatrics and gynecology.

Godawful.

MadisonConservative on December 21, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Let’s hope Romney sees fit to honor their agreement. (And of course, “see” can be defined any way Romney chooses at any given moment.)

Jim Treacher on December 21, 2007 at 6:38 PM

TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Geez. One endorsement and the guy goes from being the voice of the people on immigration to vindictive and illogical.

Slublog on December 21, 2007 at 6:38 PM

I trust Tom Tancredo, he’s in a much better position to make a choice, if Tom says OK its Governor Romney then its hard not to give that some credibility.

I don’t agree with Romney on many things, but immigration is perhaps the biggest issue to me – an issue of national security and rule of law. Who is the best for that now? Tanc is making a credible argument on these lines.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 6:39 PM

There is nothing about Fred or Jeri that makes me think they are going to quit anytime soon. They will at least hold out until Super Tuesday, and the South isn’t voting for anyone like Mitt.

AZCON on December 21, 2007 at 6:40 PM

There is no logical reason to support a RINO.

TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 6:32 PM

I’m from California. I know RINOs, and Mitt Romney is no RINO.

The MO of RINOs is not to flip or move right but rather to emphasize those one or two positions where he is conservative to the exclusion of all else.

Wait, that reminds me of someone…. Oh, yeah, Huckabee.

Nessuno on December 21, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Ive already linked this like twice already but Tancredos campaign manager in Iowa has been picked up by the Thompson campaign.

amish on December 21, 2007 at 6:44 PM

I just can’t picture Ken Doll Romney appealing to the general population enough to win the Presidency. If he wins the primary, I obviously hope I’m wrong.

Gregor on December 21, 2007 at 6:51 PM

I’m from California. I know RINOs, and Mitt Romney is no RINO.

I’m also from California, and I second this: Romney is no RINO.

He’s just a garden-variety say-anything-to-get-elected scumbag, a species with which we Californians also have plenty of experience.

Centerfire on December 21, 2007 at 6:52 PM

amish on December 21, 2007 at 6:44 PM

That’s like comparing Anakin the baby to Darth Vader. The only influence that chap will have is with readers such as yourself. Has he written a book illustrating his grasp of the key issues? What’s his street cred? It’s based of off Tanc’s name!

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Geez. One endorsement and the guy goes from being the voice of the people on immigration to vindictive and illogical.

Slublog on December 21, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Well, I thought the Tank was inline with me and Fred’s views.

Endorsing Mitt just don’t fit!

[I got that last line by channeling the late Johnny Cochran]

TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Tanc is making a credible argument on these lines.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 6:39 PM

The purpose of my support for American national sovereignty is the preservation of our nation and our way of life. Mitt might be fine on the border, I don’t doubt Tancredo on that score, but Mitt is certainly not the best candidate to represent and preserve American and conservative principles.

FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 6:57 PM

If Romney (or any Republican) wins the left will go berserk (well, more berserk). They will hate him with as much or more intensity than they ever did Bush. I don’t see them wanting to give him credit for establishing national health care, grabbing guns or nanny-stating anything. They want the credit for that. So even if he wants to do that, he won’t try and Congress won’t let him.

If we are lucky, we will have for years of nothing being accomplished, and President Romney will served the republic by halting the left’s advance. That’s all I’m asking for.

Nosferightu on December 21, 2007 at 6:59 PM

So Tanc wont be upset if he choises to run against Wayne Allard and people say “electibility” ?

William Amos on December 21, 2007 at 7:05 PM

FR: Okay, I’m more concerned about the border than video games (just since that was previous thread) or whatever bothers you about whatever candidates, just. I don’t mind – everyone votes their concerns. Please don’t read this as an endorsement of Mitt. I merely mean Tanc has credibility with me on issues I care about.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 7:07 PM

I kinda wonder if Tanc figures Mitt will take the whitehousse and his endorsement will earn him a job. I just don’t see where he and Mitt really lined up that well.

boomer on December 21, 2007 at 7:15 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 7:07 PM

I’ve been playing video games since I got my first computer back in the early 80′s. I’m nearly 40 now and I don’t consider Mitt to be remotely qualified to take over control of one of my longest and most treasured pastimes.

But I’ll make a deal with Romney: if he’ll let me take over control of his religion and if he’ll prostrate himself before me, I’ll consider allowing him to take over my hobbies.

Sorry Spirit of 1776, if you’re not interested in video games, perhaps it’s a generational issue, you undoubtedly think I’m overreacting, but believe me, there are millions of adults in this country that play video games who will NOT be voting for Mitt now.

FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 7:24 PM

FR – Nah, I don’t think you are over-reacting because it represents a bigger issue free-speech and the marketplace. My complaint with Fred was the same essence: m-f. I’m not trying to speak to that or to project my opinion on to others; let me just put it this way: Tanc’s is the first endorsement where I went – let me think about this.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 7:39 PM

TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Tanc obviously cares more about personal benefit than principles.

Gatordoug on December 21, 2007 at 8:01 PM

Tanc obviously cares more about personal benefit than principles.

Sigh. This is where you Fredfolks lose me every time.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Well, Crud, I was wrong again (that makes twice this month ;-). I was sure that Tancredo was going to endorse Hunter or Fred.

I guess that even ‘Tom Terrific’ isn’t above placing politics over substance.

LegendHasIt on December 21, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Try your silly labels on some one else. Tancredo has been very tough on border issues, Thompson was far more in tune with Tanc than Romney. You do the math!

Gatordoug on December 21, 2007 at 8:30 PM

Tanc the pundit :)

bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 8:41 PM

Gatordoug, not to be silly. I don’t understand the maligning of Tanc. Tanc is trying to advance his number one issue. He is comfortable with Mitt’s position enough to endorse him. The cold fact is HE doesn’t think that Fred can go the distance. Mitt has a record which has a higher rating (I linked it the other day) than Fred and of course Rudy and McCain. If Fred had a better record and he had a better chance of winning, maybe Tanc would have endorsed him. He was looking at more then rhetoric, he was looking at record.

I just don’t understand it. I can respect the ‘I don’t agree, I think Fred is the better candidate’ argument. Great. But Tanc sold out his principles. Ugh. Even after he spelled it out for you in the interview. I just don’t see how you can think that.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM

I can see there Tanc is coming from. It makes sense.

bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM

I like Tanc a whole lot. He is still one of my favorite Conservatives.
BUT, as your post points out, TANC put his principles BEHIND other interests. Thank you for illustrating my point.

Gatordoug on December 21, 2007 at 8:49 PM

bnelson44 – Me too.

Gatordoug – I give up. We clearly see this differently.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Oh well, I never said he sold out, I said he put other interests in front of his principles. You basically said the very same thing.

Gatordoug on December 21, 2007 at 8:59 PM

Congressman Tancredo did something none of us can do and thats sit down for an hour long heart to heart with governor Romney.

I watched the whole hour Mitt had with Russert and it made me sick. I really like Mitt for his fantastic CEO ability and his obvious morality but that one interview he wasn’t the staunch gun rights and illegal deportation advocate I wanted to see.
Even so Mitt is far from the hold your nose to vote for guy some of the others are.

I still have reservations and I like Fred’s Federalist attitude but I also know that Tom Tancredo is in a much better place to choose a winner than I am and I know that if I can trust anybody, its Tom.

Speakup on December 21, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM

No doubt you’re correct that Tancredo felt that Mitt has a better shot at the WH, (I think that was his third criteria for selecting Mitt, as I recall), however he is simply wrong. American’s love porn and video games and guns, conservatives just as much as liberals, and there’s no WAY Mitt can win the general election unless the Democratic contender is convicted of a felony and thrown in prison just before voting begins.

That being the case, Fred has the best chance, not of winning the nomination unfortunately, but of winning the general election, because all of the other candidates other than Ron Paul are liberal nanny staters that simply won’t appeal to the conservative electorate, at least not enough of them to matter.

Put it this way, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, if I vote for him or Fred, I get to keep my guns and games, freedom and liberty, which simply isn’t true of any of the other candidates in the race.

Mitt is history; Tancredo was wrong to endorse him… but I agree that Tancredo did what he thought was right. I hold no ill will toward Tancredo; I just think he threw away his endorsement.

FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 9:17 PM

She should be on the list. Michelle would make one he11 of a Press Secretary for Fred. Now that would make the morning briefings interesting.

Griz on December 21, 2007 at 10:52 PM

didn’t finish it. (after the “we sat down” part”).. but when they start talking “muddled” and “nuanced” I gots to go.

amend2 on December 22, 2007 at 12:43 AM

I don’t see Michelle as supporting Mitt. Someone who so fundamentally misunderstands the importance of the 2nd Ammendment isn’t a genuine conservative. I’d guess she supports Fred. And once Fred is gone, she doesn’t have a real horse in the race.

Mark Jaquith on December 22, 2007 at 10:30 AM

When Mitt promised Tom to not offer “amnesty” to illegals, he meant it figuratively not literally. It was not Tom’s fault he misunderstood Mitt when Mitt said: “I saw my father march with MLK I will not grant amnesty to illegals”

tommylotto on December 22, 2007 at 11:24 AM

I’m from Colorado and I am a big Tancredo guy, but of course knew he didn’t stand a chance. I was hoping he would endorse Fred Thompson, who was my main, realistic choice, but he has fallen so far in the polls, there is no way for him to make up that ground now fast enough. So who’s really left to endorse now? Huckabee’s record is awful on illegal immigration, McCain is even more of a disaster (McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill) and as much as I like Guilianni, he hasn’t been real clear and outspoken on illegal immigration. So I guess that really only left Romney as the choice when talking about illegal immigration. Maybe I will hold out hope that because Romney is the younger one, so he still has time to become more conservative in the mold of a Reagan. Where I think it’s too late for those like McCain, Guilianni or Huckabee to change their ways. Maybe this was Tancredo’s thinking when selecting Romney, hopefully.

Has there ever been a time like this that the field of nominees were so diverse in their platforms, records and backgrounds and that it has been so hard to find a Republican nominee for president? I’ll support whoever is chose because of the bromide “party trumps person” when it comes to politics, but unless something changes for whoever is nominated, I’m not really enthused by the front-runners

Planet Boulder on December 22, 2007 at 11:39 AM

I hate to say it, but Thompson is just too old (goes for McCane too). You get a feel for this seeing him in “Barbarians at the Gate” and “The Hunt for Red October”. This clearing of his thought is also bothersome. I don’t thing he’s gonna make it.

I know it is a base assesment, but with Obama and Edwards looking like high schoolers, we can’t go geriatric just to be different. Take a look at Bush, even now – he is looking better than spry.

No US President should look older than the dead guys on US money. We are at war, and at very least we need someone who looks like he can beat up Amadinajad (or wears a dress).

We are a long way from the election, and this fawning over Reagan’s legacy and Fred’s “hasn’t said anything bad yet” is going to get old (while he gets older).

In the end we will have a candidate that “gets our message”. With a little conservative foundation, that’s not so bad.

Agrippa2k on December 22, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Another thing…

This dust-up over Rush’s comments about Clinton’s looks will bring the age and looks thing back up later, as the liberal media seeks revenge.

Sometimes I think liberals care less about being right (as they know it) than getting their way. Should Clinton not get the nomination, as happy as they might be about Obama, they will be pissed.

Agrippa2k on December 22, 2007 at 11:50 AM