Tancredo: Palin not fit for the presidency

posted at 10:55 am on March 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The decision by Sarah Palin to campaign for John McCain has opened up a Tea Party tiff between two of its firebrand conservatives.  Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, who has campaigned among Tea Party activists for his long-standing fight against comprehensive immigration reform, declares Palin unfit for the presidency and an unprincipled politician for supporting his bete noir in his re-election bid:

After her speech at the Nashville convention, Palin said she is considering a run for the presidency in 2012. Tancredo however, does not believe she is fit for the presidency.

“I really don’t have this feeling about her as being presidential,” he Tancredo said. “I don’t know what it is exactly. I don’t know if the issues really are that difficult for her or not.”

He questions if she has what it takes, and whether she really wants it. “As governor of the state of Alaska, she doesn’t have all that kind of experience. She can get better. But I don’t know if she is really looking to do it.’’

It could all be a commercial thing, just a way to sell books?

“Sure. Make a lot of money and stay in the mix. I think that’s a great idea.’’

John McCain has brought over his former running mate to campaign for him in Arizona, where the Tea Party movement is challenging his seat in the Senate.  She will campaign against J.D. Hayworth, a friend of yours who is on your side in the immigration debate. What does that tell you about Palin?

“That tells me she is a Republican. I am not. I mean, I am a member of that party and that will always stay that way. But to me it’s only a mechanism, a way to get on the ballot and all that. But she is a real  Republican.’’

She has to do this to rise in the party ranks?

“I think so.’’

So she is just as much an unprincipled politician as all the rest of them?

“To a large extent.’’

It’s important to remember that Tancredo ran for the Presidency in 2008, and may try again in 2012, too.  He will want to set up a contrast with Palin — and, by extension, the rest of the Republican candidates — and so he’s not likely to be an objective observer on any of them.  Tancredo explains that his falling out with McCain came from a supposed verbal fight over Tancredo’s refusal to give the BCRA quid pro quo support after McCain did some fundraising for Tancredo to get him elected, and this kind of story allows Tancredo to make himself into the “not business as usual” candidate … even though the entirety of Tancredo’s resume comes from his work inside the Beltway as Congressman.

Palin’s support for McCain has gotten her some criticism, but it’s difficult to see what other choice she could make.  She has talked endlessly about her admiration for the man who put her on a national ticket, including supporting most of McCain’s policy choices.  During the campaign, Palin expressed support for McCain’s immigration policies, which not only puts her at loggerheads with Tancredo but also with McCain’s primary opponent J. D. Hayworth.  If Palin wants to build herself into a presidential contender, she has to get involved in Senate and House races this cycle, and it would have been impossible for her to legitimately stay neutral in Arizona.  Taking a neutral position would have been tantamount to an endorsement of Hayworth.

As far as Tea Party credibility goes, Tancredo has his own problems:

But there you were, staunch conservative Tom Tancredo in one of his last days in Congress, supporting a huge government program for the financial sector on the side of all the liberals you loathed your whole life.

“Oh, it was very strange. It was bizarre! But let me tell you the interesting aspect from my point of view. There were several people that essentially said to me (and many, many, many more who didn’t say it), ‘I can’t vote for it, but my God, I hope it passes’.’’  …

Do the Tea Party people realise that you supported the bailout?

“I don’t know.’’

And if they knew, wouldn’t they be angry with you?

“Yeah, I am sure that would take the lustre off.’

As it happens, I have more sympathy for Tancredo on this point.  Congress voted to buy up the toxic mortgage-backed securities to stabilize the lending markets, not bailouts of financial institutions (I originally supported the original idea, while critics rightly predicted it would turn into a blank check).  The Bush and Obama administrations used that money for a completely different purpose, as Tancredo correctly explains, although Congress buckled under to supplying the language that allowed Treasury to do that.  That, however, is a nuanced point — and more importantly, the  policy turned out to be against the main thrust of the Tea Party movement for limiting government interventions.

Tancredo’s experience shows the need for nuanced understanding of political decisions … a point which he completely misses with Palin, mainly to benefit himself.

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: 1 2 3

Sarah needs to learn to pick her nose while being video’d.

Cybergeezer on March 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Based on the first being true, the result being……..
But, that’s only logic, based on the statement given.

Cybergeezer on March 1, 2010 at 11:50 AM

advantage Cybergeezer

The Race Card on March 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Tancredo is a crank.

America needs a positive leader (Mitch Daniels perhaps).

omnipotent on March 1, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Tancredo is a once issue candidate and therefore not worth comment

Kini on March 1, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Hot Air is really pulling out every stop to discredit Sarah Palin. This is an interview with a former congressman who embarrassed himself at the National Tea Party Convention taken from an obscure Dutch sounce.

Ed and Allah – We are not gonna support your Butt Boy, Mitt.

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM

“I really don’t have this feeling about her as being presidential,” he Tancredo said. “I don’t know what it is exactly. I don’t know if the issues really are that difficult for her or not.”

Feelings, nothing more than feelings…

Hey, great argument Tom! Nobody cares how you feel. Tell me why you think she isn’t Presidential material and I will evaluate your argument and make my own decision.

SoonerMarine on March 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Let this be a lesson for you people: If your fifteen minutes of fame are up and you want the media to talk to you, then start snarking on Sarah Palin. :p

Aitch748 on March 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM

By the way, Mitt’s book is being released tomorrow. It’s currently #469 in Books at Amazon.com.

Excuse me because I’m headed to Barnes & Noble to get in line right now. I don’t want to miss Mitt’s book signing.

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Ed, don’t you know it is not nice to take a stick and bang it on the collective cage of the Palinistas and taunt them like this?

paulsur on March 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Questioner: So she is just as much an unprincipled politician as all the rest of them?

Tancredo: “To a large extent.’’

This made my jaw drop. Tancredo actually accused Palin of being unprincipled to a large extent. That’s about as bad as accusing someone of being a racist. And he offered nothing whatsoever in the way of examples to support this claim. If Tancredo cannot backup his charge with facts, he needs to be excoriated for this bit of political sleaziness.

Tancredo also said:

That tells me she is a Republican. I am not. I mean, I am a member of that party and that will always stay that way. But to me it’s only a mechanism, a way to get on the ballot and all that. But she is a real Republican.

Yowser! Not only does he nastily hit below the belt, he d*sses the only party which might consider supporting him in whatever next campaign he decides to join. Just another snake in the grass.

And I sure hope the Tea Partiers are paying attention, because if he can turn on fellow Republicans this savagely, he’ll most assuredly turn on the Tea Party as well should it become politically expedient to do so. He’s lost all credibility with this feckless interview. The man is now poison.

KendraWilder on March 1, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Hot Air is really pulling out every stop to discredit Sarah Palin. This is an interview with a former congressman who embarrassed himself at the National Tea Party Convention taken from an obscure Dutch sounce.

Ed and Allah – We are not gonna support your Butt Boy, Mitt.

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Let’s put what HA is doing in some context. They rarely quote Tancredo, and when they do, it is to disparage him, call him a nutter, etc. Except now that they’ve caught him disparaging Palin at the behest of his (and their) guy, Mittens, now Tancredo is someone who should be listened to?

Seriously, the dumpster diving on Palin at HA is getting embarrassing.

james23 on March 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Tancredo who is that?

PappyD61 on March 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Hotair should change its name to palinistas.com – Get Your Fill

keep the change on March 1, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Quitting public service to start raking in millions with books, speeches, and Fox News is a brillant addition to her resume for president.

PrezHussein on March 1, 2010 at 1:00 PM

I guess that’s fair. Tancredo was unfit to be a congressman.

Tres Angelas on March 1, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Well, Tancredo, I think you were a one issue politician, and you are not quaslifed to be president.

rlwo2008 on March 1, 2010 at 1:05 PM

qualified

rlwo2008 on March 1, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Well Tom ‘Nuke Mecca’ Tancredo is unfit for public service in many people’s eyes.

Tancredo is really nothing more than a racist who wants to kill people who look different than him.

Mr Purple on March 1, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Mr Purple on March 1, 2010 at 1:13 PM

What race would that be?

DrMagnolias on March 1, 2010 at 1:20 PM

I really don’t have this feeling about her as being presidential,” he Tancredo said. “I don’t know what it is exactly.

I’ll tell you what it is. First, she needs to lose the big hair. She doesn’t look like a no-nonsense leader (Cheney is the gold standard) the big hair makes her look frivolous – HS cheerleader look.

Second, she needs a voice coach. Her voice is too high-pitched and has a tinny quality. Again, not a serious sounding voice.

I love Palin and have a deep and abiding respect for her political skills and savvy. Anyone who can take down the Don Young/Ted Stevens old-boys club is a political miracle-worker.

I just wish that she had that serious no-BS aura of Dick Cheney.

lonesomecharlie on March 1, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Who bought Hot Air – Salem Communications or the RNC?

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Seriously, the dumpster diving on Palin at HA is getting embarrassing.

james23 on March 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM

FIFY

pseudonominus on March 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Who ever thinks Palin could be elected President must have about the same mental faculties as the Governor .

borntoraisehogs on March 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Tancredo is really nothing more than a racist who wants to kill people who look different than him.

Mr Purple on March 1, 2010 at 1:13 PM

So was Reagan I assume then.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Who bought Hot Air – Salem Communications or the RNC TMZ?

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 1:22 PM

FIFY

katiejane on March 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM

Tancredo’s a crank, and he was never even a serious candidate for the presidency.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

So was Reagan I assume then.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Reagan passed amnesty.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Whoever thinks Palin could be elected President must have about the same mental faculties as the Governor.

borntoraisehogs on March 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Not sure that’s an insult, but at least I never made love to a pig.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Looks like Tancredo thinks Sarah needs to be as stupid as POTUS and COPOTUS. I don’t think it’s doable. How many points does one half to shave off of their IQ? Then there was Jimmy “Smarty-pants” Carter. What a boffo event he was.

LarryG on March 1, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Reagan passed amnesty.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Ah, so if you approve of amnesty you are not a racist? I agree with Breitbart, it’s time to stop accepting the left’s groundwork argument that if you oppose the left’s agenda you are racist in some way.

On immigration Tancredo believes that immigration without assimilation is national suicide. You can disagree, but that’s not racist. He also thinks we should halt immigration until we get assimilation. You can disagree (as I do) but that’s not racist.

The Nuke Mecca part is about finding a deterrent. You can disagree (as I do) but it’s not racist.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Ah, so if you approve of amnesty you are not a racist?

Tancredo had one issue, which was immigration. So, I wondered how you could compare him to Reagan, who passed amnesty. I said nothing about racism.

The Nuke Mecca part is about finding a deterrent. You can disagree (as I do) but it’s not racist.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 1:47 PM

But that statement is absolutely racist. It says all Muslims are terrorists, since they all consider Mecca a holy place and bombing it would be a “suitable deterrent.”

I am hawkish on foreign policy and consider Tancredo’s statement despicable. Mr. Purple is right about him.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 1:56 PM

HA is becoming way too – shall we say – sensational.

Or maybe it’s Salem’s way of ginning up interest and market share.

Or allahpundit threatened to restart his old website.

platypus on March 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM

But that statement is absolutely racist. It says all Muslims are terrorists, since they all consider Mecca a holy place and bombing it would be a “suitable deterrent.”

Think it through. Muslims aren’t a race, it’s a religion or a political ideology. What he is saying is that since terror comes through a political ideology or religion to find a deterrent, we need to get the larger body (not the so called extremists) to self-regulate extremism. In this case deter Saudi Arabia from exporting Wahhabism.

It’s akin to Reagan’s view on peace through strength and the US’s deterrence policy of Mutual Assured Destruction. Sorry if you find that racist, but I think it’s more of a factor of taking the facts to fit a racist template, then taking the facts as they are. The whole comment came out of a question about how to deter terror and he said do you have a better idea then this? If so, glad to hear it. That’s not racism, that is brainstorming and open for a better idea.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:01 PM

So, I wondered how you could compare him to Reagan, who passed amnesty. I said nothing about racism.

Because you think Mecca line was racist. I wasn’t talking about Reagan wrt immigration, but deterrence.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:02 PM

What race would that be?

DrMagnolias on March 1, 2010 at 1:20 PM

In the modern era the underlying assumption of “racism” is a belief that differences in the culture, values, and/or practices of some ethnic/religious groups are “too different” and are likely to threaten “community values” and social cohesion. It’s a relatively small step to discriminate against Muslims as a group based on racist stereotypes.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Because you think Mecca line was racist. I wasn’t talking about Reagan wrt immigration, but deterrence.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Reagan would have never made a comment like “nuke Mecca.” He was a statesman who believed in violence as a last resort. “Tear down this wall” had more impact on the Cold War than any amount of careless threats.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Interesting fact about Tancredo (from Wikipedia):

“As a Republican student activist Tancredo spoke in support of the Vietnam War. After graduating from the University of Northern Colorado he became eligible to serve in Vietnam in June 1969. Tancredo has said he went for his physical, telling doctors he had been treated for depression, and eventually got a “1-Y” deferment. Critics have noted that Tancredo’s appearance before the draft board led it to rule him mentally unfit for duty due to generalized anxiety, depression, and panic disorders.”

At least Tom’s buddy Mittens roughed it in France as a Mormon missionary to avoid Nam.

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Or allahpundit threatened to restart his old website.

platypus on March 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM

The sooner, the better.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:05 PM

This pinhead has a radio show on the weekends here in Denver and the guy is off the rails, he is obsessed obout immigration. He is Lou Dobbs on steroids.

KBird on March 1, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Critics have noted that Tancredo’s appearance before the draft board led it to rule him mentally unfit for duty due to generalized anxiety, depression, and panic disorders.” At least Tom’s buddy Mittens roughed it in France as a Mormon missionary to avoid Nam.

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 2:05 PM

They’ve both been conspicuously absent from the conservative frontlines throughout the recent policy debates. Then look at Tancredo’s statement about the party.

I mean, I am a member of that party and that will always stay that way. But to me it’s only a mechanism, a way to get on the ballot and all that.

He’s a fine one to make recommendations about the next GOP nominee. Sell-out. Coward. Racist buttclown.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Reagan would have never made a comment like “nuke Mecca.” He was a statesman who believed in violence as a last resort. “Tear down this wall” had more impact on the Cold War than any amount of careless threats.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:04 PM

My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that would outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in 5 minutes.

Nuke Mecca wasn’t a threat, and frankly Tancredo wasn’t acting as a statesmen – he was having a conversation about possible policy, not representing the US on policy. Either way, not racist.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Of course she is unfit for the presidency. Doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.
therightwinger on March 1, 2010 at 12:16 PM

give us the top 3 things she has done that make her unfit… It has to be true BTW… The quitter meme won’t work either since her post resignation success and dismissal of the ethics complaints prove her point about that…

You’re just an obnoxious troll who thinks it is so clever to call itself a rightwinger when it is obviously a hatefilledlefty

CCRWM on March 1, 2010 at 2:10 PM

In the modern era the underlying assumption of “racism” is a belief that differences in the culture, values, and/or practices of some ethnic/religious groups are “too different” and are likely to threaten “community values” and social cohesion.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Of course, for most of Western history this was common sense, not racism.

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 2:12 PM

She’s more fit for the presidency than Tancredo.

RightOFLeft on March 1, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Oh, and I see Dave Letterman has decided to counter Palin on Jay Leno with Mitt Romney.

Wonder who’ll be the bigger draw for viewers?

/sarc

cs89 on March 1, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Romney may be a better choice and better executive and training but what Sarah has is star power. She also really does think out of the box.

Another thing she has is no chance of winning the Presidency.

xblade on March 1, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Reagan was joking about his critics’ histrionics. Tancredo was running for President, and it is to the American people’s credit that nobody took this racist nutter seriously enough to invite him to the table for policy discussions.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Another thing she Romney has is no chance of winning the Presidency.

xblade on March 1, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Been there. Done that. Now he should go away.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Ah sorry. I misunderstood, I didn’t realize that “would never [make] a comment” meant ‘made such comments, but were just a joke, hahaha’.

That makes me wonder if “racist” means ‘I disagree with him’.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:20 PM

HA is becoming way too – shall we say – sensational.

Or maybe it’s Salem’s way of ginning up interest and market share.

Or allahpundit threatened to restart his old website.

platypus on March 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM

And Ed can go back to Captain’s Corner and they can bring some real conservatives to HA.

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 2:20 PM

And Ed can go back to Captain’s Corner and they can bring some real conservatives to HA.

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Why not start your own blog?

The Race Card on March 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Tancredo gets another one right, but who’s going to listen besides the hard-ledt anti-Palin fruitloops?

Hell, make her a vice president and she’ll be a grade-A support raiser for the POTUS. After all, she was the only thing that kept McLame’s campaign from being a complete joke.

Dark-Star on March 1, 2010 at 2:34 PM

ancredo actually accused Palin of being unprincipled to a large extent. That’s about as bad as accusing someone of being a racist. And he offered nothing whatsoever in the way of examples to support this claim.

KendraWilder on March 1, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Did not Palin accept McCain’s offer to be his vice presidential running mate? Did she not, during that entire campaign, pimp for McCain’s liberal agenda, including advocacy for cap and trade and increased government education funding and support for amnesty?
Since the campaign ended, and seeing all of her support from the conservatives, she’s veered right on many of the issues she stood for while running with McCain. Her hard flip-flop on cap and trade was particularly noticeable (to those paying attention at least). These are the actions of a political opportunist, not a principled conservative.

You may not agree of course. But there is most definitely a case to be made that Palin is neither principled nor conservative.

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Reagan was joking about his critics’ histrionics. Tancredo was running for President, and it is to the American people’s credit that nobody took this racist nutter seriously enough to invite him to the table for policy discussions.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Only a liberal would accuse Tancredo of being a racist. Thanks for exposing yourself.

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 2:37 PM

That makes me wonder if “racist” means ‘I disagree with him’.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Real simple. Was Reagan serious when he talked about bombing Russia and signing legislation that would outlaw them? Clue: he was laughing when he said it.

Was Tancredo serious about nuking Mecca. You argued he meant it as a “deterrent.” Thankfully, nobody else took him seriously. Because he’s a racist fool.

Only a liberal would accuse Tancredo of being a racist. Thanks for exposing yourself.

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Tom Tancredo is neither a conservative nor even that much of a Republican by his own admission. He’s a xenophobe.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Did she not, during that entire campaign, pimp for McCain’s liberal agenda, including advocacy for cap and trade and increased government education funding and support for amnesty?

She was against drilling in ANWR, too. /sarc

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM

So was Reagan I assume then. Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 1:30 PMReagan passed amnesty.chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

His only REGRET!———–and would destroy this nation — think CHAIN mIGRATION & massive ENTITLEMENTS! Not to mention creating that which they\’ve run from –socialism/marxism–through the ballot box! And add to this mess the Islamic fundamentalists pouring in. One of the most serious problems our nation faces is AMNESTY and it\’s CHAIN mIGRATION.

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Tom Tancredo is neither a conservative nor even that much of a Republican by his own admission. He’s a xenophobe.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:45 PM

If your argument is what you presented here, then it must be dismissed. Regardless, you are welcome to your own opinion, though I would not advice looking to you for an opinion on Tancredo any more then I would advice people looking for advice on Palin to look to Tancredo. Though, I suspect he is more honest then you are.

I’m just sad to see that you have fallen prey to the liberal doctrine that seeks to make controversial speech racist. I hope you and Lyndsay Graham are happy together.

Real simple. Was Reagan serious when he talked about bombing Russia and signing legislation that would outlaw them? Clue: he was laughing when he said it.

Well, I proved you wrong on your declarative statement that statesman Reagan would never say something offensive. So, hey you spin it anyway you need to to sleep at night. Reagan was clearly a xenophobic racist, unless you like him. Then Tancredo is. If that is what floats your boat.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Racist.

/s

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Tom Tancredo is neither a conservative nor even that much of a Republican by his own admission. He’s a xenophobe.
chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Don’t even try that race baiting crap. That dog don’t hunt. Shows your complete lack of knowledge concerning this issue.

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Only a liberal would accuse Tancredo of being a racist. Thanks for exposing yourself.

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 2:37 PM

The Race Card is the most rapid-fire all purpose ad hominem and vapid weapon of smear, mass deception and diversion ever conceived by man. It is a weapon under which weak minds are servilely crouched and can be fired with the greatest of ease by even the most intellectually and logically challenged, and in fact, was designed especially for use by them. It is void of justice. It is void of liberty. It needs no footing in rationality. It has no expiration date. It doesn’t even appear to have a half life. There are those who theorize that it may continue to exist indefinitely in some form even after time itself has come to an end.

MB4 on March 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Racist.

/s

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Idiot

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM

At least Tom’s buddy Mittens roughed it in France as a Mormon missionary to avoid Nam.

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 2:05 PM

You have no evidence that Mitt served as an LDS missionary just to avoid the Vietnam war.

While many kids were smoking dope, protesting the war, or doing whatever else, Mitt Romney was doing a good thing and sharing his belief with others.

Fighting as a soldier in Vietnam is admirable. But so is going abroad and working on behalf of a Church is also admirable regardless if you’re a Jehovah’s Witness, Catholic, Evangelical, Mormon, or any other faith.

I have lots of respect for people who go around knocking on doors for their faith.

As a member of the LDS Church myself, I served an LDS mission in which I spent two years sharing the gospel of Christ with others.

I would think it is admirable to many Conservatives that Mitt Romney, as a young man, voluntarily dedicated two years of his life, to share his faith with others in France.

And just out of curiosity…How many non-LDS children do you personally know have volunteered two years of their lives to share their faith or belief with others?

Conservative Samizdat on March 1, 2010 at 2:58 PM

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM

LOL. The /s is to indicate sarcasm. I agree with you, I called a racist sarcastically.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 3:00 PM

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Racist.

/s

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:52 PM
Idiot

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM

What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.
- Captain, Road Prison 36

MB4 on March 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM

That makes me wonder if “racist” means ‘I disagree with him’.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:20 PM

That’s really what it comes down to. “Racism” for liberals like chunderroad is pretty much any speech, behavior or thought that they don’t agree with, are uncomfortable with, or simply don’t like. “Racism” is that which does not conform to liberal PC. Chunderroad is a True Believer.

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM

“Racism” is that which does not conform to liberal PC.

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Yes, that is what is sad to me, the adoption of the liberal idea that if it’s not PC is racist. I really enjoyed the Breitbart interview on RedEye (think link is on BigGovernment) where he is talking about CPAC experience and how the right has allowed the racism card far too long.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 3:05 PM

LOL. The /s is to indicate sarcasm. I agree with you, I called a racist sarcastically.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 3:00 PM

SHOOT—didn’t see it {hanging head-lol} And please give me a pass? Pretty please

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 3:06 PM

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 3:06 PM

No worries, I’m not offended.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 3:08 PM

MB4 on March 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Yes, it is indeed a powerful weapon for the liberal. But only if we let them get away with it. The Race Card only works against people who believe in political correctness themselves, people who have bowed their knees to the doctrines of liberalism. Those of us who are not liberals see this smear for what it is, are not shamed by it, and should if possible expose those who use it as the intellectual frauds they are.

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 3:09 PM

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Racist.

/s

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:52 PM
Idiot

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM

What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.
- Captain, Road Prison 36

MB4 on March 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM

I apologized! Hanging head and all that-rotf embarrassed!

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 3:10 PM

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 3:06 PM

No worries, I’m not offended.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Okey dokey – thanks Spirit

lilspitfire on March 1, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Conservative Samizdat on March 1, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Good for him, good for you.

However…

Is it accurate to call it “volunteering” when the missions are a rite of passage that most young men (from active church families, at least) participate in?

And there is something of a cultural/religious aspect to it. If a 20-year-old LDS man goes on a 2-year mission, neighbors generally say “Okay, seems normal.”

If a 20-year-old Methodist says “I’m going to France on a 2-year mission” folks go “What!??”

Simply different expectations, due to established practices.

But again, good for him and you.

cs89 on March 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Is it possible for any politician or anyone,for that matter, to have a principled disagreement with anything Palin says/does? Or are all motives suspect? Honest question.

Diane on March 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Absolutely. The problem is very few people, if any, challenge her on the issues. Virtually every public rebuke of Palin is made on the grounds that she’s dumb and/or that she’s too inexperienced or unqualified to be President.

First of all, this presupposes that she’s actually running for President. While I think she will, let’s at least wait til the woman actually declares her candidacy. Secondly, these aren’t principled disagreements. Calling someone stupid or saying they’re not fit for the Presidency(an ironic charge when it’s coming from Obama supporters) are personal insults, not substantive debate.

Doughboy on March 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Exactly. To put it another way, it’s certainly possible to have a principled disagreement with Palin in theory. But you never seem to find any in practice.

And I base that on the criticisms offered. It’s never, “I believe Palin is wrong on x for reasons y and z. No, it’s always that Palin is “stupid” or “unqualified,” “gamaged,” or the really ridiculous but often repeated, “Palin Cult.”

Based on the history of the past 6 months, skepticism about Palin’s critics should always be the default position.

tom on March 1, 2010 at 3:37 PM

It’s true that the left levels charges of racism against any conservative who disagrees with them on an issue, particularly (but not exclusively) when the issue touches on race, as the issue of immigration reform does.

Unfortunately, every so often some clown like Tom Tancredo comes along to lend the charge credibility.

Tres Angelas on March 1, 2010 at 3:44 PM

However…

Is it accurate to call it “volunteering” when the missions are a rite of passage that most young men (from active church families, at least) participate in?

cs89 on March 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Yes and no.

It is a right of passage for LDS males and females.

However, it really is a volunteer job. You have to approach the LDS ecclesiastical leader of that chapel and fill out an application. You have to go through an interview and medical check up.

That application is sent to Salt Lake City and if they accept you, they will tell you where you are going. They reject many applicants for various different reasons.

In addition, LDS missionaries don’t get paid, they work full time hours in proselyting, and the rules for doing the work are strict.

I know its a long winded answer but I thought I would give a full answer to the question.

And there is something of a cultural/religious aspect to it. If a 20-year-old LDS man goes on a 2-year mission, neighbors generally say “Okay, seems normal.”

If a 20-year-old Methodist says “I’m going to France on a 2-year mission” folks go “What!??”

Simply different expectations, due to established practices.

cs89 on March 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Good point. Fair enough.

Conservative Samizdat on March 1, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Hey, Mr. Tancredo.
I know this crack whore that has run her “business” for about 11 years. And she says she always votes Republican.
Would she be better qualified to be a Presidential candidate?

Cybergeezer on March 1, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Unfortunately, every so often some clown like Tom Tancredo comes along to lend the charge credibility.

Tres Angelas on March 1, 2010 at 3:44 PM

What has Tancredo ever said that lends any credibility to the left’s constant charges of racism?

The fact is, Tancredo only “lends credibility” to the racism charge of liberalism if one subscribes to the basic tenets of liberalism. For example, there’s nothing “racist” about a restrictionist view on immigration. That’s only “racist” if you agree with the liberal principle that all discrimination is de facto immoral and wrong, which you apparently do.

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Well said.

DrMagnolias on March 1, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Tancredo’s statement at the National Tea Party Convention that Obama was elected because we don’t have a “literacy test before people can vote in this country” lent credibility to the (false) charges from the left that the Tea Party movement is racially inspired.

One needn’t subscribe to any tenent of liberalism to recognize that expressing support for literacy tests is not helpful to the cause.

Also, it is not the case that I believe that all discrimination is wrong. For example, I discriminate against politicians who are morons, like Tom Tancredo.

Tres Angelas on March 1, 2010 at 5:27 PM

What is with HA guys? Can’t you advocate for Romney and Pawlenty without tearing Sarah down?

promachus on March 1, 2010 at 5:29 PM

I’m just sad to see that you have fallen prey to the liberal doctrine that seeks to make controversial speech racist.

I said Tancredo is a racist fool who has one single issue: xenophobia. I have not heard him speak realistically about immigration or foreign policy.

Well, I proved you wrong on your declarative statement that statesman Reagan would never say something offensive.

Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Sure, you did, in bizarro world. Reagan’s quote in no way resembled Tancredo’s quote, and Reagan would never seriously suggest “nuking Mecca” or anything remotely similar. Reagan also disagreed with Tancredo on immigration.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 5:48 PM

You have no evidence that Mitt served as an LDS missionary just to avoid the Vietnam war.

While many kids were smoking dope, protesting the war, or doing whatever else, Mitt Romney was doing a good thing and sharing his belief with others.

Fighting as a soldier in Vietnam is admirable. But so is going abroad and working on behalf of a Church is also admirable regardless if you’re a Jehovah’s Witness, Catholic, Evangelical, Mormon, or any other faith.

Remember, Mitt was doing missionary work in FRANCE.

“Well guys, it’s almost noon and we’re out of brochures. Time to hit the topless beach and look for converts.”

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Also, it is not the case that I believe that all discrimination is wrong. For example, I discriminate against politicians who are morons, like Tom Tancredo.

Tres Angelas on March 1, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Watch out. The town crier Spirit of 1776 2Dumb2SpellToo will call you a liberal.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 5:52 PM

2Dumb2SpellToo

LOL. Is that the best you could do? Really?

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Tancredo’s statement at the National Tea Party Convention that Obama was elected because we don’t have a “literacy test before people can vote in this country” lent credibility to the (false) charges from the left that the Tea Party movement is racially inspired.

If something is false, it’s false. Who cares what the left thinks? Obviously it was you who was personally offended by Tancredo’s statement. Which is fine. But just because you don’t agree doesn’t make what Tancredo said “racist.”

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Tancredo’s experience shows the need for nuanced understanding of political decisions … a point which he completely misses with Palin, mainly to benefit himself.

At the risk of sounding like a groupie, this is a great example of why Ed’s analysis is so respected and gaining recognition.

phineas on March 1, 2010 at 8:08 PM

“Racist” has no meaning anymore, you people have destroyed it.

Thank you, it was far too effective a word for smear artists for too long.

scotash on March 1, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Did not Palin accept McCain’s offer to be his vice presidential running mate? Did she not, during that entire campaign, pimp for McCain’s liberal agenda, including advocacy for cap and trade and increased government education funding and support for amnesty?
Since the campaign ended, and seeing all of her support from the conservatives, she’s veered right on many of the issues she stood for while running with McCain. Her hard flip-flop on cap and trade was particularly noticeable (to those paying attention at least). These are the actions of a political opportunist, not a principled conservative.

You may not agree of course. But there is most definitely a case to be made that Palin is neither principled nor conservative.

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 2:35 PM

In recent history, name any executive pairing where both the Prez & Veep were two pweas in a pod? The Prez always runs with co-opts a member from the other side of the party to widen the voting pool – think about the pairings:
–Kennedy w/ Johnson
–Nixon w/ Ford
–Carter w/ Mondale (Mondale w/ Ferraro were probably the closest in ideology, advantage being the “female” vote)
–”supply-side” Reagan w/ “voodoo-Rockerfellerian” Papa Bush
–liberal Clinton w/ “conservative” Gore
–inexperienced Son Bush w/ seasoned Cheney (certainly no ideology love lost between those two now that their need to present a united front has passed)
–joker Obama w/ Biden the Clown (how’s that hopey changey that cHillary & Biden warned us about?)

The true test of Palin is if she rips or supports McVain after she’s paid her dues. If he wins and goes on to push for amnesty, cap&trade and any other reaching-across-the-aisle crap in the process of selling out the conservatives.

As for supporting him now, I don’t blame her — ya can dance w/the one that brought ya, but you don’t have to invite him up for a cup of tea afterwards.

AH_C on March 1, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Sure, you did, in bizarro world. Reagan’s quote in no way resembled Tancredo’s quote, and Reagan would never seriously suggest “nuking Mecca” or anything remotely similar. Reagan also disagreed with Tancredo on immigration.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 5:48 PM

So you must have missed the uproar from the MSM and the libtards as their heads exploded. That’s what McVain was trying to riff on with his “bomb, bomb Iran” — but crank that he is, he caught flak while the joke fell flat in most quarters. That wasn’t the only joke that Ronnie tossed which delighted the average Joe (not that Joe) while antagonzing the libtards AND the real-politic repubs.

AH_C on March 1, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Tancredo who???????????????????

TheAlamos on March 2, 2010 at 12:14 AM

LOL. Is that the best you could do? Really?

2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 7:31 PM

You just make it so easy. Please, Hammer don’t hurt me!

chunderroad on March 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM

LMAO @ Hammer Time.

chunderroad on March 2, 2010 at 10:16 AM

AllahPundit and the Masterful Wizard Tancredo agree! The Ice Age has begun because hell just froze over.

Sultry Beauty on March 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Since when does being “fit” have anything to do with whom the electorate puts in office . . . I mean, good lord, they stuck us with Obama.

rplat on March 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM

I like Tancredo but he’s less qualified than Palin for the Presidency as far as I’m concerned.

MCGIRV on March 2, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Remember, Mitt was doing missionary work in FRANCE.

“Well guys, it’s almost noon and we’re out of brochures. Time to hit the topless beach and look for converts.”

bw222 on March 1, 2010 at 5:50 PM

LOL. Missionaries are typically forbidden to proselyte on beaches.

Its not a standard rule in all missions but I am pretty confident that missionaries in Europe are not to go near beaches.

Conservative Samizdat on March 2, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Jeez, Tank, don’t feed the buzzards in the lib press!

Tennman on March 2, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3