Palin endorses Tancredo in CO

posted at 8:40 am on November 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

This robocall from Sarah Palin, the audio of which can be heard at RCP, makes the gubernatorial race in Colorado even more interesting than before:

“Hi, this is Governor Sarah Palin. I’m calling to ask that you and your neighbors vote for Tom Tancredo to be the next Governor of Colorado on Tuesday. Tom is the right man for the job and he’ll fight for lower taxes, he’ll stop growing government, and start growing the economy. And we know he’ll continue working to end illegal immigration. Please vote for Tancredo on Tuesday. Thank you.”

This plays well for Palin.  She gets to once again distance herself from the GOP party establishment while also adding to her reputation for political pragmatism.  The Republican nominee, Dan Maes, is a disaster for Republicans, and most Republicans have already shifted support from Maes to Tancredo.

Nor does Palin have to worry about doing any potential damage to a candidate in a moderate state.  Tancredo is more controversial than Palin.  It’s one of the rare moments in which a Palin endorsement doesn’t serve to establish conservative bona fides but instead a sense that Republican voters can feel safe in backing the independent.  Last I saw, Tancredo got 69% of the GOP voters in the race with 11% going to Maes and 14% to Hickenlooper, so Palin’s endorsement could make a big difference for Tancredo in the end.

Andrew Malcolm concurs:

It’s actually not a bad political move for Tancredo and Palin. With no GOP damage since Maes is a non-factor, she solidifies her anti-establishment, go-with-the-common-sense-conservative-guy-no-matter-what stance. Palin’s pal and Tancredo’s former House colleague Michele Bachmann made the same move earlier. If Tancredo wins, it looks like he’d owe her, if Palin were to run for something else someday soon.

And since Tancredo wasn’t getting any significant Democratic support anyway, the arrival of Palin’s endorsement costs him nothing and might help among Colorado’s conservatives, where she is a favorite and he must score very big to have a chance in this three-way tilt.

The one question about this is the risk run by Republicans in damaging their status as a major-party candidate if Tancredo gets more of the GOP vote today.  If Maes gets less than 10% of the vote, the GOP falls to minor-party status in Colorado, according to the law in the state.  That means they don’t get to raise money in the primary cycle unless they have more than one candidate running for a nomination.  That risk is probably rather small, since the state legislature is unlikely to keep the Republican Party in minor status as the party holds the registration edge in the state.  With 2012 around the corner, that’s an odd outcome that Coloradans aren’t likely to abide for long.

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

Good move, Saracuda. Get ‘em, Tom!

He just might pull it off tonight.

petefrt on November 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM

What took her so long?

roninacreage on November 2, 2010 at 8:45 AM

This might just be what Tancredo needs to push him into the Governorship.

Well done, Sarah!

honsy on November 2, 2010 at 8:46 AM

That Maes bonehead needs to drop out before his puny 5% gets “LickinHooper” elected.

Tony737 on November 2, 2010 at 8:47 AM

I just wish she’d done this sooner. Although she’s still ahead of Romney as usual.

Doughboy on November 2, 2010 at 8:47 AM

Saracuda scores again!

IowaWoman on November 2, 2010 at 8:47 AM

If Maes gets less than 10% of the vote, the GOP falls to minor-party status in Colorado, according to the law in the state. That means they don’t get to raise money in the primary cycle unless they have more than one candidate running for a nomination.

Easy to do. Just have a sacrificial lamb run along with a real candidate. Sounds like a stupid law in the first place.

rbj on November 2, 2010 at 8:48 AM

Both my wife and I are heading out to vote for Tancredo, Buck, and Fallon in about five minutes. Voting starts at 7am. Degette will prob. still win but we have to give it a shot! Good luck everyone!

Jussi on November 2, 2010 at 8:49 AM

“Unwarranted insult!”
~NoStoppingUs

Inanemergencydial on November 2, 2010 at 8:51 AM

On Sarah’s FB Page yesterday:

Enshrined in our Constitution is the process for the peaceful transfer of power. Our revolution continues each election at the ballot box, and tomorrow we will renew the spirit of the American Revolution once again.

Let freedom ring!

I saw Tancredo on Fox News yesterday. He’s got his act together.

kingsjester on November 2, 2010 at 8:51 AM

He got my vote a week ago.

doctormom on November 2, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Sarah keeps whipping the establishment GOP. Who’s more in touch with the people here?

fossten on November 2, 2010 at 8:51 AM

I think this will help, but it would have helped more a week ago.

myrenovations on November 2, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Maes has been very incompetent and the establishment GOP in that state has been nothing but “go along to get along”.

If GOP becomes a minority status, then so be it.

A REMINDER TO ALL GOPers that nothing in this world is “permanent”. We can’t reward failure and incompetence.

It’s like “you want my vote? then, work for it.!”

Sorry, CO-GOP. Next time, fix yourselves and choose candidates wisely.

TheAlamos on November 2, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Tancredo had been anti-Palin. I suspect that when he heard her shout-out the other day in favor of him, he called her and asked her to do the robo call.

NoNails on November 2, 2010 at 9:03 AM

That’s Mitt Romneyesque timing there Sarah. Love ya… but how about doing this over the weekend????

Sugar Land on November 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM

I just wish she’d done this sooner. Although she’s still ahead of Romney as usual.

Doughboy on November 2, 2010 at 8:47 AM

She will pay for this insurrection against the big GOP .. or

Steele may have commissioned her to do it coz the rest of the boys are reluctant.

TheAlamos on November 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM

It also shows her true class. After what Tancredo said about her after she endorsed McCain over JD I doubt I would be man enough to support the man if he said the same crap about me. Palin puts the needs of the voters ahead of her personal views and personal paybacks. A lesser person would have told Tancrando to get bent.

unseen on November 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM

It goes without saying that these chits that she is gathering will return to her a thousand fold two years from today.

I would imagine a generic version would sound like this:

“Sarah Palin believed in me when few others did. Her support for my candidacy brought great enthusiasm from all quarters and helped propel me over the top. In that same spirit, I am proud to endorse her as our next president and will work tirelessly to help her and her campaign…”

turfmann on November 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Tancredo had been anti-Palin. I suspect that when he heard her shout-out the other day in favor of him, he called her and asked her to do the robo call.

NoNails on November 2, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Not really Anti-Palin. Tancredo was just complaining why Palin wouldn’t support him if she’s really pro-TP.

TheAlamos on November 2, 2010 at 9:09 AM

We can’t reward failure and incompetence.

TheAlamos on November 2, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Yepper. The GOP was complete fail from 2002-2006 (through 2008, really), and that complete fail led to the Democratic takeover.

dtestard on November 2, 2010 at 9:14 AM

MAR 1, 2010

Tancredo, known for his strong stance against illegal immigration, spoke to WND after a Dutch newspaper published an interview article in which he said he didn’t view the GOP’s 2008 vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, as “presidential.”

Tancredo told WND that if Republicans “end up repeating the mistakes of the past” he would run again.

“I am convinced that we’ve got one more shot at this before the Republican Party comes apart at the seams, if they really don’t get it right,” he said.

…..

….

‘Pretty much a squish

In the interview with the Dutch paper, Tancredo said he didn’t believe Palin would make a good president.

“I really don’t have this feeling about her as being presidential,” 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.”

Tancredo told WND he didn’t have his own political future in mind when he made the remarks about Palin.

“I was reflecting what I think of her at the moment,” he said. “I truly wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, you know, here’s a chance to position myself.’”

“I’m not that strategic, to tell you the truth,” he said, laughing.

Tancredo told WND that if Palin were the party’s choice, he would need to have her clarify her stance on a number of issues, particularly immigration.

When she ran with McCain, he said, she was “pretty much a squish.”

….

….

Tancredo said he understood that as a vice-presidential candidate, Palin could not freely express her own views, “but if that’s really how she feels, if she’s looking for a ‘pathway to citizenship,’ well, no, I’m not going to support her, absolutely not.”

“She’s a nice lady, and I like lots of the things she says, but then there are some very basic questions I would have to have answered,” he told WND. “And that’s one. What is her real, honest-to-God position on illegal immigration and immigration in general?”

Tancredo said the U.S. needs a moratorium on immigration, and “I’m almost sure she’s not going to support that.”

Tancredo told the Dutch paper he questioned whether Palin “has what it takes” to be president” 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,” he told NRC Handelsblad.

Asked whether maintaining speculation about whether she will run was a way to sell books, referring to her No. 1 bestselling “Going Rogue,” Tancredo replied, “Sure. Make a lot of money and stay in the mix. I think that’s a great idea.”

The Dutch paper asked Tancredo what he learned about Palin from her decision to campaign for McCain in his 2010 Senate campaign against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who largely shares Tancredo’s views on immigration.

“That tells me she is a Republican,” he said. “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.”

The Dutch interviewer pointed out that in his Tea Party Nation speech, Tancredo noted Palin could finally express her views now that she was free from McCain.

“I said: ‘Now she can tell it like it is.’ And she chooses not to,” Tancredo clarified.

The Dutch paper then asked: “So at the end of the day you are not that fond of her?”

“You are right. I was much fonder of her before she chose to get involved in the McCain thing. She didn’t have to do it.”

YEAP Palin is a better person then I am If he said those things about me I think I would have told him to go to hell but Palin see the greater picture and can forget and forgive.

this endorsement kind of destroys the myth that Palin is a diva. A dive or a “mean girl” would never have put the needs and wishes of the CO voters ahead of her personal payback.

unseen on November 2, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Gee, where are all the Tancredo haters today??

There was a whole lot of anti-Tancredo talk 2 months ago on Hot Air threads. I just want some of you guys to come out and say you were wrong. YOU WERE WRONG!!

Tom may or may not pull it off today. But he will be close.

The only thing that is stopping him are those few idiots that insist that “party trumps person”, and continue to mindlessly support the incompetent Dan Maes, only because he’s got an “R” next to his name.

GO TOM!! GO!!

HDFOB on November 2, 2010 at 9:16 AM

turfmann on November 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Her coattails are long and powerful. this is another reason the establishment do not want her. Her running stands a chance of delivering the first real mandate to a POTUS since Reagan

unseen on November 2, 2010 at 9:17 AM

Not a big Tom fan but, compared to Hickenflooper……..

PappyD61 on November 2, 2010 at 9:17 AM

GO TOM!! GO!!

HDFOB on November 2, 2010 at 9:16 AM

While I’m not a Tom hater, iu lost a lot of respect for the man when he bashed Palin in Mar because of his friend JD Hayworth. I’m no McCain supporter either. I just thought it showed a lack of class on his part to decide to go that route.

unseen on November 2, 2010 at 9:19 AM

I really love Tom and hope he wins! Thanks Sarah for your support for Tom.
L

letget on November 2, 2010 at 9:19 AM

i’m calling the surprise of the day in the Senate the win of COd and in the house the defeat of Pelosi

unseen on November 2, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Ahh, so she endorses the as*hole who wants to bomb Mecca. Okay then.

Dave Rywall on November 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Hi, Dave. Here’s a box of Kleenex. You’ll need them today.

kingsjester on November 2, 2010 at 9:34 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29

Interesting positions of his party. No NAFTA and withdraw US military from foreign countries are three that jumped out.
Agree little risk re Palin for endorsement at this point. However if she runs for the big prize questions such as “Do you support bombing Mecca? Do you agree we should pull out of NAFTA? and questions regarding the AIP push for secession from Alaska will be asked. Be interesting to know her thoughts on those.

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Ahh, so she endorses the as*hole who wants to bomb Mecca. Okay then.

Dave Rywall on November 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Exactly, I’m tired of talkers.

I want doers.

NoDonkey on November 2, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Ahh, so she endorses the as*hole who wants to bomb Mecca. Okay then.

Dave Rywall on November 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Lol…cry more, please.

Asher on November 2, 2010 at 9:42 AM

I think this will help, but it would have helped more a week ago.

myrenovations on November 2, 2010 at 8:52 AM

True. But with everything going on in Alaska, her TV show, interviews, endorsing this guy, robo-calling for that guy…etfreakin’cetera! Then she’s got a big family too she probably wants to spend a few minutes with. Seriously, this woman’s schedule must be insane.

Dongemaharu on November 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

I had to laugh at some nut over at carly johnson’s claiming that Palin is thin skinned. LOL

Blake on November 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Dave Rywall on November 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Dave,Most of us have been up since 0500 with out one snotty comment or vulgarity until you got on. Go back to bed,please.

Col.John Wm. Reed on November 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Ahh, so she endorses the as*hole who wants to bomb Mecca. Okay then.

Dave Rywall on November 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Do you want some cheese with that whine?

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Fiorina won’t be seen with her while Tancredo thinks she’s a squish. Yet she endorsed both of them. I’m afraid these favors are unlikely to be reciprocated unless/until Palin’s own future nomination for president becomes a fait accompli. So what’s in it for Sarah? Just keeping her hand in the mix?

Seth Halpern on November 2, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 9:39 AM

What’s so bad about wanting to pull out of NAFTA? And if terrorists are being harbored in Mecca, I say turn it into glass.

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Fiorina won’t be seen with her while Tancredo thinks she’s a squish. Yet she endorsed both of them. I’m afraid these favors are unlikely to be reciprocated unless/until Palin’s own future nomination for president becomes a fait accompli. So what’s in it for Sarah? Just keeping her hand in the mix?

Seth Halpern on November 2, 2010 at 9:49 AM

I think she’s more concerned with helping conservatives get elected this time, rather than triangulating support for a Pres run. Although I’m sure that’s a factor. Yeah, I don’t expect returned favors in a lot of these endorsements for a variety of reasons. Bottom line is it shows she’s a team player.

Dongemaharu on November 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM

What’s so bad about wanting to pull out of NAFTA? And if terrorists are being harbored in Mecca, I say turn it into glass.

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 9:50 AM

a. Protectionism is not the answer to make American companies thrive. NAFTA has done more good than harm to business imo.
b. Sentiments about turning Mecca into glass are irresponsible. Implication is that Islam is the problem rather than extremists usurping Islam. If terrorists were being harbored in Mecca demanding their extradition and escalating the punitive actions is the responsible approach.
Statements such as this don’t help us get the sometimes covert assistance of Arab countries to prevent terrorist acts as occurred recently with the UPS plot.

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 9:59 AM

However if she runs for the big prize questions such as “Do you support bombing Mecca? Do you agree we should pull out of NAFTA? and questions regarding the AIP push for secession from Alaska will be asked. Be interesting to know her thoughts on those.

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 9:39 AM

If she is asked, she will answer (if she hasn’t already). Endorsing Tancredo as better for Colorado is not a blanket endorsement of every statement he has ever made. I know you’ve been told this before, but stupid is not the way to go through life, son.

Extrafishy on November 2, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 9:39 AM

16 years after the passage of NAFTA we are seeing the results of that failed policy as our unemployment rate remains high as businesses are giving an option to flee the high taxes, regulations and high labor market of the USa to places with none of those. As the debt continues to increase and politicans look to increase taxes even more this trend will only increase placing the tx burden and the debt obligation more and more on the backs of the citizens of the USA. Free trade with no obligation of our trading partners to practice the same policies is a recipe of national destruction. which the internationalists objective. the belief that wealth must be balanced between nations to avoid wars and bring about world peace is a failed policy. Free trade brought about by the NAFTA policy has proven a failure as Mexico’s economy has not improved and the country is being overtaken by the drug cartels.

Remember the justification of NAFTA was to improve the Mexico economy so illegal immmigration would be less, to improve the Mexico economy so our southern border would be safe and secure. To bring wealth and a better standard of living to our southern neighbors. all have not been met and anyone can see the results are worse than if we would hav edone nothing. NAFTA opened the door to other free trade policies and the WTO.

unseen on November 2, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 9:59 AM

equating being against NAFTA as protectionism is silly. Tarrifs are a tool much like a gun is a tool. And as everyone knows guns don;’t kill people people kill people. Tarrifs do not cause protectionism, people cause protectionism.

Rasing tarrifs to make companies pay the costs of the market they wish to sell into is not protectionism. In fact it will make those companies demand less spnding, less taxes and less regulations. to allow these companies to avoid and not live under the laws they help to pass is wrong. If GE wants cap and trade then GE needs to live under the ramifications to its manufacturing costs. if Ge has to pay the costs of cap and trade on its bottomline it would not be so quick to embrace it. there ar emany just rules and regulations that compnaies support because of PC and it looks “good” but they avoid the ramifications of by moving their business out of the country and selling free of charge back into the market.

unseen on November 2, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 9:59 AM

I see. You’re one of those who think we need to figure out what we did to make them mad at us…

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 9:59 AM

And if you think Mecca would give up any terrorists to us, you’re incredibly naive. And you’re also naive if you believe terrorists have hijacked Islam. That is the root of their ideology.

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Ed said:

She gets to once again distance herself from the GOP party establishment while also adding to her reputation for political pragmatism.

What reputation for political pragmatism? If that ever existed it went out the window when she endorsed COD.

Jon0815 on November 2, 2010 at 10:17 AM

While I would gladly vote for Tancredo today, I will be the first to admit that he can be a flaming a$$hole at times.

Of all the potential GOP candidates, Sarah Palin will be the one who comes the closest to his stand.

As Sarah would say, “Tom, it’s time to man up.”

bw222 on November 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM

I see. You’re one of those who think we need to figure out what we did to make them mad at us…

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Your snark is noted. I’m not one of “those”. I’d much rather see a policy of “We have lost too many good Americans already in two wars. It is a well known fact that Syria and Iran openly support terror. Henceforth any Jihadist attacks on our homeland or interests abroad will result in attacks on the capitals of those two countries as retaliation.”

See, you don’t even have to get into the religious aspect. Wasn’t that easy?

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Ahh, so she endorses the as*hole who wants to bomb Mecca. Okay then.

Dave Rywall on November 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

I know, ain’t she neat?

darwin-t on November 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Stunningly obtuse may be a description of your belief. Mecca is in Saudi Arabia – one of our allies and supporters in the fight against terror. Yet you are perfectly fine with nuking it as a viable strategy?
Your implication that all Islamics are terrorists is just plain silly.

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Looks like another good move by Palin.

I’m beginning to think that the strongest motivating factor against Republicans returning to their prior form after this election is the looming Specter of Palin in 2012. Just the possibility that she might run will constrain them (unless they are just as stupid as the Democrats).

Republican leadership are beginning to realize that if they return to their old ways they will be playing right into her hands. If they view this election’s results as an opportunity to take the Democrat pigs’ places at the public trough, they will be destroyed in the next cycle. Their worst nightmare, Sarah Palin, will be leading the charge.

It must be bittersweet. They are going to win, but they won’t be able to go back to plundering the treasury (which is the whole point of winning for too many of them) without risking revolution in the ranks in 2012. The only question is: Are the Republican establishment types any smarter than the Democrats?

novaculus on November 2, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Your implication that all Islamics are terrorists is just plain silly.

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM

I didn’t imply that. I said that the terrorists are all Islamic. Big difference.

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Look, Tom ran as the Beat-The-Mexican candidate in 2008. No one wanted to stand next to him in the debates.

He’s sort of evolved, while remaining firm on immigration. So he’s more acceptable now. Palin’s nod is a pragmatic step to acknowledging this reality.

victor82 on November 2, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Stunningly obtuse may be a description of your belief. Mecca is in Saudi Arabia – one of our allies and supporters in the fight against terror. Yet you are perfectly fine with nuking it as a viable strategy?
Your implication that all Islamics are terrorists is just plain silly.

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Saudi Arabia is a major financier of Muslim expansionism in the US. Saudi money funds most mosques and madrassas where the Muslim Brotherhood is the major influence. Needless to say, the Muslim Brotherhood has a long stated goal of crushing the infidel and establishing global Islam and a worldwide caliphate.

It’s in the interest of Saudi Arabia to fight terror. Terrorism keeps a negative spotlight on Islam, something the Wahibbiists dislike. They prefer a stealthy, incremental installation of Islam by using our courts and laws against us. For further info see: Europe, specifically England.

darwin on November 2, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Most of Colorado voted this year via mail-in ballots, so not sure how much of an impact this’ll be, but any help is appreciated.

DougV on November 2, 2010 at 10:33 AM

See, you don’t even have to get into the religious aspect. Wasn’t that easy?

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Why should the religious aspect be avoided? They don’t avoid it.

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Stunningly obtuse may be a description of your belief. Mecca is in Saudi Arabia – one of our allies and supporters in the fight against terror. Yet you are perfectly fine with nuking it as a viable strategy?
Your implication that all Islamics are terrorists is just plain silly.

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That Bradky. Always with the jokes.

Oh, wait….

victor82 on November 2, 2010 at 10:35 AM

I heart Tancredo. Always have. Somewhere, in an awesome parallel universe, Tommy, Jan Brewer and Saracuda team up and the border gets secured, the constitution gets safeguarded, and Americans get back to hard work and prosperity.

ace tomato on November 2, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I don’t like to brag, but I’m a very important voter, it seems. I got a personal call from:
Bachman
two from Palin
Senator Vitter
one from his wife
one from his apparently 6 year old son
two from some tea party outfit
and one from Governor Bobby Jindal

All in the last three days, and they all left messages that went on for 1 to 3 minutes. It’s annoying being such an important voter as myself!

;)

Kevin M on November 2, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Kevin M on November 2, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Which is why I dropped my landline. The only calls I ever got were political and telemarketers!

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 10:41 AM

“Implication is that Islam is the problem rather than extremists usurping Islam…”

Bradky on November 2, 2010 at 9:59 AM

I don’t have words to describe the dangerous ignorance and foolishness of this remark.

You have it exactly wrong; you have NO understanding of the enemy. Islamist terrorists are absolutely in the mainstream of Islam. How anyone can fail to appreciate this fact this late in the game is beyond me.

novaculus on November 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM

After all the unfair attacks by the republicans against Sarah Palin I am no longer a republican. I here by join the Tea party.

BruceB on November 2, 2010 at 10:46 AM

It’s kind of late, but here’s hoping…

Tancredo got 69% of the GOP voters in the race with 11% going to Maes and 14% to Hickenlooper

Why are Rs so dumb? Maes should have endorsed Tancredo a while ago, and what’s the matter with those 14%? Are they self-destructive?

Schadenfreude on November 2, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Excellent move by Sarah. If Tancredo wins, it will be thanks to her endorsement. Latest poll had him down 3-4%, but this could push over the top.

I am not a big fan of Tancredo, but it is like Ed say the pragmatic choice in this election. Hickenlooper is just plain awful and Maes has imploded.

Norwegian on November 2, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Say what you wish about Bill Maher, but he’s got it right on fighting for pro Western values. Wake up world.

Schadenfreude on November 2, 2010 at 11:34 AM

I just love these posts so that those who think Sarah Palin is the same person they think of when they see Katie Couric. Those who think Sarah Palin isn’t politically sauvy, not knowledgable to govern, or up to handling the national spotlight need to be educated.

The ONLY person that any Republican Leadership person is throwing out or putting on the list of “potential” Presidential candidates that “may” choose to run in 2012 who is actually having an “impact” is Sarah Palin. Mitt, Tim, Huck, et al have had very little significant impact in endorsing candidates around the country on on the national stage. No other “potential” candidate has been talked about in terms of policy and affect on right wing politics. Maybe Mitt has been discussed on a limited basis but on his pre-ObamaCare acts as a Governor. Not a positive message for him, I assure you.

It’s her new gravitas that scares the likes of an Eeyore or a Karl Rove. After all this they won’t be able to easily say she has no experience or capability or intelligence to campaign for Leadership on a national level. It just doesn’t hold muster anymore. You RINOs need to learn a lesson and change with the times. Nothing happens in a vacuum and people constantly grow and change. Sarah Palin is changing her and others landscapes.

NOTE: There will be a lot of NEW leaders that will owe her a debt of gratitude. Tim, Mitt, Huck? Not so much. Thank God we don’t have to deal with a McCain bid anymore….

Sultry Beauty on November 2, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Any honest reading of mein koran and the other islamic writings tells me that al Qaeda and the other terrorists are simply following the tenets of their religion.

slickwillie2001 on November 2, 2010 at 12:43 PM

What’s so bad about wanting to pull out of NAFTA?

We already have a party for protectionist nonsense, we don’t need it in the GOP as well.

And if terrorists are being harbored in Mecca, I say turn it into glass.

ladyingray on November 2, 2010 at 9:50 AM

You think terrorists are actually hanging out in Mecca? Why would they be sitting around praying? They’re on a Jihad.

The threat by Tancredo to nuke Mecca was stupid and/or evil. If he is going to give warning before the strike, so people can evacuate, then it becomes a purely symbolic attack, and accomplishes nothing – it pisses off our enemies, which doesn’t help or hurt us, and also destroys a holy place for over a billion nonviolent Muslims who have done us no harm. We’ve had theological debates about whether these people are “true Muslims”, but either way, they are people for whom Mecca is a deeply important holy place.

And of course, if no warning is given, you snuff out millions of civilians’ lives. If that is not evil then nothing is.

This is a mistake by Palin. She’s usually pretty good with her endorsements, but no one is perfect. Given her disgust at the book-burning, I’m guessing she isn’t aware of his threat to nuke Mecca – it occurred during a time when she wasn’t very focused on national politics, after all.

RINO in Name Only on November 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM

This plays well for Palin. She gets to once again distance herself from the GOP party establishment while also adding to her reputation for political pragmatism. The Republican nominee, Dan Maes, is a disaster for Republicans, and most Republicans have already shifted support from Maes to Tancredo.

Yes, but Maes is not GOP establishment, he is the Tea Party candidate who was not properly vetted and turned out to be a disaster. So, I am not sure there really was a GOP establishment candidate in this race. Tancredo probably has more connections with the GOP than Maes does.

Terrye on November 2, 2010 at 1:54 PM

unseen on November 2, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Excellent, I always look forward to your comments…

lovingmyUSA on November 2, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Ahh, so she endorses the as*hole who wants to bomb Mecca. Okay then.

Dave Rywall on November 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Umm, if we get bombed ever again, THIS WILL happen…The US will not stand by if another 911 happens–the “religion of peace” will have been revealed for the sham it is…

lovingmyUSA on November 2, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Umm, if we get bombed ever again, THIS WILL happen…The US will not stand by if another 911 happens–the “religion of peace” will have been revealed for the sham it is…

lovingmyUSA on November 2, 2010 at 2:04 PM

If we get bombed again it won’t “reveal” anything we don’t already know. We already know the Jihadists and their sympathizers want to kill us all, and we already know that other Muslims want to leave us alone.

I see know reason nuking Mecca would deter either the actual suicidal terrorists (they’d just see it as a sign of the end-times or some crap), or their more cynical supporters.

Everyone has capital cities that make much better targets if retaliation is necessary; those places are more important to the rational actors that support the crazies.

RINO in Name Only on November 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Agree with the people asking what took so long. CO GOP has not been supporting the Republican nominee for sometime as most Republicans are working for Tancredo. They tried to get Maes out of the race. Many wanted Jane Norton to run who BTW is a good friend of Ken Buck.

This is pure grandstanding on the part of Palin just like the FL rally where people turned out to see Rubio who spoke 4-5 minutes versus Palin who spoke 30 minutes. It is all about her whether some want to admit it or not.

Tancredo needs to beat Hickenlooper to put Colorado on the right path. So happy he has gained and Maes is toast.

Ken Buck has been gaining even more in the last week so tonight he should be Senator-Elect Buck. Key is turnout by Republicans and Independents in very high numbers.

PhiKapMom on November 2, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Ahh, so she endorses the as*hole who wants to bomb Mecca. Okay then.

Dave Rywall on November 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Another point in her favor.

baldilocks on November 2, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Hey, just wondering, but did all of you miss the memo- I’m sure Tancredo is a nice fella and all, but he’s 100% kook.

This group think is lame. Someone has an R in front of their names and we should automatically back them?

TheBlueSite on November 2, 2010 at 10:24 PM