U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 22, 2010 12:22 AM UTC

Tancredo Looking At Independent Bid For Governor

  • 185 Comments
  • by: Arvadonian

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

The Rothenberg Political Report is reporting that Tom Tancredo is interviewing potential running mates in preparation for an independent bid for Governor.

According to the article, Tancredo confirmed that he is looking at an independent bid and will have a formal announcement of his plans within the next couple of days.  Petitioning on the ballot is out of the question at this point as the deadlines have passed, so Tancredo is apparently trying to convince one of the other third parties to dump their candidates and let him take up their mantle.

Here is a link to the story:

http://rothenbergpoliticalrepo…

Tweet
Share

Comments

185 thoughts on “Tancredo Looking At Independent Bid For Governor”

  1. – Ron Zappolo? — Got that pre-scandal McInnis look.

    – Ted Haggard? — Because even a long, ugly story needs a happy ending.

    – Doug Bruce?  —  Because that long, ugly story seems to still have some chapters to be written.

    – Jon Caldera? — Crazy is as crazy does.

    – Scott McInnis? — looks to be available soon.

    – Bill Owens? — the kids should be off to kindergarten/1st grade soon.

  4. from the same Rothenberg Political Report article:

    As for Tancredo, he says that scenario wouldn’t be his fault.

    “I’m not doing it to the party, the party is doing it to itself,” Tancredo said.

  5. The only way he could do this is if one of the 4 minor parties (Libertarian, Green, American Constitution, or Unity) has party rules that allow them to run a candidate who has not been affiliated with their party for very long.

    CRS 1-4-1304 sets the date at 1 year prior to the nomination, but does allow minor parties to set their own window, so the 1 year is a default if party rules are silent.

    If he is shopping for a Lt.Gov., perhaps he has found a party whose rules suit him.

    2. Tancredo/Lamm  ya, that’s the ticket.

      The American constitutional party?  Isn’t that pro-life? Good for tancredo, bad for lamm.

      Maybe Tancredo could run for governor on the American Constitutional party and Lamm could run for lt. gov on the Libertarian ticket….

      Tancredo would drain votes from the dems who have a problem with illegal immigration.  Remember, most people support the Arizona law….

      boyles is wetting his pants because he anticipates national coverage if tancredo runs..and that means a spotlight for petey…

    1. this is the best thing that could happen to Bennet/Romanoff, Kennedy, Garnett, Buescher.  Tancredo in the mix will drive up latino participation in the fall elections.

      As far as the Governor’s race, if Tancredo couldn’t win a Republican Primary, which is why he didn’t run in the first place, what makes him think he can win a general?  He can’t and he won’t.

      1. Legal immigrants don’t like illegal immigrants taking their jobs. Tancredo might be able to win just based on the relative quality of the other candidates.

        1. See, it helps your arguments if you can show them. That’s why we ask for links. It’s not that we don’t trust you (although we don’t), it’s that it’s good to be able to see the source. After all, we ought to be allowed to see if there were issues with how the poll was conducted.

            1. … are also Republicans.

              Just going off the top of my head, a majority of Hispanic voters are registered Democrats, or vote Democratic most of the time. Pardon me if I don’t take the actions of a specifically Republican Hispanic group as indicative of how Hispanics in Arizona generally feel about that law.

              Also, did you read this bit from your link?

              A recent LatinoMetrics poll shows that eight in 10 Latinos disapprove of SB 1070. Of those surveyed, 20 percent said they would be less likely to report a major crime such as assault if a similar law is passed in their state. The number climbs up to 30 percent for minor crimes such as theft. Perhaps more telling is that since 2009, immigration has jumped into the top four issues of personal concern among Latinos, tied with jobs and the economy.

              BTW, what does your little remark mean? Are you aware that many Hispanics are born here? I’m sensing racial insensitivity in your posts.

                1. You’re alleging that 60% of Hispanics – obviously meaning ALL Hispanics – support this bill, then you produce a link that a) only comes up with a Republican Hispanic group that does, and b) actually says that even more Hispanics than 60% OPPOSE it.

                  “Hispanics don’t count if they’re Republicans?” Let me respond by asking if you think the Log Cabin Republicans represent all gays and lesbians, or at least are more representative than groups like PFLAG?

                2. “60% of Latinos support the AZ bill,” and when called on what was obviously a false statement, you linked to a poll of Republican Latinos. News flash: Republican Latinos are not all Latinos, or even a majority of all Latinos, and certainly not an unbiased sampling of Latinos. Then you defend this ridiculous association of a biased sample with a claim about the overall population by claiming that any criticism of it is an exclusion of Republican Latinos from consideration. Here’s how it works: Inclusion of Republicans in an unbiased sample of the Latino population would involve inclusion of non-Republicans as well. It’s not that hard a concept (a phrase that seems to be required rather frequently in discourse with you).

                  By your “logic,” it would have been legitimate to say that “all Latinos support AZ bill,” and then link to a poll of Latinos Who Support the AZ Bill (which would poll at 100% support by definition) as proof of your statement.

                  Among the seemingly limitless range of concepts that you seem unable to grasp, we now have “biased polling data” to add to the list.

                    1. … you were just accusing people of not taking on your posts, and now you’re doing it.

                      Did I hurt your feelings?

                    2. How can you guys defend the Journolist. For the last two years we have been screaming about left wing media bias and you guys vilified us. Now that it comes out that there was indeed a coordinated media plot to elect Obama, it’s no big deal? I don’t think so; I’m not going to let this one slide.

                    3. so I have never defended it.

                      You sometimes proclaim “you can’t answer me!” (which, in my case, is never true), but you sure change the subject when we post arguments that YOU can’t answer.

                      All will be forgiven if you admit that you pulled the “60% of Latinos support the AZ immigration law” figure out of your ass. Let’s see if you have the personal honor required to make such an admission.

                    4. it’s never true in anyone’s case. Every crumb of overly-generous credit or benefit-of-the-doubt that Beej receives feeds his omniverous little ego, a bizarre creature completely devoid of substance or justification, and yet as bloated as a blowfish on steroids.

                    6. and not just left wing outlets – of course they don’t want anybody to know about it. It’s on Politico though. The 60% figure is a widely quoted figure pulled from Rasmussen. I admit it was actually those left over after whites and blacks, but most of those are definitely Latino in AZ.

                    7. then it should be no trouble finding that link.

                      Til then, spare me. I ONLY read mainstream news sources, and even Fox News doesn’t have this anywhere.

                      (News sources =/= blogs, BTW)

                    8. you’ve linked to two polls as evidence, that absolutely did not say what you are claiming they said.

                      No one had any doubt about the inaccuracy of your claim from the moment you made it, and no one has any doubt now. What distinguishes you, aside from your routinely disproven insistence that you’re particularly bright, is your complete lack of any factual or rational foundation for any claim you ever make.

                      But you do make such a sweet little inflatable clown, bobbing back up with the same stupid grin every time, only to get knocked down yet again….

                    9. get called out on it, and then, rather than owe up to it, arbitrarily accuse those who called you out of some unrelated evil for having done so? Got it.

                    1. “61% of Coloradans Want Arizona Law”? Being a sporting kind of guy, I’ll let you figure out what’s wrong with your latest shift-and-shuffle attempt to pawn this off as support for your claim that “60% of Latinos support the Arizona law”. Hint: notice the difference in the two words I’ve italicized in bold print.

                      Beej. I have to ask again: Are you trying to be as big an idiot as possible, or does it just come naturally? Because, really, you’re in a class all your own….

                    2. I never said it wasn’t in Colorado, so don’t claim that I’m shifting my argument. It doesn’t make a difference in my larger point: legal Hispanics support this bill.

                    3. You make a typically arbitrary (and transparently false) claim, back it up with first one poll, then another, neither of which support your claim (one refered to a sampling of Republican Latinos, the other to Coloradans of all ethnicities), and then, when called on it both times, you return to reliance on the original arbitrary and unsupported claim. No sweat, Beejie; it’s just another tennis match with an earthworm.

                    4. The first one wasn’t a poll backing up anything. It was merely an article showing more evidence that Latinos support the bill.

                    5. that one particular group of Republican hispanics (not even Republican hispanics as a whole) were the only hispanic group of any kind anywhere in the country to voice support for the Arizona law, don’t you?

                      That’s evidence that Latinos support the bill in the same way that people with six fingers on each hand are proof that everyone really has six fingers on each hand. (Hint: It helps to learn how to distinguish the exception from the rule. Phrases like “first (and therefore only)hispanic group in the nation” offer a bit of a clue).

                    7. Liberals are inclusive, and Republicans are exclusive.

                      Obviously, if you refer to “Latinos” without qualification, you are referring to Latinos of all ideologies, including both Republicans and Democrats, because in our world, everyone counts. You seem to think that if a Republican refers to what “Latinos” think, a link to what only Republican Latinos think is sufficient, because in your world, all others (of all kinds) are excluded. That’s the definition of racism. (As I’ve written in other posts, this penchant for excluding and villifying “others,” along various dimensions and various contexts, is the defining characteristic of the far right).

                      Of course, even among Republicans, few have difficulty understanding that what one (and only one) group of Republican Latinos believes can’t be used as evidence of what all Latinos believe. If you want to keep proving that you are so stupid that you can’t grasp even that simple concept, that’s fine with me.

                    8. (i.e. opposition to the bill) can’t be used as evidence of what all Latinos believe. Thanks for making my point for me.

                    10. the others really are right; there’s absolutely no way to reason with this clown, and no point in our continuing to try. I honestly can’t remember encountering anyone this far removed from reality, including the several clinically schozophrenic individuals I’ve known! He’s an absolutely phenomenal sample of pure, impenetrable ignorance.

                    11. It’s like explaining sines and cosines to someone who’s still trying to grasp the concept of prime numbers. There’s some education there, but nowhere near enough to understand anything beyond a 6th grade level of comprehension.

                    13. Not anything that would require you to demonstrate your ability to understand or intelligently discuss politics. Even a non-accredited community college in a third world country would admit you if that were your pursuit.

                    14. in math and letters, and graduated magna cum laude with an honors degree in both. So deal with it.

                    15. a thing about politics, or indeed anything about the real world.

                      I’ve no doubt you worked hard in your chosen fields. But it’s no qualification to even know why you believe in the things you do, let alone try to debate them here. It’s why you’re a failure in this forum. You don’t know what basic terms like “liberty,” “ad hominem,” or “legal” mean because you never studied them. You only parrot what you hear on right wing radio and TV.

                      Stick to math. Leave the political discussions to people who get it.

                    16. that is self-evident to all. What do you think “ad hominem” means, oh wise one? And legal is by definition not breaking the law, dummy.  

                    17. It also implicates all three branches of government, which are delegated the tasks of legislating, executing, and interpreting the law.

                      It is at the root of the word “legislate,” which refers to the drafting and enactment of laws. Prior to breaking or not breaking laws, is creating and refining them.

                      That process continues in the executive branch, where enacted laws are administered, in a process which itself generates another layer of law: Regulatory law.

                      And when disputes or accusations arise, and cases in controversy come before the courts, the law is interpreted, again generating yet another layer of law, called “case law” or “common law.”

                      What “legal” really means to people who understand the term is all of this at once, and all of the nuances and subtleties embedded within it. It means understanding the canons of legislative interpretation, and the jurisprudence generated within the various legal fields. It means knowing the rules of evidence, and the rules of civil procedure, and the constitutional jurisprudence which defines criminal procedure. It means understanding administrative law, and how it functions, and under what circumstances it is subject to judicial review.

                      It means understanding the difference between bright line rules and balancing tests, knowing how factor tests are used in a variety of circumstances, understanding the role of both precedence and of distinguishing cases. It means knowing about standards of review, and burdens of proof. It means knowing how much can hinge on the presence or absence of a comma.

                      What “legal” emphatically does not mean to people who actually know what they’re talking about is that there is some set of clear, unambiguous, and unmalleable rules by which we live, and that all there is to it is to make sure that everyone lives by them.

                      (“Libery” is also a far more subtle and interesting concept than you seem to understand as well, but I’ll save the prime rib for someone other than the coprophagic monkey, as Diogenes puts it.)

                    19. legislate from the bench. The problem with this is the inherent subjectivity it introduces. Follow the law as written, dang it!

                      “What “legal” emphatically does not mean to people who actually know what they’re talking about is that there is some set of clear, unambiguous, and unmalleable rules by which we live, and that all there is to it is to make sure that everyone lives by them.”

                      Wow. I suppose we should just let everybody out of jail, no matter how bad the crime, because they just live by their own “different rules”. No wonder you guys support illegal immigration. I hope you’re not a lawyer.

                    20. are platitudes in which it’s possible to plug whatever definition you see fit. Personally, I’ll stick with the Bill of Rights. If you can show me how any of those liberties are impinged upon by the bailout, I’m all eyes. (And, just to make it easier, tell me how nationalizing industry, which is a much more radical step no Democrat has even entertained, let alone proposed or implemented, impinges any of those freedoms.)

                    21. is diametrically opposed to freedom and liberty. The more the government tells you what to do, the less freedom you have. How is this not obvious?

                    22. … they have this in other free countries, like those of the European Union.

                      Remember – state controlled industry doesn’t equal oppression. Being arrested without habeas corpus, on the other hand, is.

                      Now, if you can point out where the Bill of Rights guarantees that industry be allowed to do as it wishes, then you’ll have a point. Until then, you got a whole lot of nuthin’.

                    23. Powers not explicitly granted to the federal gov’t are reserved to the state or the people.

                    24. The Tenth Amendment reads:

                      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

                      Unfortunately, the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) also says this:

                      “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”

                      And (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18):

                      “The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

                      Here’s some light reading about that.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…

                      Enjoy!

                    26. not a lawyer. So pardon me if I don’t accept that statement at face value.

                      Nonetheless, liberals are all good capitalists and don’t propose such a thing. But it’s neither unconstitutional nor oppressive if it were to happen.

                    28. It doesn’t make a difference in my larger point: legal Hispanics support this bill.

                      Yes it does. It makes a HUMONGOUS difference. Because I can arbitrarily say “gays support DOMA” because there probably ARE a handful of gays who support marriage inequality. 60 years ago, it was possible to find a few blacks who supported Jim Crow laws, too. Do you think therefore that the sentence “Blacks support Jim Crow” is accurate and truthful?

                      When you say “legal Hispanics support this bill,” you’re lying in two ways. One, you’ve found a minority of Hispanics support this bill and by dropping off the fact that they’re a minority, you make it sound like a lot more, maybe even a majority of Hispanics support this bill. That’s false.

                      Second, your phrase “legal Hispanics” is offensive because, by saying “legal,” you’re saying all Hispanics are immigrants, either legal or illegal. But most Hispanics are Americans by birth – not immigrants. Yet you cast aspersions on their citizenship, as though by being born Hispanic they might not be American. Try using the term “legal Hispanics” to a crowd of Hispanics and see how they like it.

                    29. Legal Hispanics include those who have immigrated here legally and those who are American citizens by birth. A large portion of Hispanics are indeed born in Mexico, and hence not American. Those who illegally sneak across the border are the illegal Hispanics.

                    30. you still think the ones born here want to see themselves described as “legal?” Please, do so. Do your part to ensure that Hispanics stay overwhelmingly Democratic. You’re doing a fantastic job.

                      Still can’t admit that you pulled that other quote out of your ass? I noticed you didn’t answer those direct challenges. Pathetic.

                    33. Michelle Obama was never proud of her country, and neither are Dems. If you don’t like America why don’t you go live in your beloved Mexico, with it’s stellar record on crime, drugs, and gangs?

                    34. We believe in liberty and freedom for ALL.

                      This country, I love it too

                      I think I love it more than you

                      I care enough to fight

                      The stars and stripes of corruption

                      – DK’s

                      You don’t care about that at all, or about anyone who is different than you. That’s why all Hispanics are classified as legal or illegal in your mind; they’re all DIFFERENT from you, so they aren’t entitled to being regarded as fully American.

                      And teabaggers wonder why they’re regarded as racist.

                    35. “Liberty and freedom for ALL”. This is the most oppressive government ever elected. They’ve nationalized half of our industry already, beat up businesses and shaken them down for money, and enslaved generations of future Americans through irresponsible spending.

                      I care about corruption a good deal, which is why I fight it in the Republican Party. I care about people who come here LEGALLY not having their identities stolen and their jobs taken by criminals who sneak across the border illegally. Every person is classified as legal or illegal depending on whether or not they are breaking the laws about living here. As I have proved many times over, liberals are the true racists. Why is the line up at NBC all white? As we have seen from the Journolist, calling the Tea Party racist is a plot orchestrated to deflect people from scrutinizing the real racists.

                    36. none of those actions are an example of “oppression” or “loss of freedom.”

                      No wonder teabaggers are all out to lunch. You don’t even know what freedom is.

                      Why weren’t you protesting Bush’s irresponsible spending?

                    37. Well that’s your problem right there. You’ve been lulled to sleep by your captors. Apparently, freedom is “government cheese” to you. You have not lived my friend.

                    38. “Legal Hispanics include those who have immigrated here legally and those who are American citizens by birth”

                      “Hispanics” are never either legal or illegal, and that is part of what Ari was referring to about the offensive nature of your terminology. There is never anything wrong with being an Hispanic. Immigration law refers to the legal status of presence in the United States, regardless of ethnicity. When referring to one’s immigration status, applying the adjectives “legal” or “illegal” to the individual’s ethnicity betrays a racial prejudice, since you are associating ethnicity with immigration status when no such association is inherently accurate or particularly relevant.

                      “A large portion of Hispanics are indeed born in Mexico, and hence not American”

                      You apparently don’t understand the concept of naturalization.

                      “Those who illegally sneak across the border are the illegal Hispanics.”

                      As stated above, “those who sneak across the border” are commonly referred to as “illegal immigrants” (technically, they’re not immigrants, because the word “immigrant” has become a legal term of art that refers to those who are entering the country legally on a citizenship-track. The legal term of art is undocumented migrants). Referring to them as “illegal hispanics” demonstrates the racist bias that all of your comments demonstrate.

                    40. Adjectives modify the noun they are attached to. If you use the adjective “illegal” to modify the noun “Hispanic,” than you are implying that it is the act of being Hispanic that is illegal. I understand that, in a sense, it’s just an expression of your complete incompetence with any systematic form of thought or expression, including English grammar. But it is also a subtle expression of your bigotry, that you fail to differentiate between “illegal immigrant” (anyone who has crossed the border illegally) and “illegal Hispanic” (literally, someone who has committed the crime of being Hispanic).

                      Race is irrelevant, as people who aren’t racist realize.

                    41. Race is irrelevant to whether someone is an illegal immigrant or not, despite the fact that it is relevant, as a function of geography, to the racial distributions of those “guilty” of it, and is relevant, for a variety of historical and cultural reasons, in a variety of contexts (such as which American citizens are most likely to have their civil rights violated as a result of the AZ law).

                    42. should be illegal Americans. If you’re so smart, how do you explain this? When I’m out walking precincts, an American flag is virtually synonymous with a Republican. Does not a single Democrat fly a flag from their house? I suppose Michelle Obama was never proud of her country, maybe no Dems are.

                      And apparently, calling someone a racist has the same effect on someone on the left as it does on those in the Tea Party. Racist.  

                    43. And in what way can flying the flag be a measure of that? (You’re a math major – I KNOW you can do it!)

                    44. there is almost a one to one correspondence between “Republicans” and “people flying the American flag on their house”. Doesn’t that strike you as slightly odd? What is your explanation for this mathematical relationship?

                    47. anecdotal evidence generated by oneself is a “mathematical relationship” raises serious concerns about that individual’s competence to be teaching college math classes.

                      Furthermore, he has, on a political blog, managed to demonstrate an inability to understand that non-intersecting sets (money earned only by one’s own labor, and money earned by means other than one’s own labor) do not intersect, that the elements of one set (all Coloradans) are not identical to (or representative of) the elements of another (all Latinos) that both includes elements exterior to and excludes elements interior to the first set, and that a single overtly biased sample (one isolated group of Hispanic Republicans) is not representative of a more inclusive broader population (all Hispanics).

                      The feat of a college math TA managing to demonstrate repeated profound mathematical incompetence on a political blog must merit some kind of special recognition.

                    48. Stop trying to pretend you know anything about math. To any real mathematician, you sound pretty silly.

                    50. I ask for statistics, you respond with the same anecdote. Typical.

                      You have nothing. Case closed.

                    52. Look up the definitions of ANECDOTE (specifically “anecdotal evidence” and “statistics.”

                    53. I’ll tell you this, I’ve visited enough houses for a good statistical sample.

                    54. As long as you’re going “yadda yadda yadda, Fort Collins, yadda yadda yadda, flags” it’s an anecdote and not a statistic.

                      Just don’t make shit up.

                    55. I have been to hundreds of houses and all the Republicans have flags up; nobody else does. If you were out there walking you would know it is a fact. Ever knocked on Democrat doors before?

                    56. Head-up-his-ass basket case kid (that’s you) sees what he wants to see and calls it “statistical” proof of… something. You can’t say what – vague words about “supporting the USA” but not really saying how flag flying shows that.

                    57. does not equal supporting the U.S.? What did I miss? I guess all those people just think it looks pretty.

                    58. You’re the one using vaguely defined phrases. When I fly my flag, I’m showing that I love my country, but I don’t think that’s the same as “supporting” it. A country can’t be “supported.” An administration’s policies can, but I certainly wouldn’t misinterpret flag flying as a symbol of that.

                    60. Supporting an administration (Bush’s, duh) that stripped citizens of their rights, installing activist judges to make sure that those unconstitutional laws aren’t found to be that, ruining the economy – your side has a lot to answer for.

                      I guess it’s the way a wifebeater shows his “love.” Thanks, Republicans! You’ve done a swell job.

                    66. Hey Steve, are you a capitalist? And do you fly a flag from your house? If not, would you be opposed to doing so? Why or why not?

                      Given your academic bent, you should be able to answer this essay without resorting to insults, ad hominems, or cuss words.

                    68. You’re irrelevant. Your questions are irrelevant. Your preferences are irrelevant. If I started to ignore you completely, I would earn nothing but praise from everyone but you (assuming that you have something other than praise for me for choosing not to dance to your tune). Whenver I choose not to ignore you, I do so on my terms, not yours. That’s the nature of complete and utter contempt.

                    70. Being a good American means respecting both the spirit and letter of the U.S. Constitution, and expecially the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment of which guarantees free speech, political speech most of all (as fleshed out by later jurisprudence). There is nothing more American than stating sincerely held and carefully considered criticisms about our country’s policies or actions at any given time, and nothing less American than condemning your ideological enemies as “un-American” for expressing their patriotism in precisely this way.

                      Waving a flag doesn’t make you a good American, or a bad one. But relying on jingoistic attacks does make you a poor citizen, because good citizenship requires reliance on mutual tolerance, reason, and cooperation in service to the public interest.

                      As for calling someone a racist, I don’t know what effect you’re referring to, because when you call me a racist it is exactly as arbitrary and meaningless as everything else you post here. You might want to recall that you were the first person to use the word, the first to direct it at anyone here, and are now the first to complain about its use. But I have confidence that you’ll come up with something even more absurd before long.

                    71. The MSM has been calling the Tea Party racist for months now. You are racist because you don’t accept minorities unless they are Democrats.

            1. You were very, very wrong.

              You said:

              60% of Latinos support the AZ bill

              Your link says:

              A majority of Colorado voters would like to see the state pass an immigration bill modeled on the controversial law in Arizona that makes it illegal to be in the country without proper documentation.

              A Denver Post/9News poll conducted in conjunction with The Tribune showed that 61 percent favored a similar law, 34 percent opposed it and 5 percent were unsure.

              Colorado Voters =/= all American Latinos. Duh.

              You need to admit your mistake. Are you man enough to do it?

                2. There is no poll showing any such thing.

                  Steve’s right – just when a person concludes that you can’t be any less credible, you manage to sink to a new low.

                3. Make the number believeable.  61% is way better than “60%.”

                  60% could just be you rounding up to the nearest 40%

                  But 61- sounds authoritatitve. It may be still be MUS DPFYA (directly pulled from your ass) – but it sounds more official.

        2. de lo que piensan los hispanos. Yo estoy casado con una hispana, he trabajado con los hispanos de este estado, he vivido en Mexico, y yo se que la ley de Arizona no es popular con los hispanos de este pais. De los docenas de hispanos que yo conosco personalmente, ni uno esta de acuerdo con esa ley. Si hay una incuesta que dice el contrario, estoy casi seguro que la incuesta es un fraude.

            2. and your post was a reply to one written by me in Spanish, one can only assume that you are implying that mere knowledge of other languages is un-American. Congratulations on your continued commitment to enlightened points of view.

              1. What is un-American is expecting everybody else to know Spanish here just because you’re too lazy to take the time to learn a few simple words and phrases to get around. When I went to Russia for two months I learned enough Russian to buy food, etc. It’s not that hard.

                1. Americans travel the world expecting everyone to speak to them in English when they’re abroad, and then come home expecting everyone who visits or arrives from other locales to speak to them in English here as well. People who come to live in the US almost all try to learn English, some faster than others. If you were really the “laissez-faire” advocate that you claim to be, you’d let the inherent incentives play their role, and then live and let live as people respond to them. Instead, you’re nothing more than an ideological hypocrit, an amalgam of inconsistent belligerences, held together only by chauvinism and ignorance (and, in your case, a healthy helping of self-delusion).

                  1. You should probably check your assertions before you let fly with the Turrets. I am a conservative with libertarian leanings. The libertarian part is mostly due to Obama’s drastic increase in the size of government. One of the federal government’s few actual responsibilities is to deal with immigration. Inside the U.S., I’m all for free markets, but I certainly support the rule of law. Mexico has a shaky track record on this, especially near the border. They have rule of gangs and drug lords there.

                    1. Strange, though, that the subject was language acquisition of people residing in America (without any specification of their immigration or residency status), and not crime on the border. But, hey, as long as you keep tap-dancing, maybe you’ll remain the only one who doesn’t notice how full of shit you are.

                2. when you reply to a post, the assumption that your reply relates directly to that post is called “an inference,” and is particularly warranted when the reply is on the same general topic as the post to which it is replying.

                  The funny thing is, I’m pretty sure of a few things:

                  1) You are not as oblivious as you pretend to be to the validity of the almost endless cascade of complete dismantlings of every “fact” you present and every “argument” you make;

                  2) Though you pretend otherwise, you know that virtually everyone who posts here (on both the right and the left) considers you an obnoxious moron, and I strongly suspect that there are few people anywhere (at least in the bloggosphere) who think otherwise;

                  3) You don’t enjoy the fact that everyone who posts here considers you an obnoxious moron; and

                  4) I suspect that even you can’t escape the occasional searing recognition of the fact that you’re an obnoxious moron. The degree of literal insanity required not to know it at this point strains credulity.

                  The question that remains is: Why on Earth do you keep doing what you’re doing, knowing that the only thing you achieve by doing it is your own utter humiliation?

                    4. Turrets or tourettes. It amounts to the same thing in Steve Harvey’s case. 🙂

        3. You really need to start blogging over at Alice in Wonderland.com or my head is up my butt.net or something because you are soo far out there.

          I can’t wait until this political season is over and people like you (the ones that say crap just to throw a point out there) are done with this blog.

          I prefer to read the ones that actually make cogent arguments and even if they support a candidate I don’t, they give out good information and reasoned points.

              1. for promoting me on ColoradoPols. I’m glad you agree that I make more cogent arguments than most people here. I would include you in that list of people.

                    3. one of those cognitive disorders that impair your ability to detect sarcasm. That’s a shame.

                    5. More pathetic than his inability to understand…anything (sarcasm just being one such thing), is the combination of the continuous, desperate heaping upon himself of unearned laurels, with the continuous, desperate, cloying perception of complements by others where none exist. We can only infer that it’s a hunger born of a life-long deprivation, and a deprivation born of a life-long lack of anything worth complementing.

                3. that you keep attempting to validate yourself by claiming that others are agreeing with you or singing your praises when in reality they explicitly, repeatedly, and emphatically are doing just the opposite?

                  Maybe it’s time to limit yourself to absurdly proclaiming your own non-existent greatness, and stop insisting that all of these other people who debunk and refute not only it, but also your mere adequacy, are really claiming it too. Or, if you prefer, continue to be not just a comical buffoon, but a comical buffoon to the Nth degree. It’s all the same to us.

        4. You should encourage your candidates, and county party to adopt policy and planks or whatever is they do to do something exactly the same… except farther reaching.

          In fact, write it up as a diary then contact Buck for a comment.

          1. is that anyone able to get their head that far up their ass deserves some kind of recognition. Maybe the Self-Colonoscopy Award (SCA), or the Holy F***ing Sh*t Nobody Can Be That Dumb! Award (HFSNCBTDA). We’ve got a gold medalist on our hands here!

    2. If you mean win the 2010 general election gov – no way.

      If you mean get his name ot he ballot. Sure.

      If you mean get frequent media coverage through the end of AUg or even OCt – sure.

      1. .

        they think that electing you would lead to the end of the world, the ultimate catastrophe to beat all catastrophes,

        but you shouldn’t take that personally and get all offended and stuff.

        .

    2. his career.  Kind of like a poor man’s Sarah Palin.  If he can actually find a way to run…great, as long as it doesn’t cost him any personal money. Lots of publicity for months.  If not, still good.  No expense and publicity for a news cycle or two while he looks for the next way to make some attention getting noise to drum up more speaking fees etc.

      As with Limbaugh, it’s actually better for his career when conservatives are out and Dems are in. He stopped being a serious pol who gives a damn a long time ago.

    3. The run would be fun,

      And I’d toast your happy lark,

      But if improbably you won,

      The estado colorado would be cast into the dark!

      (though I did get your joke, that Tancredo running with a Muslim would be a bit ironic…).

      🙂

  10. Tom says we have an opportunity to recapture what we had lost (the governor’s mansion) and so he thinks he will win as a third party?  No this is just all about him.  If he runs, he splits the vote.  The minute he announces he’s running somehow is the minute the moving van rolls up and Hick starts moving in.  Bad idea Tom especially if you care about the ideas you talk about.

    2. .

      I don’t happen to agree with that.  

      Dan or Scott on the GOP line is a guaranteed loss.  With or without a Tancredo candidacy.

      Without Tancredo on the ballot anywhere, about half of all ballots in the general will go unmarked for Guv.  The Republican half.  

      The only folks who will vote for either Maes or McInnis at this point are family and staff.  And BJ Wilson and Ellie.

      Scott was in the Springs yesterday.  http://www.gazette.com/article…

      He was speaking to 6 people at one of 3 stops.   Apparently all 6 were campaign workers.  Some commenters suggested that only the paper and his campaign knew he was coming.  

      .

      1. I believe that Republicans across the state will not vote for Hickenlooper in a general election.  He does not have a primary opponent but when the election comes and 527s become active across the state the dirt will come out and we will see a very close election.  

        With Maes on the line I agree it is a loss because no 527s are helping him and he can’t raise money on his own. He also can’t win moderate Republicans because he is so extreme let alone independents.

        With McInnis on the line against Hickenlooper there is a person with a bit of fundraising power that can also get larger organizations (527s and PACs) into the race to help out.  This will motivate the base again and also will bring in independents and moderates that are upset with the Democrat party and are looking for someone to bring a bit change that will work.  

        3. the 527s you mention will also be active against the GOP candidate, whoever it turns out to be.  And the Democratic 527s have a lot more ammunition than what people will find on Hickenlooper–if there were anything huge to find, someone would have found it by now.  

          The 527s are likely to cancel each other out (in effect) and to leave the race to the candidates.  And both potential GOP candidates have fatal flaws that are not shared by Hickenlooper.  

          I’d be more likely to agree with you if Gov. Ritter were running for re-election, but given the field as it now stands, I don’t think the 527s are going to have the impact you believe, and I think Hickenlooper wins by a comfortable but not overwhelming margin.

  11. I’ve gotten to know Congressman Tancredo very well over the campaign trail and we’ve become friends

    Do I still disagree with many of his stances? Absolutely!

    But is he racist? No way

    After getting to know him, I really cannot find a racist fiber in Tancredo’s soul – he’s definitely passionate about what he believes in, but it is important to note that Tancredo’s tune has never changed since he got into office – thus proving that he’s rarely, if ever, said anything just for the ‘sake’ of getting elected

    Overall, Tancredo is consistent and he’s honest – while I disagree with many of my friend’s stances, it is important to recognize his qualities of consistency and honesty, no matter the political climate… it’s definitely the reason why he remains beloved amongst many Republicans

      1. And Ali doesn’t understand the historical and logical connection between extreme nationalism and racism. The concept of “nation” originated as a concept of “micro-race,” identifying a supposedly racially and culturally homogenous “people,” and asserting that the boundaries of political states should coincide with the geographic locales of such (always fictionally) circumscribed “peoples”. Though the U.S. is a nation that has shed much (though not all) of the basing of nationalism in a mythology of racial homogeneity, its nationalist wing plays the same game of identifying “a people” in opposition to other “peoples”.

        To me, whether Tancredo is “racist” in the modern narrow sense of the word, he carries the same cognitive and emotional germ in another closely related form.

        I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The defining characteristic of the modern far-right is an in-group/out-group orientation, defining national, religious, cultural, and sexual “in-groups” (who “we” are), and striving mightily to fortify the intersection of those overlapping in-groups against the union (mathematically speaking) of all of those villified out-groups (all of the “theys” out there, and in here).

        It’s a small-minded, tribalistic, and belligerent attitude to the world, of the variety that future generations always end up looking back upon with utter contempt.

          1. and especially in its historical, racist form, that is just one more expression of his nationalism, rather than any refutation of it. Nationalism was born of the notion that the “nation” to which one belongs is not necessarily coterminous with the political “state” to which they belong (and with the agenda of making the two coterminous). Opposing the state in deference to your perceived nation is as nationalistic as it gets. Modern American patriotic loyalty to the nation-state (which, ironically, the members of that movement most accustomed to calling themselves “patriots” today are somewhat tenuously committed to) is a variation on the theme, rather than the theme itself. What you mean to say is that, given Tancredo’s link to The League of the South, he’s not a patriotic American. That’s something else altogether.

              1. I know it was tongue in cheek, but it’s actually an interest of mine: The interactions (both mutually reinforcing and mutually competing) across levels of organization and identification, from the individual to the global.

                Being an egomaniac isn’t completely incompatable with being a “nationalist”, but doesn’t increased loyalty to oneself syphon off some of the loyalty promised to some larger social entity? Sure. On the other hand, few are completely selfless, and few do not identify with some group that, at least, serves their self-interest, so it all falls along a continuum.

          2. was “stirving mightily to fortify the intersection of those overlapping in-groups against the union of all of those villified out-groups.” Tancredo, and those like him, do live in an inclusive America, but rather where all of the in-groups to which they belong converge: White, Christian, Heterosexual, Xenophobic, English-speaking, inegalitarian America. That’s his nation.

    2. I agree with you completely.  He is not a racist but that being said I do not agree with all his positions.

      He is like you said honest and very passionate about his views and that is to be respected.

      I still believe that him running for Governor does not help out Colorado but hurts as it would split the Republican vote and let Hick walk into the Governor’s Mansion.

      2. but wasn’t there video circling the net not long ago of Tancredo speaking at a Tea Party event in which he states that Obama was elected because we no longer have a civics literacy test to vote. Now I’m not a student of history but I do know my civil rights fights. If Tancredo said this he either doesn’t understand the vile history of using literacy tests to keep blacks from being able to vote after civil rights legislation was passed or he does and has no problem returning to those days.

        So explain to me again how he isn’t a racist?

        1. He uses a vile practice perpetrated against blacks to disparaged his favorite target: brown people. Here he is in his own fucking words:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

          Spin it however you want. He’s either completely unaware of the use of literacy tests in that past which makes him complete fucking stupid for bringing it up or he’s a complete racist. Or both.

          1.  of teaching history in middle school, it would be hard to imagine him being ignorant of literacy tests’ usage in the Jim Crow South.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

108 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!