Words to live by
Amen, amen, amen:
“It is better to be an outsider than to compromise your principles.”
Posted in: Tom Tancredo
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Tom Tancredo
Legal Insurrection
» Calling For Sparkman Apologies
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia ArchivesRiehl World View
» Update2: No Cancer?? Suicide! Staged As Homicide - Live Stream Of Sparkman News ConferenceAmerican Thinker
» The Wilding of Sarah PalinFounding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksMudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
Godspeed, Tom Tancredo. I preferred you as a candidate, but it wasn’t in the cards.
Coffman is correct. Tancredo is a worthy representative, and I trustingly look forward to his next efforts on our behalf.
Having met Tom on several occasions, I can say he is a man of kindness, intelligence, and integrity. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue, but when it comes to sensible immigration reform, I can’t fault him. We could do with more like him in both the House and Senate….Tom and Bay Buchanan run Team America of which I hope he stays involved with and a 2010 run for Gov might be a good thing since Colorado is a defacto sanctuary state…
It has been my privilege to have met Congressman Tancredo several times during the Amnesty Debate and during his run for the nomination.
It is a shame that he never caught the imagination of the electorate-the man did have something to say. The debate moderators did seem to ignore both Congressmen Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. He did not have the speaking style and charisma of some, but I thought we was more than the equal of Juan Hernandez McCain.
I guess that puts me in the tinfoil hat league again.
We need you now more than ever, Tom. But, I understand. God Speed.
Unfortunately, Mr. Tancredo was a distant memory by the time the primary came to PA. McCamnesty had already locked it up, and Giuliani and Huckabee were the only other names on the ballot, FWIW.
Good work Tom and best of luck. Keep fighting our immigration problem.
Unfortunately Tancredo is only good at making noise by such statements..no actions…
He did not even bother to introduce his very own OVERDUE immigration bill after talking so much about it. Forget about fighting to get support for his bill in House – he did not even bother to introduce the bill.
Also he voted for the bailout both the times it was introduced. But he an talk as if he holds fiscal conservative bastion.
I am glad he is retiring…He is one of those barking dog republicans, not fighting ones…We already have many RINOs in GOP and we don’t need such people who can only talk and not act.
I’ll trade you straight up! Your Tancredo for my Kerry and Kennedy! Heck, I’ll even throw in a Frank!
I didn’t have to hold my nose while voting for him.
I wanted to voted for Tancredo for President but Texas
primaries were scheduled too late!!
Amen to his words above!
On December 8th, 2008 at 2:48 pm, brad_sk said:
MM.com logic:
EVERYONE is a RINO… Lets get rid of every republican…. Then there will be no more RINOs.
Tancredo was a good man and a good Republican. His retiring is a huge loss to people who want to ensure American sovereignty.
Keep throwing, you are on a roll. You could throw them in the harbor but I imagine there is some kind of rule against that.
Yep — It’s called polluting public waterways.
*twinkle*
Yes, Amen, amen, amen.
Even when not compromising your principles means
not compromising the Constitution of the United States,
and Michelle Malkin treats you like an tinfoil-hat-wearing outsider.
Frankly, Michelle, as others have noted, it’s difficult to take “stick to your guns” maxims very seriously.
In your entry titled The buzz about Barack’s birth certificate you asked, amongst your observations, “Why shouldn’t the record be in the public domain for presidential candidates?”.
In a complete, inexplicable 180 degree turn-around you’re attacking and deriding – pretty much daily – those who pose that very same question.
That’s not just compromise, it’s irrational (i.e. no rationale offered) self-compromise. So you have to understand the “compromise” quote would seem to be at least somewhat non-operational.
Imagine that, go directly to the people , the nearly 75% of UNITED STATES CITIZEN people who want our borders secured and our existing immigration laws enforced.
Is that really too much to ask?
If all of congress did this we would have a government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people.
and yet some think this is a bad thing…
That’s from the Princeton University congressional historian Julian Zelizer.
I think Zelizer just proved what’s wrong with America and it is the EDUCATORS and the ’sold out’ insiders
servingreceiving pay in congress.Thanks Tom,
you WILL be dearly missed and we can’t thank you enough.
I agree.
If a Republican, or Democrat or [insert party name here], wishes to get my vote, then they are going to have to espouse the same beliefs that I do. What good are a bunch of witless people with an “R” after their names in government? They prove worthless in terms of both offense and defense. I’d take five solid men over twenty spineless people who claim the title of “Republican” and do more harm than good to those fighting the good fight. Remember Ted Stevens? How about John McCain? Sure, they were/are additional “R’s” in the room, but what value did/do they bring? What value is an “R” who votes as if he had a “D” after his name? What good is an “R” if he’s a criminal? Politics is not a game where you add up “R’s” and “D’s” and see who wins. It’s not about who has more seats. It’s about who has the better ideas and the balls to put them forth unabashedly. By doing that, the Republicans wouldn’t have the numbers problem they now face.
Here’s something else to think about: would you like having 60 McCains or Stevens’ or Lindsay Grahams in Congress?
I highly respect the man, the man has courage, principles and values, not be sold. Characteristics rarely found in politics these days, if ever. He was my 1st pick in the primaries knowing full well he nor D. Hunter had no chance, instead we got Juan McShame when the fix was in.
I’d like to wish Mr. Tancredo all the luck in the future, for us conservatives hopefully he will pursue another elected office, senator or governor?
Thank you sir for your 10 years in congress.
The same was true here in Virginia. McCrazy had a lock by the time he got here and i didnt even vote in the primary. In fact, by then, I think Guilaini and Huckabee were already gone.
That was who I wanted to see on the Republican ticket. But instead we got Yosemite Sam. And now we have President Obama. I wont forgive the RNC for not having a sit-down with McCrazy and gotten him off the ticket early. But I wonder if McCain was the RNC’s sacrificial goat just like Dole was in 96.
That’s because toadies like you and your friends in the Press decreed that he would be condemned and marginalized for his message. Dismissive arrogance does not “sit well” with law abiding Americans. In the long run it is men of character and truth like Tom Tancredo whose message will prevail. It is the message of rebellion and lawlessness trumpeted by people like you which will, and should be, forgotten.
I use to be a Trancredo supporter, but his Pope bashing really turned me off.
Good Luck and good health to you Congressman, thank you for your service.
If you’re asking for an apology from Michelle Malkin, you’re wasting your breath. She still hasn’t apologized for her bizarre anti-Catholic tirade.
…well, except when you endorse Romnesty.
Very true…Thats why I called him (post #8) a barking dog republican…
No, NBF, I’m not looking for, nor feel a need for, an apology. That would be silly. In fact, if Michelle were to present a rationale for her 180 degree turn on asking even just basic questions (such as the one she posed) re: the Turin Shroud-like handling of Obama’s birth certificate, I might agree with her reasoning.
Otherwise her sudden conversion from “Truther” to the current derisive, aggressive “Fight The Smears” stance is, to say the least, inconsistent and illogical.
(Actually, my Turin Shroud comparison isn’t a good one. The Shroud has been allowed to be viewed by the public and scientifically examined.)
On December 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm, Send_Me said:
The missed point was that you can find something wrong with anyone. Holding out for the “perfect” will just mean that you wind up throwing your vote away on some loudmouthed idiot like Alan Keyes thereby helping to elect Barack obama and making you the perpetual object of ridicule for your moonbattery.
The course of action you advocate will get you neither, and 5 “solid” whatever wont stand a chance against the other 95 in the Senate or the rest of the house. It is a numbers game and splitting the republicans will just help elect the democrats.
Yes it is. That is a democratic republic. That is what we live in. Hello?
I would prefer that to 60 Kennedys, Reids, Murthas or Pelosis.
These days, it is a very rare politician that sticks to his/her ethics, morals and campaign opinions. Most have staff, whose sole responsibility, it seems, is to hold their index finger up and check the wind direction, then report back. The first goal, as the politician assumes an office, is to set up a re-election campaign. With a public that has little concept or understanding on how the government really works, or supposed to work, it’s easy to deceive them. There are no statesmen any more. It is now “Me first, party second, country third”. That’s why, when I saw Sen. Webb, last Saturday, I walked right by him. I have no interest in those people, or anyone who wants to forcibly take away my money to help an incompetent continue, or corrupt this country for their own self-interest. Don’t shake my hand, politician, with your right hand, while your left hand steals my wallet.
And my point is that we shouldn’t overlook those things. Sure, we should give a pat on the back for good work, but I withhold my standing ovations for superb performances, not just for anybody. You’ll never hear me say that Reagan was perfect (i.e. Lebanon, immigration, etc.), but overall he wasn’t too bad. His holistic political philosophy was spot on.
Suffice to say, there are a few areas about which I cannot compromise (i.e. abortion, socialism, gun rights, illegal immigration, foreign policy, to name a few).
Your view is very shortsighted. The only hope the R’s have in 2010 is to show that they have been the resistance to the change Obama brings. They need not compromise, which will give them a leg to stand upon when elections roll around again. Now, if they do compromise, then what have they gained? If Obama asks them to endorse his $1 trillion “stimulus” package in return for saving the Bush tax cuts, then they should say “no”. The only hope the R’s have is to prove to the American People that they do in fact stand for something other than what Obama is selling. The problem is that this message gets muddied by folks like Graham, McCain, and Stevens, among many others.
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties… This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” ~John Adams
Again, this is shortsighted. So after suffering 60 of McCain, Graham, or Stevens, then what? After dealing with their garbage, the Republic would, en masse, vote for 60-80 Kennedy’s, Reids, Murthas, or Pelosis. That is the same problem we faced with Bush. He lost both houses of Congress and the White House. Why? He’s a Texas liberal with an “R” after his name who mucked things up royally and people grew tired of his flavor and voted accordingly.
The R’s are are in a better situation now, provided that they get their act together.
Words I live by. Better to stand alone and die on your feet than live as a dog for scrapes and standing for nothing.
And to the Jhon Adams argument, I’ve seen, he HATED Democracy, as Did Thomas Jefferson and all the founding fathers minus Ben Franklin who was a quack and playboy. In fact should they ever be brought to the modern day I suspect they would start hanging and shooting people in general and in the goverment at once. Out of disgust and dissapointment.
He didn’t get much done when he was on the inside except to call some attention to the out-of-control immigration problem. That much is good. Now that he’s not on the inside, I don’t see him accomplishing his goals. I wish him the best, but overall he’s a disappointment in the immigration reform battle.
On December 9th, 2008 at 9:05 am, Send_Me said:
Well, of course we can’t all have the sterling record of accomplishment that Alan Keyes has..
Until you try to compare him to…Alan Keyes.
Defeat is a compromise.
No, it is the reality of the situation.
Sure, because that is what they have been left with. Instead of being able to set the agenda or effect the agenda they are reduced to having to obstruct someone else’s agenda because they do not have the numbers to push their own agenda. The press is going to love hanging the “obstructionist” label on them but that’s about all they can do.
Oh well… It happens to be the case. Splitting the republican party by voting for crackpots will just help to elect democrats.
Better to have full on traitors.
Firstly, you are caught up in the mindset that once you flip the lever and send whomever off to Washington your ability to have an effect on whatever they do is done. It isn’t. Secondly, you are going to have disagreements in policies with just about anyone who does get elected. At a certain point, after you have pushed for your candidate (Alan fricken Keyes) you are going to have to look at your viable choices and decide who would be best for the country. If you can’t see any difference between Lindsey Graham and Harry Reid or, more likely, if you are determined to have a fit until you can have your
blow hard, bigoted, idiot, unelectable, obnoxious loserdream candidate of Alan Keyes then you are going to be stuck with Harry Reid. I would think that recent history would have provided you with proof of this.Rather than doing it anyway.
The other part of this equation is that these people represent different demographics, someone like Alan Keyes isn’t going to get elected in the areas that they represent…. Or anywhere else.
Good luck persuading the public at large that Bush is a liberal. Bush is the thinking mans Alan Keyes: a social conservative and a bumbling incompetent in every other arena. Bush IS what the problem has been; Republicans, including many here have identified “conservatism” as anyone who was willing to pay them lip service on abortion (lip service because once they are in it still remains) regardless of whether or not they are capable of balancing a checkbook or even tying their own shoe laces. With McCain it was immigration. His record on it was lousy, but instead of electing him and forcing him to follow the law we had the constant drone of “McShamnisty” from self aggrandizing professional hysterics which helped to keep 4 and a half million “conservatives” at home for the election… Which elected Barack Obama.
At a certain point you have to decide not to let the “perfect” be the enemy of the “non disastrous”.
On the cusp of irrelevance. Spoken like a true Alan Keyes voter.
BTW, check this out in the same link posted by Malkin above
It seems Tancredo escaped out of military service by claiming insanity…This guy is surely a third class sleaze ball politician.