Five years ago, Coffman refused to share a stage with Tancredo at an Iraq War rally in Denver, a protest by a veteran against a congressman who received a deferment from service during the Vietnam War.

It seems Tancredo escaped out of military service by claiming insanity…This guy is surely a third class sleaze ball politician.

but I withhold my standing ovations for superb performances,

Well, of course we can’t all have the sterling record of accomplishment that Alan Keyes has..

“You’ll never hear me say that Reagan was perfect (i.e. Lebanon, immigration, etc.), but overall he wasn’t too bad.”

Until you try to compare him to…Alan Keyes.

“Suffice to say, there are a few areas about which I cannot compromise

Defeat is a compromise.

“Your view is very shortsighted”

No, it is the reality of the situation.

“The only hope the R’s have in 2010 is to show that they have been the resistance to the change Obama brings. “

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.

““There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties…

Oh well… It happens to be the case. Splitting the republican party by voting for crackpots will just help to elect democrats.

“Again, this is shortsighted. “

Better to have full on traitors.

“So after suffering 60 of McCain, Graham, or Stevens, then what?”

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 loser dream 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.

“After dealing with their garbage, the Republic would, en masse, vote for 60-80 Kennedy’s, Reids, Murthas, or Pelosis.”

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.

“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.”

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”.

“The R’s are are in a better situation now, provided that they get their act together.”

On the cusp of irrelevance. Spoken like a true Alan Keyes voter.

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.

On December 8th, 2008 at 10:06 pm, Bill Grant said:
The missed point was that you can find something wrong with anyone.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Yes it is. That is a democratic republic. That is what we live in. Hello?

“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

I would prefer that to 60 Kennedys, Reids, Murthas or Pelosis.

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.

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.

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.

“I’d take five solid men over twenty spineless people who claim the title of “Republican” “

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.

“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. “

Yes it is. That is a democratic republic. That is what we live in. Hello?

“Here’s something else to think about: would you like having 60 McCains or Stevens’ or Lindsay Grahams in Congress?”

I would prefer that to 60 Kennedys, Reids, Murthas or Pelosis.

NBF said:
If you’re asking for an apology from Michelle Malkin, you’re wasting your breath.

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 6:29 pm, NBF said:

“It is better to be an outsider than to compromise your principles.”

…well, except when you endorse Romnesty.

Very true…Thats why I called him (post #8) a barking dog republican…

“It is better to be an outsider than to compromise your principles.”

…well, except when you endorse Romnesty.

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.

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.

Good Luck and good health to you Congressman, thank you for your service.

Tancredo’s sharp words will leave him with a single-tone legacy, said Princeton University congressional historian Julian Zelizer.
“When he’s discussed, he’ll be used I think as one of the examples of what was wrong with the Republican party,” Zelizer said. “I think there’ll be a lot of people who will say his kind of politics didn’t sit well with a lot of Americans.”

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.

Congressmen Tancredo and Duncan Hunter

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.

On December 8th, 2008 at 2:26 pm, dan708 said:
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.

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.