Overly harsh. Tom Tancredo is a fairly reliable conservative vote in Congress, so if you can look past his inflammatory rhetoric on illegal immigration, I don’t know why a small-government Tea Party group would withhold support for him in this race since Maes is a tool and Hickenlooper is a run-of-the-mill Democrat. You also have to keep in mind that Tancredo’s position as the scion of the anti-illegal immigration movement is much more irrelevant as a governor than as a congressman.
Brendan Loy
…his inflammatory rhetoric on illegal immigration…
Also on bombing a major world religion’s holiest city in collective retribution for the actions of a group of radicals within that religion.
…And as governor of Colorado, he’d have lots of opportunities to do just that.
[/rolls eyes]
If we were going to nuke one place in retaliation for 9/11, why not Mecca? Might as well finish what the crusades couldn’t. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a legit Holy War around here, ya know?
Brendan Loy
It’s not that Tancredo would have the power to carry out that particular policy preference, obviously. It’s what the comment reflects about his character and worldview, and what it would reflect about Colorado if such a person were our governor. Surely you wouldn’t vote for someone for governor of Virginia who supported, oh I don’t know, full reparations for slavery from the federal government (not morally equivalent of a collective-responsibility-based-on-religion bombing, mind you, but I’m just trying to think of a position a far-left Democrat might plausibly take that you’d find beyond the pale), even though the governor of Virginia can’t exactly institute such a thing, because you’d feel that someone who holds such a view just isn’t fit to be governor. Same here. C’mon: not rocket science.
I wouldn’t vote for said hypothetical Virginia gubernatorial candidate because he’s a Democrat. A better example might be, if there was a libertarian-leaning Republican gubernatorial candidate who passed the rest of my litmus test, but was an atheist and thought all religions were harmful. I’d still vote for him.
Frankly, I think the idea of not voting for a candidate because of concerns about how it reflects on my state, when he otherwise represents most of the positions I support, is the dumbest-ass thing in the world. Who the eff cares what you think about my governor? If he’s lowering taxes, bringing competition to schools, building highways, executing murderers, and helping my state’s economy grow, that’s what matters to me. Opinions on abortion, illegal immigration, and the positives and negatives of nuking Mecca are completely irrelevant, and voters who base their votes on that stuff in state and local campaigns are idiots.
David K.
“I wouldn’t vote for said hypothetical Virginia gubernatorial candidate because he’s a Democrat”
Good to know that the label matters more than the particular candidate for you. For some reason i thought you weren’t so hyper-partisan, actually.
When it comes to voting, absolutely, I’m a party man. It’d take a lot for me to make an exception — Colorado being a good example, where I’d support Tancredo over Maes — but in other instances, I might support a Democrat if it didn’t have an effect on legislative caucusing. For example, I never much understood the idea of southerners voting for “conservative” Democrats when they’re just going to turn around and vote for Pelosi and Reid to lead and set the agenda in Congress. Sounds pretty dumb to me if you actually care about your conservative principles being articulated and enacted.
When it comes to primaries and everything outside the actual voting booth, I evaluate and argue for the principle and the policy.
That makes me a partisan, yes. A hyper-partisan, no.
dcl
AML is actually correct. As much as it sucks, the way our government is structured and runs, in most cases a Representative or Senator makes one vote that matters each session–the first vote of each session, in other words, the organizing vote. That’s it, that really is all you get for most Reps. So it is more logical to cross party lines and vote the person in cases such as Governor or President than it is on a Senator or especially on a Representative. We get all the negative of a parliamentary system with none of the positive.
Alasdair
It is interesting to see so much puffery about Tancredo’s eccentricities from those so silent about Kucinich and his ilk …
AML – you are being rational, again – and a number of commenters here can’t handle that …
Kucinich truly is wacky. Tancredo just needs a muzzle.
Brendan Loy
Alasdair, are you talking about me? I’m fairly certain I haven’t exactly been soft on “Kucinich and his ilk” (Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, etc. etc.) over the years. Do you have total amnesia about the historical content of my blog just because you disagree with me about Obama, and your worldview cannot accept the notion that anyone could possibly support Obama unless they’re a total irrational lefty? Or, do you mean Doug Mataconis, a libertarian who I’m fairly certain has absolutely no use for Kucinich & co.?
David K.
“and your worldview cannot accept the notion that anyone could possibly support Obama unless they’re a total irrational lefty”
I’m pretty sure Alasdair has demonstrated such on a significant basis.
RT @dmataconis: Tea Party Express endorsing Tancredo tells me all I need to know about Tea Party Express #Fail
Overly harsh. Tom Tancredo is a fairly reliable conservative vote in Congress, so if you can look past his inflammatory rhetoric on illegal immigration, I don’t know why a small-government Tea Party group would withhold support for him in this race since Maes is a tool and Hickenlooper is a run-of-the-mill Democrat. You also have to keep in mind that Tancredo’s position as the scion of the anti-illegal immigration movement is much more irrelevant as a governor than as a congressman.
…his inflammatory rhetoric on illegal immigration…
Also on bombing a major world religion’s holiest city in collective retribution for the actions of a group of radicals within that religion.
…And as governor of Colorado, he’d have lots of opportunities to do just that.
[/rolls eyes]
If we were going to nuke one place in retaliation for 9/11, why not Mecca? Might as well finish what the crusades couldn’t. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a legit Holy War around here, ya know?
It’s not that Tancredo would have the power to carry out that particular policy preference, obviously. It’s what the comment reflects about his character and worldview, and what it would reflect about Colorado if such a person were our governor. Surely you wouldn’t vote for someone for governor of Virginia who supported, oh I don’t know, full reparations for slavery from the federal government (not morally equivalent of a collective-responsibility-based-on-religion bombing, mind you, but I’m just trying to think of a position a far-left Democrat might plausibly take that you’d find beyond the pale), even though the governor of Virginia can’t exactly institute such a thing, because you’d feel that someone who holds such a view just isn’t fit to be governor. Same here. C’mon: not rocket science.
I wouldn’t vote for said hypothetical Virginia gubernatorial candidate because he’s a Democrat. A better example might be, if there was a libertarian-leaning Republican gubernatorial candidate who passed the rest of my litmus test, but was an atheist and thought all religions were harmful. I’d still vote for him.
Frankly, I think the idea of not voting for a candidate because of concerns about how it reflects on my state, when he otherwise represents most of the positions I support, is the dumbest-ass thing in the world. Who the eff cares what you think about my governor? If he’s lowering taxes, bringing competition to schools, building highways, executing murderers, and helping my state’s economy grow, that’s what matters to me. Opinions on abortion, illegal immigration, and the positives and negatives of nuking Mecca are completely irrelevant, and voters who base their votes on that stuff in state and local campaigns are idiots.
“I wouldn’t vote for said hypothetical Virginia gubernatorial candidate because he’s a Democrat”
Good to know that the label matters more than the particular candidate for you. For some reason i thought you weren’t so hyper-partisan, actually.
When it comes to voting, absolutely, I’m a party man. It’d take a lot for me to make an exception — Colorado being a good example, where I’d support Tancredo over Maes — but in other instances, I might support a Democrat if it didn’t have an effect on legislative caucusing. For example, I never much understood the idea of southerners voting for “conservative” Democrats when they’re just going to turn around and vote for Pelosi and Reid to lead and set the agenda in Congress. Sounds pretty dumb to me if you actually care about your conservative principles being articulated and enacted.
When it comes to primaries and everything outside the actual voting booth, I evaluate and argue for the principle and the policy.
That makes me a partisan, yes. A hyper-partisan, no.
AML is actually correct. As much as it sucks, the way our government is structured and runs, in most cases a Representative or Senator makes one vote that matters each session–the first vote of each session, in other words, the organizing vote. That’s it, that really is all you get for most Reps. So it is more logical to cross party lines and vote the person in cases such as Governor or President than it is on a Senator or especially on a Representative. We get all the negative of a parliamentary system with none of the positive.
It is interesting to see so much puffery about Tancredo’s eccentricities from those so silent about Kucinich and his ilk …
AML – you are being rational, again – and a number of commenters here can’t handle that …
(grin)
Kucinich truly is wacky. Tancredo just needs a muzzle.
Alasdair, are you talking about me? I’m fairly certain I haven’t exactly been soft on “Kucinich and his ilk” (Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, etc. etc.) over the years. Do you have total amnesia about the historical content of my blog just because you disagree with me about Obama, and your worldview cannot accept the notion that anyone could possibly support Obama unless they’re a total irrational lefty? Or, do you mean Doug Mataconis, a libertarian who I’m fairly certain has absolutely no use for Kucinich & co.?
“and your worldview cannot accept the notion that anyone could possibly support Obama unless they’re a total irrational lefty”
I’m pretty sure Alasdair has demonstrated such on a significant basis.