Full Version: Tancredo: Forget my pledge!
QUOTE
Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) announced Thursday that he will break his term limits pledge and seek re-election this year. After serving in Washington for three terms, Tancredo said he "concluded that term limits were a bad idea." Tancredo explained that he needs to remain in Washington so that he can continue his push to greatly restrict US immigration policies.
(From Politics1.com )
Questions for debate:
1.)If you were from Colorado, is going back on a pledge enough to make you vote for the other guy?
2.)Was Tancredo just an opportunist during the early '90s when term limits and voter anger against incumbents held sway politically?
1.)If you were from Colorado, is going back on a pledge enough to make you vote for the other guy?
not to be picky, but the first question should read: If you were from Colorados sixth congressional district, is going back on a pledge enough to make you vote for the other guy? (CO's congressional districts can be seen HERE (6th is in grey)) by the way, I'm from the 4th district, under musgrave, IE the person that wants to ban gay marriage.
but if I were [from Colorados sixth congressional district], (and I could vote. I am a felon under supervision right now, so can't) I would not vote for tancredo even if he had not gone back on his pledge not to go for a fourth term. but let's say for the sake of argument, I were thinking of voting for him. this likely would make me either vote for someone else, or say screw it and not vote for anyone (depending on the choices)
2.)Was Tancredo just an opportunist during the early '90s when term limits and voter anger against incumbents held sway politically?
I would have to say yes. like most politicians today, he was (and is) an oppurtunist. were enough people against marshmallows I'm sure he would take a hardline stance and try to ban them, as would a lot of politicians. you have to remember, most congressmen/women are carrer politicians. they make their living off of being legislators. they get paid a lot better then let's say, a school teacher (tancredo's prior occupation)
not to be picky, but the first question should read: If you were from Colorados sixth congressional district, is going back on a pledge enough to make you vote for the other guy? (CO's congressional districts can be seen HERE (6th is in grey)) by the way, I'm from the 4th district, under musgrave, IE the person that wants to ban gay marriage.
but if I were [from Colorados sixth congressional district], (and I could vote. I am a felon under supervision right now, so can't) I would not vote for tancredo even if he had not gone back on his pledge not to go for a fourth term. but let's say for the sake of argument, I were thinking of voting for him. this likely would make me either vote for someone else, or say screw it and not vote for anyone (depending on the choices)
2.)Was Tancredo just an opportunist during the early '90s when term limits and voter anger against incumbents held sway politically?
I would have to say yes. like most politicians today, he was (and is) an oppurtunist. were enough people against marshmallows I'm sure he would take a hardline stance and try to ban them, as would a lot of politicians. you have to remember, most congressmen/women are carrer politicians. they make their living off of being legislators. they get paid a lot better then let's say, a school teacher (tancredo's prior occupation)
QUOTE
1.)If you were from Colorado, is going back on a pledge enough to make you vote for the other guy?
2.)Was Tancredo just an opportunist during the early '90s when term limits and voter anger against incumbents held sway politically?
2.)Was Tancredo just an opportunist during the early '90s when term limits and voter anger against incumbents held sway politically?
I would certainly encourage and support a person to challenge Tancredo in the Republican primary because I would hate to lose the Republican seat in Congress. However, I would not vote for Tancredo under any circumstances for violating this pledge. I don't know who else I would vote for, depends on what they say.
I don't know that he was being an opportunist then, but he's certainly being a damn liar now.
The whole point behind term limits is getting rid of incumbents. Now that he is one, he is against term limits.. 
Definitely a strike against the guy. Would it be enough to make me vote for "the other guy"? Depends who the other guy is. It certainly makes me question some of his other stances, though.
There is always some anger against incumbents. I do believe Tancredo did not think the issue through, and was being an opportunist.
Definitely a strike against the guy. Would it be enough to make me vote for "the other guy"? Depends who the other guy is. It certainly makes me question some of his other stances, though.
There is always some anger against incumbents. I do believe Tancredo did not think the issue through, and was being an opportunist.
I wouldn't base voting for or against strictly because of the change on term limits. Tancredo is a very conservative Republican. (He use to do a local media round table discussion show on PBS and a radio talk show, prior to being elected.) He is very outspoken and firm in his opinions. I would base my voting on a candidate's views on multiple issues.
There could be other issues at work. The Colorado Republican Party may have asked him to stay in office because Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell ® is retiring this year (long time Congressman -Senator & Representative - from southern Colorado, initially as a Democrat then as a Republican). Colorado is generally an equally divide state - about 50% Democrat and about 50% Republican. Elections usually end up with less than a 10% difference in the parties.
There could be other issues at work. The Colorado Republican Party may have asked him to stay in office because Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell ® is retiring this year (long time Congressman -Senator & Representative - from southern Colorado, initially as a Democrat then as a Republican). Colorado is generally an equally divide state - about 50% Democrat and about 50% Republican. Elections usually end up with less than a 10% difference in the parties.
If Tancredo made a pledge he should keep it. And the Republicans should run someone in the primary against him. He is not doing his party any favors, and his constituency deserves better than him.
There are other political offices to run for. After sitting out this "dance," he could perhaps try for a Senate seat that comes open, or perhaps a post in state government.. He is doing a lot of harm to his own political career by declaring that he wants to be re-elected despite his pledge.
It looks like he values status over keeping his word. Knowing this, I would not want to vote for him (I don't know him), but I agree with the other posters that it would depend on who was also running for that Congressional seat.
There are other political offices to run for. After sitting out this "dance," he could perhaps try for a Senate seat that comes open, or perhaps a post in state government.. He is doing a lot of harm to his own political career by declaring that he wants to be re-elected despite his pledge.
It looks like he values status over keeping his word. Knowing this, I would not want to vote for him (I don't know him), but I agree with the other posters that it would depend on who was also running for that Congressional seat.
This is fairly typical in Congress. A lot of challengers claim to abide by term limits in order to oust an incumbent, only to renig when they become one. The Congressman from my district got into office as an outsider, pounding the fact that his predecessor had been in Congress for thirty years. The only way to stop this is by voting them out when they fail to live up to their campaign promises. With PACs and the franking privilege in the incumbent's favor, it is no wonder why they have a reelection rate of ninety-eight percent.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.