May I nominate Katherine Harris?

I support Tancredo, and I would vote for him above all others...just to see if he would really carrying through on immigration. My real hope is that he will generate enough attention (and attract enough votes) to put immigration on the radar screen.

Thank you.

The same thing that is attractive about Tancredo, his willingness to stand up and say what needs to be said, may also be what gets him in trouble.

Some things need to be said, it is just a mater of how you say them.

One of his biggest drawbacks is that he isn’t particularly articulate, or at least he gets tongue-tied in front of the camera. So he needs grooming, but he has a tremendous amount of grass roots support. Check the Human Events polls.

And I might add that he has an impressive 99 lifetime ACU.

I’d love to vote for Tancredo. I think that he knows he isn’t a serious candidate for President, so he can get away with saying things like that. It is politically incorrect and overstated, but if you have been to Miami lately like I have you know exactly what he is talking about.

There is increasingly a super wealthy class separated by an increasingly foreign born, non english speaking serf class. Walking on the streets there are street people and other people who seem not just down on their luck but weirdly hostile and entitled.

For instance, two days ago my wife and I were there eating at a nice outdoor cafe in supposedly glamourous south beach. Except for the tourists everyone looks the same, dressed down in old clothes.

This guy came in who looked about like that, and ordered a latte and when the waiter went away he took off across the street without paying. The waiter chased him down in full view of everyone, and the guy grabbed him. The waiter pushed him away and demanded his money, which he eventually got. It was weird to watch and certainly something I am not used to.

We got the feeling that the waiter was used to this. There is a sense on people’s faces that you see of a con mentality, entitled to get away with whatever they can.

Entirely subjective, I suppose, but we travel around a bit and one gets a sense right away of what a place is like, and Miami was not impressive. Dirty and low class. Everyone spoke spanish. And the traffic and crowds were unreal.

What do you mean he isn’t a serious candidate? If he announced and got busy he would be a top contender in Iowa right away.

At Human Events they have a 2008 Candidate Report. It is a PDF file that is e-mailed to you for free. (I guess the only cost is you will probably get solicitations by e-mail in the future.) Here is some of what I learned.

’05 National Taxpayers Union rating 80%

Lifetime Citizens Against Government Waste rating 93%

’05 National Right to Life Committee 100%

Lifetime League of Conservation Voters 11%

NRA "A" rating

Tancredo is an honest man, and he spoke honestly about Miami. I think we’ve all heard what it’s turned into.
We need more Tancredos, not fewer. Thank God somebody in Congress is speaking so urgently and clearly about the immigration crisis. Our system cannot work if people just go around being "prudent" all the time. If we don’t wake up and smell the coffee, we’re doomed as a nation.

Tom Tancredo for President!

I think I should add for John Moser and others who think that those of us concerned with "ethno-cultural viability" are just racists, Tancredo is what, an Italian name? I don’t harbor stupid prejudices against individuals, and I’d vote for this man above any number of waspy candidates. My concern, and I think the concern of others, is for the macro-dynamics of population composition. The historical record simply doesn’t support polyglot and ethno-racial or religious "diversity" as viable strategies for harmony and prosperity. I’m thinking of my children, and I’m thinking about the American experiment (which, contrary to hype, isn’t "we are the world" -- it’s about free people running their own lives...a task made far more difficult by "identity politics").

I simply second dain’s well-written position.

I’m with Dain on this one. I don’t have a problem that Tancredo is an Italian. I like their food a lot. But hell, I’d vote for a Jew if I thought he’d do something to keep the Mexicans out. A Jew might even be able to balance the budget, you know how cheap them people are.

Well, hooray for dain, he’s willing to promote an Italian for the Oval Office - what a moral beacon he is! Granted, the Italians may not be quite as white as his purebred people, but they’ll do in a pinch.

"I don’t harbor stupid prejudices against individuals"...just groups.

The ideology of racism is a modern conception brought about by the relatively recent by historical standards increased interaction of the races. Interaction that only came about because of a revolution in travel, economics, technology, etc.

The ideological racist who believes it is all about "whiteness" therefore has a historically artificial construct which is, whether they know it or not, a historical anomaly. I am not arguing the absurd proposition that the races don’t really exist, but only that historically race is a supra-category.

That said, the ideological doctrine of anti-racism, that any discussion of race/ethnicity and racial differences, is totally taboo, is an even more recent development and is even more clearly OF THE LEFT.

People like Hal or Craig who mock dain or others for discussing an obviously important element of the immigration debate, are CARRYING WATER FOR THE PC THOUGHT POLICE.

Please quit licking the jack-boots of the lefty PC goon squad like good little thought slaves and allow an intelligent conversation to take place.

So called rightist who play that leftist game should be treated with the contempt they deserve. If more conservatives would get a spine and call them on their status as hand puppets of the left, then maybe some of them could be shamed out of this craven, groveling behavior.

Oh my! Craig and Hal, Red just took you boys out behind the woodshed.

The idea of race is not a purely modern construct. Biblically perhaps a Christian ought to recall race relations between Egyptians and Jews, Jews and "unclean" people, Jew and half-breed Samaritans. Just on that level Red’s assertion is false. Did empires like Babylon, and Rome not have travel and economic empires that spanned numerous races? Or we could go forward (perhaps Red would consider this modern) to the 1600’s when Europeans already have preconceived ways of looking at Africans as black and hence bad, and see themselves as good and white.

So if you consider race/ethnicity as an element of immigration that is racist. If you consider it as an element for your personal Presidential vote, you would be racist.

As to Tancredo, he is a little bit too one issue for me, and not as well-spoken as others. If he’s in the field it’s just further proof that there is a problem, and we need to keep looking. As Dain said, "it’s about free people running their own lives...a task made far more difficult by "identity politics"). " True, race has no play in this. So yes, this is my general position, "any discussion of race/ethnicity and racial differences, is totally taboo" because race is irrelevant to freedom.

Clint, you can live in your own head if you want to, but it just isn’t that simple. Just as it takes only one party to create a war, it takes only one group to generate the whole sorry mess known as "identity politics." Immigration has permanent and often unpleasant consequences (e.g., Northern Ireland, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Muslims in France).

For those of you who see it the way I do (Red, Tom, Ned), you really can’t argue with idealists. I’m not sure why I try...when people aren’t open to evidence and commonsense, then argumentation is a total waste of time.

Clint, Jews and Egyptians or Jews and Samaritans were not different races. They are different ethnicities. That is my point. That is why a "racist" who makes it all about whiteness by lumping all Italians, Anglos, Eastern Europeans, etc. together is making a modern mistake. Not that they may not have a commonality of interest, but the doctrine of racism must be recent as opposed to "ethnicism" if you will which has been a part of the human condition since the dawn of time.

The Middle East was actually the great trade thoroughfare. So the races /very different ethnicities interacted more there than anywhere else in the world. But the average Euro had probably never even seen a black or oriental person, until 300-400 years ago.

"So if you consider race/ethnicity as an element of immigration that is racist....this is my general position, "any discussion of race/ethnicity and racial differences, is totally taboo" because race is irrelevant to freedom."

OK Clint, but realize that that position is very clearly left wing and its wide spread repetition as dogma is much less than 50 years old.

Red, you said:

That said, the ideological doctrine of anti-racism, that any discussion of race/ethnicity and racial differences, is totally taboo, is an even more recent development and is even more clearly OF THE LEFT.

Your use of "race/ethnicity" led me to the assumption that you were treating them the same. Your division of the two is a fair point that I’m not totally sure what to think about. Ethnicity, to me, carries a lot more of a cultural, religious connotation than race. I believe that the habits of freedom can be part of an ethnicity (cultural), and they are an important consideration in immigration policy. This is why I would only support very limited immigration from Islamic countries--because many reject freedom.

I guess I have not seen this understanding of freedom concern in the nativists like Dain. I haven’t heard a good argument that Latino’s are a danger to freedom, or that they have fundamental beliefs or habits contrary to American freedom. If I am right, anyone railing against these immigrants must be doing so for other reasons.

If you want to talk about "ethnicity," in the freedom/principle sense, try it. But you must be very careful or you will fall into a position on race that is very unconservative.

Yea, Clint, all those thriving mestizo democracies down their in Latin America must inspire lots of confidence in these freedom-loving illegal immigrant. News flash, dude: illegals are here for MONEY, not freedom. If they really loved freedom, surely they would stay home and reform the cesspool that is Mexico. Instead, a goodly number of them fly the Mexican flag in mass protests whenever anyone talks about enforcing our immigration laws.

I think you are seeing what you want to see...are you a libertarian, by any chance, Clint?

Jeez, errors. I meant "there" and "immigrants" of course. I hate this software.

Dain: You just don’t operate well in an environment where you can’t label people. Whether its by race, ethnicity, politics, education, or any of your other fancies, you seem to believe that everyone, especially those with whom you disagree, fit some group like this.

I’m pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-police power in almost everything else socially. If that’s libertarian, fine. Label everyone in the world as part of one of your groups.

I’m just an American who believes that being an American involves the proper practice of liberty and justice for all.

Dain, you make an excellent point.

"If they really loved freedom, surely they would stay home and reform the cesspool that is Mexico."

Why not also apply this logic to all LEGAL immigrants, as well? If they are living in less free societies, why are they taking the easy way out, rather than reforming their native countries?

Hey, Jim...good point! But in all seriousness, Hispanic immigration does not consist of freedom-loving refugees from some heartless totalitarian regime. They are simply people looking to make some good bucks...not really primo candidates for citizenship, in my book. And we are talking about MILLIONS of them...people who, if they banded together, COULD make a difference in political reform. Instead, all their problems are "solved" by Norte Yanqui.

Sorry, Clint, if it walks like a duck.... Calm down, dude, I was just checking. If you had been libertarian, then I’d know you were an ideologue and that I was wasting my time. Since you aren’t, I’m content to continue to argue with you. Fair enough? And, the operative word in your post is "American." These illegals ARE NOT Americans, and they don’t have the protections of citizenship. Period.

Clint, I’m not sure you got my point. If historically considering relatively minor differences of ethnicity as important seems to be a part of the human condition, then of course people are going to consider the more substantial differences of race important.

The American system is a system that arose in a very specific context, British colonial nation, Christian (largely Protestant), Western, largely Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Celt, large frontier, etc. It can not be separated from that context. Change any of those variables and you end up with a different outcome. Why is Quebec different from the rest of Canada? Because it had a very different "founding stock." Would America not be a substantially different place if we were a colonial Spanish colony or a colonial French colony?

Some of the pro-immigration advocates act as if history no longer applies. Just as we would be a substantially different country if we had been a French colony, why will we not be a substantially different country 50 years from now if we allow 100,000,000 Mestizo and Amerindian immigrants in from Mexico over that time?

Why would an American who wants to maintain the integrity of the nation not be concerned about the number and origin of immigrants?