Talk:Tom Tancredo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, public relations manipulation, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

More information: Federal legislator, lower house, up and running for reelection. Well known for making controversial comments and friction with his party's leadership and positions.
Tom Tancredo is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article.
This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.
This article is part of WikiProject Colorado, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
  • His advocacy for immigration reform is so strong that he was not welcome in the White House of George W. Bush, who takes a comparatively liberal view of immigration, after critizing the President's border security controls.

This is well-known. Why is is being deleted? -Willmcw 02:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Thanks.DannyZz 16:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As the congressman recalls, Rove ended the call with a warning that Tancredo should "never darken the steps of the White House again." [[1]] -Willmcw 19:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • His supporters claim he represents the Silent Majority of American citizens who want existing U.S. laws upheld.

Do we have a source for this? -Willmcw 19:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Poor wording?

"...he called Zhu Chenghu's statement that response possible US attacks with nuclear weapons..." some sections of this article should be reworded for clarity and coherence. 69.118.235.3 16:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Presidential Bid

Perhaps there should be some mention of this. 153.104.16.114 21:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the law with regard to senators and representatives seeking election to a different office before their term expires? Are they allowed to, or must they resign their current seats? Or must their term expire before they would be required to take the new office, or else they must resign? So, if Tom Tancredo runs for president in 2008 and wins, he would be only a third of the way through his senate term - would he be able to serve until January 2, 2009 (expiry of term of members of Congress other than those entering their third or fifth year in the Senate) or presidential inauguration day? How would the vacancy be filled - a special election since there would not be a normal election in November (as it is unknown if he would be elected President). GBC 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are allowed to run for any other office that they like. There are laws about serving in more than one office, but not about campaigning for more than one. Vacant Senate seats are usually filled by state governors, while vacant House seats are filled by special elections. -Will Beback 03:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Tancredo is a congressman, not a Senator.Politician818 08:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In 1988 Lloyd Bentsen ran simultaneously for both Vice President and US Senator from Texas. He won reelection to the Senate on the same day that the Dukakis-Bensten ticket was defeated nationally. Plazak 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of Immigration Section

The immigration section is nine paragraphs and isn't orderly. It would be good to split that up into sub-sections.

[edit] New Republic Article

First of referencing an article that is only available to subscribers is pointless. The second sentence says "New Republic article also argues that..." That is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the opinion of the New Republic is. There isn't a section with the National Review's opinion of Hillary on the Hillary page. The quote that follows makes it unclear is if that is supposed to be the words of Tancredo or the New Republic. No reference is given. Without a reference, using abbreviations "..." cannot be done. Barneygumble 14:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the words of Tancredo. Let's re-word it so that that is clear. The article is viewable here: [2]. I see no problem with using this reference, nor with mentioning that TNR has an opinion about him. -Willmcw 16:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] anon

An anon added and an endorser of the Genocide Intervention Network to a bunch of pages.

Don't want to revert if it's true.


Mikereichold 07:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CPAC

  • A large number of young persons, many of them College Republicans, cheared him on and waved Tancredo: For A Secure America signs.

The blog [3], shows a five young people holding signs supporting Tancredo. The pictures do not indicate their affiliation. I don't think that saying "Five young people held signs supporting Tancredo" is worthwhile, but if you want to add that I suppose it's verifiable. Even so, a better source would be preferable. -Will Beback 05:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out the entire dated from CPAC. Also we could note that Tancredo placed sixth in the CPAC presidential straw poll. Jcmiller
Here is a photo that shows more than five people [4]. it's a small shot of the crowd, but the reports indicate there were more signs than that. There is a different blog that shows different people also at CPAC holding signs [5]. Human Events reports on the poll results, which had Tancredo polling ahead of much better known candidates because of the youthful supporters [6]. I will try to find you some more info.
Good research, thanks. The Human Events blog is really a news site, not your typical "guy-in-his-pajamas" setup. However it also shows that Tancredo got scant support, loud though it may have been. Let's just say he has supporters, and that they supported him there. -Will Beback 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
PS: Do you know any of the photographers of those pics? One of them would make a great illustration for the article. They'd have to be willing to license their copyrights to the GFDL (essentially the "public domain"). -Will Beback 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I do, I will look into that.

[edit] Interesting links.

Looks like someone did their homework running WikiAds in the "External links" section for anti-Tancredo sites.

Does this violate the NPOV policy of Wiki?

There should be balance of viewpoints, and it looks like there are a few websites from each side: official, pro, anti, news. Is there a specific problem? -Will Beback 07:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a balance when you keep slamming him and leading the article into youy dislike for him. USER:OL4ever 11:50am May 24th 2006. You have taken a sentence out of context from a website for your own personal attack on Mr. Tancredo.

I think we're reprinting it the same as it was covered in the press. If there is more context I can't find it. Do you have a source for his whole speech? -Will Beback 05:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

The whole article seems to have a negative bias. Tancredo is almost framed as a politician of extreme ideas.72.139.110.170 20:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

His ideas fall to the right of George W Bush. If George Bush is on the 'right' side of the bell curve of ideas, and he is further 'right', that would make his ideas extreme. His views on immigration reduction to 10,000 per year and a lockdown securing of the borders rings of Pat Buchanan, and the fact that Buchanan's wife (note: actually his sister) heads Tancredo's PAC gives some substance to this view. CodeCarpenter 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI: Bay Buchanan is Patrick's sister, not his wife. -Will Beback · † · 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for the correction. I have fixed it above. CodeCarpenter 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] League of the South?

The League of the South controversy is not signifficant enough for wikipedia. First off, I think it is not a controversy at all (in that the league of the south was no an actual sponsor of the talk, they just showed interest in it on their website). But even if it is worthy of controversy, among all the controversial things to find regarding Congressman Tancredo to put on Wikipedia, this one isn't good enough. It ought to be deleted. Jcmiller 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The event does seem to have generated controversy, but the details are incorrect. There are many new stories about it and we should definitely correct the inaccuracies. I'm not sure why it rates higher or lower than other controveries. -Will Beback 05:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs material on Tancredo's background

As Tancredo is well known for his views on immigration, it would be helpful if someone could put information up on when and where his family entered the US. I presume he is not a native American?


It seems that the person who typed that last unsigned comment is implying that Tancredo is a hypocrite because his family immigrated to America, yet he's "against immigration." Tancredo is not against immigration. He's against illegal immigration. It isn't that hard to distinguish the two.Politician818 09:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Precisely; now please show proof that Tancredo's family immigrated legally on all sides. This information is exceedingly relevant and needs to be in the article. Also, Tancredo's background should be highlighted as one can then discuss whether his ethnic group, religion, etc have drastically reshaped the American society.

This article is about one person, and it isn't about his sthnic group or even his ancestors. This article should not be used to prove any point. Out job is to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. -Will Beback · † · 18:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You have a question about his ancestry? His last name is Tancredo. His family is probably in the "waste management" industry. Bada-bing! 70.149.110.73 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"Tancredo is not against immigration. He's against illegal immigration. It isn't that hard to distinguish the two." Actually, based upon his 2003 bill, [7], strict limits on the number of legal immigrants would be put in place. In fact, by setting the levels to 0 for certain conditions for immigration and visas (family-sponsored immigrants section 201(c), diversity immigrants section 201(e), family-sponsored immigrant visas section 203(a), employment-based immigrant visas section 203(b), and diversity immigrant visas 203(c), section 210 and section 245a of the Immigration and Nationality Act) he would in effect repeal those provisions for entry into the country or for getting work visas while in the country. His total number of 25,000 persons per year would also be a significant reduction in the number of legal immigrants admitted into the country. CodeCarpenter 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Coverage of the Michigan State debacle needed

That is all.

[edit] POV Check

Nearly the entire article is slanted to a particular political view that is highly critical of Tancredo. Needs to be fixed or deleted. Also, the information pertaining to the elections of 2004 and 2006 needs to be updated to at the minimum reflect proper verb tense. King ravana 16:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The negative comments appear mostly to be his own quotes. His disagreement with people in his own party shows that this is not an us versus them type of situation (see Bill Clinton, George W Bush for examples), but one of people pointing out controversies in the controversy section. The fact that he sought to introduce term limits and then ignored them for himself is not POV, just ironic fact. The Denver Post articles are not NPOV, again it is just another ironic fact, from his local paper. I am sure the John Kerry and Al Gore pages have similar ironic facts in them.

CodeCarpenter 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third World Country?

I noticed his reponse to Jeb Bush contained an explanation for his Miami is a third world country comment included the following quote. "You are understandably proud of the academic achievements of some of the students in Miami's high schools. Unfortunately, Miami-Dade School District's 45 percent graduation rate tells us that the majority of Miami's new arrivals have not yet assimilated this culture of academic excellence," said Tancredo. So, I decided to look at Denver's graduation rate for comparison. 45.3% for Miami, 46.8% for Denver. Someone from Littleton, CO questioning Miami's schools is just another ironic fact, I guess. [8] CodeCarpenter 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be incorrect.

"The graduation rate of DPS students is 76.9% according to DPS' website. [2]. Other sources report far lower graduation rates, for example with a rate of 42.6% being reported for the year 2002 [3] by Harvard's Civil Rights project. The difference is explained in that the numbers reported by DPS use a cohort system that tracks a specific group of students from 9th to 12th grade (including students that leave the district) whereas the other statistics only report students that graduate within DPS. Thus, 76.9% of DPS students graduate from high school, but only 42.6% of DPS students receive a diploma from DPS."

[[9]]

Thanks for the details. I am sure that since that cohort method produced a 24.3% improvement in the results, that a similar improvement would exist for the Miami Dade Public Schools. I was unable to find a city level ranking, but the state as a whole is at 72% in other studies. However, Mr. Tancredo chose to use those numbers as part of his attack on the Miami area, so that same report must be acceptable to use in response. IMO, of course. It isn't worth putting on his page, I was just pointing out that his logic was that Miami's poor graduation rate in this survey was due to a lack of assimilation (his words), which seems like quite a leap when other cities falling in the same range, like Denver, do not have an assimilation issue. Other states, (Wisconsin, California) have also criticised the Harvard study methodology. He used a flawed study to achieve a flawed conclusion, to justify after the fact a flawed comment. CodeCarpenter 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The Denver vs. Miami dropout rates are not really relevant. Tancredo is also critical of the alledged negative effect of immigration on school performance in Denver. Plazak 22:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did he sing along?

Some anonymous IP added a comment that got reverted as vandalism, but it made me curious as to whether there was a source available for the comment that "he sung along with them". I found this [10] which states that his team denies it, even though it has been reported. I would suggest that unless someone can get video, it will have to stay out. History backs this burden of proof.

  • When Bush Sr. denied he ever said "Read my lips, no new taxes", video was able to override his denial.
  • Mark Furman's audiotaped "n word" comments were also able to override his denial.
  • Mark Foley's emails were able to override his denial.
  • Monica's dress stain was able to override Bill Clinton's denial.
  • Meanwhile, Dallas Maverick owner Mark Cuban's alleged "your league is rigged" comment had to be retracted though since no proof was forthcoming.

So, the burden of proof will have to be with the press, not just with an article, but with an audio or video reproduction of the action. It is the only fair and balanced thing to do. CodeCarpenter 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, rereading the bottom of the article, his spokesperson say that he did sing along to Dixie, but only to not be rude. Perhaps it can be added after all, since his own camp admits to the action. I will leave it to the regulars to decide... CodeCarpenter 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

This page needs alot of work done. I love how he wants to abolish the racist race-base groups! Finally, a man not dwelling in a sea of political correctness. He has bought my vote. Crud3w4re 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I do hope that you're being sardonic, crud3w4re! As for this article needing a lot of work, well, it is rather negative in tone, but it is factual. The guy is mostly known as a racist bigot and this article reflects that.It's is not a genitive 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't we be devoted to telling the truth about somebody instead of reflecting whatever he's "known by"? --SirAndrew1 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

1st off the above comments had nothing to do with editing the article, so theyre not needed. The GLARING problem I find is the sentence "Tancredo is a proud racist.", I have found no evidence that he has said that and I feel it needs to be removed.

Akira 247 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I could not find that phrase in the talk page or in the article. I would agree that such a comment should be removed. Even George Wallace, as an avowed segregationist, would not consider his actions racist, but instead an act of reducing conflict. I doubt Tancredo considers himself to be racist. Was that comment on this page or on another? CodeCarpenter 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That comment was in the article briefly.[11]. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, for one hour. Bad timing, I guess. :) Thanks for finding (and fixing) that. CodeCarpenter 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Election

I've added some basic information that we can add to later, I think that it is important that at least we have something about his possible candidacy. --PiOfFive 00:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Re-write

I'm going to comment out parts i'm working on...the existing material is NOT neutral, and under the new structure, has nothing to do with his beliefs about immigration --SirAndrew1 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think others might have a problem with the rewrite, but I think you did an excellent job of getting some balance to the article. The addition of charity work was good to see. I do have one small problem with the change. A new sentence was added that is a little too much PPOV. "Tom Tancredo's outspoken and straight-forward position on the problem of Illegal Immigration (and on other issues) has brought him much criticism from the media." straight-forward? from the media? "Tom Tancredo's outspoken position on the problem of Illegal Immigration (and on other issues) has brought him some criticism." sounds to me more neutral. However, rather than get into an edit war with someone who has put this much effort in, I figure I leave it up to you. Well done! CodeCarpenter 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What's the plan for the commented-out material? It includes several widely-reported incidents and should be included in the article in some form. -Will Beback · † · 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the commented-out material as it appears well-sourced and NPOV, and because no one indicated any plan to cover it differently. -Will Beback · † · 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't understand why the material was just deleted. I checked the sources and it appears to have been accurate. "Highlighting" was an odd term, so I removed that. "Fixing" and "deleting" are different things. -Will Beback · † · 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I was doing other things at the time. I didn't like some of the wording, and I suppose since I've fixed some of the other things up, we can leave it for the time being. If I decide to do something with it, I'll just change it instead of commenting it out. --SirAndrew1 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Election

On January 21, 2007, Tom Tancredo was declared the Official Hopeless Republican Presidential Candidate of NPR Wait, Wait... Don't Tell Me!

This is a fact, it can be reviewed by downloading the podcast, it is discussed before the first minute of the show.

this is not vandalism, and it should be allowed on the main page

This is not really a notable assertion. It's a joke on a humorous quiz show. -Will Beback · † · 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Somehow it is back. If we have to start including every reference on Jay Leno, David Letterman, the Daily Show, Cobert Report, SNL, Mad TV, etc., we will lose objectivity. GWB would have five pages just on his SNL references. I think unless we create a separate media section (see section under John McCain), then this kind of reference should be removed. IMO, of course. CodeCarpenter 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this mean that Tancredo's use this week in the Colbert Report's feature "The Word" should also be put here? How about any political cartoons in the Denver Post? I am sure his viewpoint has been parodied there at some point. Roll it back, or make it more diverse. CodeCarpenter 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Like a zombie in horror movie, it keeps comng back. I've made a section so that we can add other similar trivia. -Will Beback · † · 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References in Popular Culture

This section is absolutely unnecessary. The show in question is a game show. Are we going to start quoting the utterings of Wink Martindale, Howie Mandel, and Bob Barker as relevant sources for Wikipedia? This section ought be deleted. --King ravana 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree. It's pointless. --SirAndrew1 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trade

There is very little said about his stance on trade. According to a "fan" website, he opposes NAFTA and other agreements. If that's the case, Gingrich is more of a full-scale conservative. But you know, it's funny how there are so many folks on the right who are open on trade and super-tough on immigration. Talk about consistency. -Amit, 03/02/07

[edit] 9/11 Commission against term limits?

Strange, this was the first I had heard of that. The 9/11_Commission#Commission_recommendations page doesn't mention a need to undo term limits. Is this also true for the President? Would having a "President For Life" like Fidel Castro make us more secure? I guess this would be an example of "reading between the lines". CodeCarpenter 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I searched the 9/11_Commission#Commission_recommendations and didn't find any mention of "term linits". I also Googled Tancredo and 9/11 Commission and couldn't find anything. Unless the editor who added this has a source it should be removed. -Will Beback · † · 17:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a Washington Post link at the bottom of the 100-Hour Plan article, referring to the recommendation by the 9/11 Commission that experience and continuity in Congress should be more important than term limits. Careful, it's a two-page article and the reference is on the second page. Although it is only directly relevant to the issue that was raised in that article (Nancy Pelosi blocking Jane Harman from serving as chair of the House Intelligence Committee, citing term limits), it illustrates that the Wikipedia article about the Commission and its recommendations shouldn't be taken as the final word on the subject. I believe the Post is a reliable source, don't you? Dino 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My response wasn't clear - I searched the commision report, not the WP article on the report, for the phrase "term limits". -20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a possible reason that Mr. Tancredo might have misunderstood the 9/11 Commission recommendations. As mentioned above, it was expected that you provide the citation of "Tancredo has cited"", not just a link to what he might have read. For the benefit of others, here is the suggested link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_2.html The sentence in question, "The Sept. 11 commission urged Congress to do away with traditional term limits on the intelligence committees to preserve continuity and expertise, a recommendation the House implemented in 2003.", refers only to the eight year term limit within the intelligence committee, and not to the notion of term limits for members of Congress. http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21908.pdf, see Page 5 for a summary. Since Tancredo is not a member of the United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence, this suggestion by the 9/11 Commission does not impact him. In addition, if there is no link showing Tancredo using this as the reason for chaning his mind on term limits, then it would fall under original research and not be premissible in the article. CodeCarpenter 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bomb Threat?

Although it is now suggested that the "hysterical South Florida media" were the reason Tancredo cancelled his visit to sunny South Florida, it should be pointed out that his office was the one that originally reported the "bomb threat", and used it to call locals "thugs", and to claim that freedom of speech was suppressed in Miami. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_5210888,00.html The fact that the threat was not reported by the media until told of it by Tancredo is not an act of hysteria, just an act of reporting the reason given for the sudden cancellation. The fact that the bomb threat apparently did not really occur is more a reflection of Tancredo's knee jerk reaction than a reflection of some media frenzy. The bomb threat incident is still notable, and should be retained. CodeCarpenter 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The article quotes the congressman as describing a " 'credible threat' of violence," not a bomb threat.
"I appreciate the problem presented to the Miami Rotary Club and the restaurant at which I was to speak by the threats of thugs," Tancredo said in the release. "I certainly do not wish to provide radical separatist groups with an excuse for violence."
Where did the word "bomb" occur in either of those two quotations? It doesn't. Until a source appears to confirm that Tancredo's office was first to report the bomb threat, it must stay out of the article per WP:BLP. The rest of that section very, very carefully defined it as a bogus bomb threat. Blaming a false bomb threat on a Congressman without proof is a painfully obvious violation of WP:BLP. Dino 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither of the two sentences you removed, nor my comments above state that Tancredo created the bomb threat, only that you blaming the Miami media reporting his comments on the threat is unfair. Please let us not drag this conversation into the mud. However, your claim that Tancredo and their team did not mention "bomb threat" in your two specific quotes does not mean they did not use the term. Please see this article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53402 "What is more 'Third World country' than threatening to bomb the place?" Tancredo spokesman Carlos Espinosa told WTVJ-TV. And, for Espinosa to imply that bomb threats only occur in "Third World Countries" must mean that Littleton is also a "Third World Country", based on this article. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/02/bomb_threat_forces_columbine_closure/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News Bomb threats occur in New York City and Boston too, so it is not just a Miami thing. Hosting Super Bowls, NCAA Championship Games, and NBA Championship parades are more of a Miami thing. CodeCarpenter 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"What is more 'Third World country' than threatening to bomb the place?" Tancredo spokesman Carlos Espinosa told WTVJ-TV.
That doesn't mean Tancredo or anyone from his office initially reported the bomb threat. Espinosa was reacting to reports of a bomb threat in the media. If you can find a source indicating that Tom Tancredo's office was the source of the report, go ahead and use it. If you can't, leave it out. That's WP:BLP. Dino 20:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

From your own link at WorldNetDaily:

The local CBS affiliate reported: "The manager of the restaurant where Tancredo was to speak, the Rusty Pelican on Key Biscayne, said Wednesday that the owners didn't want him to appear on Thursday in order to keep up the integrity and reputation of the business. The manager also said staff members objected to working the party where his immigration talk was supposed to be held, some customers threatened to boycott the restaurant, and the restaurant had received bomb threats."

Let's go over that again: "The manager of the restaurant ... said Wednesday that ... the restaurant had received bomb threats." Unless the manager of the Rusty Pelican is named Tom Tancredo, or is an employee of his office, you need to either leave this out of the article, or credit the actual source of the report: the manager of the Rusty Pelican.

I'm glad we finally got that straightened out. Dino 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So am I. CodeCarpenter 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

During a radio interview on Orlando talk-radio station WFLA AM 540, Tancredo responded to a questioner asking about the hypothetical U.S. response to a nuclear attack on U.S. cities by al-Qaeda, by saying that one response would be to retaliate by "taking out" Muslim holy sites (specifically, Mecca) if it were clearly proven that Islamic terrorists were behind such an attack, while such a response would be the most "Draconian" actions possible. Several days later, in an interview on CNN together with James Zogby, Tancredo claimed he meant the comment as merely a hypothetical threat to retaliate and insisted that there was nothing for which he should apologize.

Wouldn't such a strategy backfire? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


I have added this to the list of external links:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/m/Talk%7ETom_Tancredo_30d0.html"