March 22, 2006


Tancredo, colleague tussle in ugly spat: After TV debate, epithets hurled (Anne C. Mulkern, 3/22/06, Denver Post)

A cursing, screaming, epithet-laden fracas erupted between Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo and an Illinois congressman this week after a televised debate about immigration. [...]

Tancredo, R-Littleton, and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., sparred Wed nesday on the CNBC cable-TV channel about which version of immigration reform Congress should enact.

Tancredo said that as they were removing their microphones afterward, Gutierrez noted that Tancredo had been late for the show and said, "The immigrant shows up on time. The gringo was late. I guess that's why we get the jobs."

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 22, 2006 3:18 PM

Tough call on who to believe. I do know that "Little Luis" is no more an immigrant than I am.

Posted by: Rick T. at March 22, 2006 3:40 PM


We're all immigrants--except the Clovis people.

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 4:01 PM

Clovis - not according to Time's article on the Kennewick man - Clovis has been discredited - if that's what you're talking about.

Did Lius ever pay his back RE taxes??? That was him, wasn't it?

Posted by: Sandy P at March 22, 2006 4:53 PM


I take your point but not in the way he meant it in this context.

Posted by: Rick T. at March 22, 2006 5:08 PM

No, Clovis isn't Kennewick.

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 5:14 PM


Yes, that's how he meant it. Some of us can acknowledge we're one generation removed from being immigrants, some pretend to nativeness.

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 5:16 PM

I don't pretend at anything and that includes liking being called a "Gringo" by an elected representative of an American state. It makes me wonder what kind of Americans these Mexican immigrants can ever really be.

Posted by: NC3 at March 22, 2006 5:53 PM

Better than the Know-Nothing crackers like Tancredo, Buchanan & Duke.

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 6:02 PM

Tancredo has always seemed a rather mild personality who isn't prone to gratuitous insults. Others who debate the immigration issue should emulate him.

The Duke reference is uncalled for unless you know something I'm not familiar with.

Posted by: h-man at March 22, 2006 6:39 PM

The mild person who wants to nuke Mecca and compared immigranbts to genital sores, a classic hygiene argument of racists?

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 6:45 PM

He never claimed to be a military strategist. But this is coming from a man who wanted to drop the big one on Moscow.

I take it you think bombing Mecca is a bad idea?

Posted by: h-man at March 22, 2006 6:51 PM

The Soviets were the enemy.

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 6:57 PM

Sometimes even our allies are enemies. Confusing isn't it.

Posted by: h-man at March 22, 2006 7:10 PM

Hamas is an ally.

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 7:14 PM

Hamas isn't an ally. The whole point of Hamas in your scheme of things is to allow the Israelis to go to war with Palestine.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 22, 2006 7:20 PM

No, that would have been necessary with the PLO in control--they're nationalist socialist. Hamas is actually interested in the quality of life of Palestinians. Of course, if they act up then you can go to war with the state they run...

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 7:55 PM


That "Nuke Mecca" thing has its origins elsewhere.

Now, I'm not saying that I advocate nuking Mecca...but I first heard of it when VICTOR MORDECHAI spouted it out on Michael Medved's show about two years ago.

Which is not to say that it's valid, but when he spelled it out, he didn't sound like a nutter or a crackpot when he laid it out.

Which is not to say that Tancredo isn't a nutter, but there are some pretty sane folks out there who lay out the "nuke Mecca" strategy and don't sound like "single-bullet" freaks or "Diebold stole the Ohio election" flakes.

I'm just saying that I would like to see a definitive demolition of the "Nuke Mecca" scenario before I let anyone de-credibilize anyone.

Sure... I know "decredibilize" isn't a word, but it's late.

I guess all I'm asking is: Is the "Nuke Mecca" thing the strict province of the nutter or does it have some legitmacy.

Put aside your hatred of Tancredo and answer the query.

(Here's a weird thing: I heard Medved declaim the Nuke Mecca thing months after Mordechai appeared on the show. He said it was a crackpot position. Odd, since he has Mordechai on the show repeatedly. And doubly odd, since Mordechai seems to be credible.)

Posted by: Brian McKim at March 22, 2006 10:05 PM

Why don't we nuke Rome since a few priests are pedophiles?

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 10:10 PM

That's not the difference between Hamas and Fatah. In theory, the difference is that Hamas isn't as corrupt. Of course, that might just be from lack of opportunity. Not being Nazis doesn't make the allies. As they ally with our enemies and wish us ill, I think we can safely say that they're not allies.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 22, 2006 11:10 PM

They can improve the lot of Palestinians and demonstrate the efficacy of democracy--they're de facto allies. Not being Nazis makes a huge difference.

Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 11:17 PM

I saw two news reports on this, and neither of them had Tancredo calling Gutierrez names or anything similar.

OTOH, a Puerto Rican born in Chicago who's now a U.S. representative is refering to another U.S. representative using the derogatory word "gringo".

Note that Gutierrez also spoke at the illegal aliens march in Chicago. He clearly puts his race ahead of his country but despite that I'm sure many people support him and agree with him.

Posted by: TLB at March 22, 2006 11:23 PM

"The existence of a nation is not based on whether this nation has political sovereignty or a specific political structure. The existence of a nation has nothing to do with the citizenship its members possess,"

Luis Gutierrez August 29, 2001

Posted by: andy at March 23, 2006 12:00 AM

We can't nuke Rome, too many voters.

Posted by: Sandy P at March 23, 2006 1:55 AM


That's certainly true. Nationalism is about race alone.

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2006 7:01 AM


The march put country ahead of nativism.

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2006 7:03 AM

After 911, didn't you want to nuke every Middle Eastern capital? If I recall correctly, your line went, "Kabul, Baghdad, Mecca, Tehran, Damascus. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." Now of course that can be attributed to the passion of those crazy post-911 days, but who are you to discount the views of those who haven't lost their passion?

Posted by: Bryan at March 23, 2006 7:18 AM


No, but Kabul would have been justified because the Taliban, a state actor, was involved and we may still need to irradiate the tribal areas of Western Pakistan if the government can't assert sovereignty over them.

Posted by: oj at March 23, 2006 7:27 AM