Tancredo Shares Blame for Fundraising Shortfall
“Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo is ending his bid for the Republican nomination for Colorado governor on Tuesday because he hasn’t raised the money he believes would be necessary to win an expensive election,” Colorado Politics reports.
“I do not want to win a primary and lose a general, and I fear that was where we were going,” Tancredo admitted. “Even though I’m the front-runner — you make it through a primary, and then all hell breaks loose, you have millions upon millions of dollars spent attacking you, and you can’t respond, you don’t have the resources to respond.”
Part of that reason is because Colorado has moved leftward. Even though “red” counties outnumber “blue” counties, urban areas are dominated by Democrats. And between an influx of “progressives” who fouled their own nests in places like California and the changing demographics of “immigration,” look for collectivist politics to spread.
But wasn’t that one of Tancredo’s strengths? Hasn’t he been a champion of “America first” and “conservative” values?
Yes and no.
But he’s got some unreconciled past sins on guns to atone for that he never genuinely has.
But wait a minute – doesn’t “On the Issues” show him to be a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms?
That summary completely misses a key betrayal – and there’s really no other word for it. You just can’t expect enthusiastic support after that, and campaigns need believers with fire in their bellies to win. Tancredo doused such fires in serious politically-involved gun owners who have memories going back (less than) 20 years.
“Tancredo stood out as the only representative from Colorado to vote for the final gun-control bill, which allowed just 24 hours for background checks at gun shows but also placed some restrictions on semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips [sic],” The New York Times reported in 1999, explaining why, following the events at Columbine, the congressman bucked his largest campaign contributor, the National Rifle Association, and sided with the gun-grabbers.
“Sometimes, I stop and think, ‘Boy, have I changed since Columbine,’” The Times report quoted Tancredo. “Guns are an issue. They did take children’s lives.”
In other words, he turned his back on us in our time of need. So a fair question for gun owners now is “Has Tancredo changed again since he changed last, and does he still think ‘guns are an issue’?”
His track record of abandoning people who previously helped him gain power should surely factor into supporter perceptions. That’s because rather than maintain allegiance with them — and with his oath to the Constitution — he chose to let anti-gun fervor prevail over rights.
Why wouldn’t gun owners suspect that the next “gun free zone” exploitation with horrible results would prompt him to once more take it out on them? The old saying “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” would seem to more than apply here.
Before Tancredo can credibly ask gun owners to trust him again, he owes them an apology along with a sincere request for forgiveness. And before that apology can credibly be perceived as genuine, he needs to not only say that he was wrong, but explain why he was wrong, what he has done since to make amends, and what he will do in the future. And he needs to do it in no uncertain terms.
After all, it was Tancredo’s infidelity that violated trust and burned bridges. Once faith is so utterly broken, it takes years and plenty of commitment and work to restore it — if it ever truly can be. As with cheating partners, a mere “I love you and I’ll never do it again” coming from someone who willingly broke vows proclaimed before God and man should hardly be enough, especially when the person saying so has much to gain.
Only a willing cuckold in desperate denial would argue otherwise, and even they wouldn’t really believe it deep down unless they are fools. Mr. Tancredo has much repair work to do before gun owners who don’t tolerate cheatin’ hearts should be ready to give him another chance.
The oath is supposed to be for life.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”