Tom Tancredo:

Life story:

Thomas Gerard Tancredo was born on December 20^th, 1945 in Denver, Colorado. He graduated from the University of Northern Colorado in 1969 with a degree in political science. He spent the following years teaching, and was elected in 1976 to the Colorado Congress. In 1981, he was chosen by Ronald Reagan to be the Department of Educations regional representative to Colorado, a post he held for the next 11 years. In 1998, he was elected to the U.S. Congress.[1]

Tom married his wife Jackie in 1977, and they have two children together. He is an Evangelical Presbyterian.[2]

Abortion:

Tom Tancredo makes no bones about his stance on abortion:

The innocent unborn enjoy a God given right to life. Roe is a scar on the moral and intellectual history of the country; but, contrary to popular belief, overturning it would merely permit and not require states to prohibit abortion. To protect life, we also need to educate the public about the second victim of abortion, the mother who is subject to potential life long medical and emotional scarring.[3]

National Security/Foreign Policy:

Congressman Tancredos national security policy includes continued involvement in the Middle East:

In the wake of the September 11th attacks and the ensuing war on terrorism, it has become clear that the United States is facing a new security threat. The war America is already engaged in will not be fought like the wars of the past. After witnessing the tragic terrorist attacks against the nation, it is now time to coordinate the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies to provide better homeland defense. Tomorrow's attacker is more likely to board a commercial airliner bound for the U.S. with a tourist or student visa - or he may simply walk across our porous southern or northern border carrying a device in his backpack. These issues must be addressed.

We are, I believe, in a clash of civilizations. That clash is fought on many fronts-some military, some diplomatic, and still others, ideological. On the military front we have won two significant victories. One was in Afghanistan where we destroyed the Taliban and Al Qaeda's command and control network. The second victory was in Iraq where, by toppling the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and creating the embryonic infrastructure of a democracy, we set in a motion a chain of events that could lead to a major strategic advantage for us and for the West. This advantage emanates from the forced political equilibrium that can be brought to the region and Iraq itself now that Saddam has been dispatched. The deep schisms in Islam will force countries in the region to impose this equilibrium. Our continued presence in Iraq as the referee in a civil war inhibits this development.[4]

Iraq:

On the subject of Iraq, however, Tom Tancredo feels that America has largely done its part:

America's noble sacrifice has purchased Iraqis a precious opportunity for democratic change; it is now up to them to ensure success. Setting the President's November benchmark for shifting control as an actual timetable for disengagement will let regional powers and Iraqi factions cooperate to forge a new balance of power.[5]

Education:

Tom Tancredo, as a former teacher, stands against increased federal involvement in schools:

I spent a decade as the Department of Education's regional representative in Denver so I do not say this lightly. Federal involvement should be limited. Educational control is best left in the hands of parents. A no-strings-attached voucher system would promote school choice, while competition for students would drive educational improvements at the institutional level. I also suggest schools return to a more traditional course of study and that the public focus shift to certain non-school factors, like parental involvement, which studies show are the most important determinants of student performance.[6]

Economy/Taxes:

Tom Tancredo is dedicated to cutting spending; but not just any spending:

Government is spending dangerously beyond its means. For years, Congresses and Presidents of both parties have continued to spend more money than they take in. The largest component of this spending spree is entitlement spending.

Simply put, federal entitlement programs are too big and cost far too much. The American taxpayer cannot be asked to continue funding numerous entitlement programs or be all things for all people. Finally, we cannot ask the American people to pay higher taxes to finance this spending spree. We must remember that federal government is in debt because it spends too much, not because it taxes people too little.

There two types of government spending discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending, which accounts for roughly one-third of all Federal spending, includes money for things like the Army, FBI, the Coast Guard and highway projects. Congress explicitly determines how much to spend (or not spend) on these programs on an annual basis.

Mandatory spending, on the other hand, accounts for some two-thirds of all government spending. Permanent laws authorize this kind of spending. It includes entitlements things like Social Security, Medicare, and Food Stamps programs through which individuals receive benefits solely because of their age, income or other criteria. Spending levels in these areas are dictated by the number of people who sign up for these benefits, rather than by Congress. In order to reduce this kind of spending, Congress must make fundamental changes to the underlying programs something that few political leaders in Washington have the stomach for.

The only way we can rein in government spending is to take on entitlement spending. And the only way to take on entitlement spending is to fundamentally reform the crumbling and unsustainable institutions of the welfare state. Until Americans demand changes in mandatory spending, we will simply be treating the symptom of deficits rather than addressing the underlying problem of excessive spending. Americans can no longer continue to borrow money from countries like China and allow government spending to run on autopilot. We cannot sit idly by; waiting for the impending fiscal train wreck that we all know is just down the tracks.[7]

Gun Control:

Tom Tancredos position on gun control is this:

I fully and completely support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The failure of the ACLU to defend this right, and of federal courts to make the second amendment binding on the states, as they have made the first amendment and most others, testifies to their intellectual hypocrisy.[8]

He also was given an A report card from the NRA on his voting record.[9]

Gay Marriage:

Tom Tancredos argument on marriage is simple and practical:

Federalism concerns make a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage an avenue of last resort, Unfortunately, intellectually dishonest activist judges have left us no choice.

Activist courts have ignored the principal legal argument that the state's interest in marriage is procreation. Population is power. Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions. The mere fact that two people are in a loving relationship does not matter to the state. Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party.[10]

Immigration:

The centerpiece of Tom Tancredos campaign is definitely immigration. He has been a firebrand (in the words of the Washington Post[11]) on the subject, frequently drawing criticism. His official stance is this:

There is no doubt that America is facing an illegal immigration crisis. Currently, there are at least 12 million illegal aliens living in America. I am absolutely opposed to amnesty. In addition to rewarding those who broke our laws, amnesties simply do not solve the problem of illegal immigration. The only realistic solution to the problem of illegal immigration is a strategy of attrition, which seeks to reduce the flow of the illegal alien population over time by cutting off the incentives for coming to and staying in America most importantly by eliminating the jobs magnet. America must also reexamine its legal immigration policies. Since 1990, that number has been roughly one million yearly - and that doesn't count illegal aliens. America should reduce legal immigration to 250,000 people a year, which will allow the newcomers to assimilate.[12]

Tancredo also has a quote from Teddy Roosevelt on his website that he uses to further sum up his position:

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.[13]

Other Notes:

Tom Tancredo also dedicates a part of his website to blasting judicial activism: