Michael Gerson, recently in his column at WaPo, said it better than I could why I could not bring myself to vote for Tom Tancredo in Colorado’s gubernatorial race.
Gerson is, I believe, correctly critical of some of Sarah Palin’s endorsement choices, something I think a strong, healthy conservative movement needs to hear and consider. Especially Christians who are interested in faithfully voting their values in our democracy. Our criteria for a potential public representative getting our vote needs to be a bit more substantive than their rhetorical passion and willingness to stick it to the left.
Gerson makes the case, highlighting just a few of Tancredo’s nasty comments:
Tancredo has made a career of fanning anti-immigrant resentment and lobbing ideological grenades. The people who voted Barack Obama into office, in his view, “could not even spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English”. The National Council of Raza is “a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses.” Miami is a “Third World country.” Pope Benedict’s embrace of immigrants is all about “recruiting new members,” in an attempt at “faith-based marketing.” “The guy sitting in the White House,” says Tancredo, is a greater threat to the Constitution than al-Qaeda. “If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don’t we just send him back?”
It was one of the best outcomes of Election 2010 that Tancredo was exiled from any position of public trust. But it is disturbing that Palin found Tancredo to be the “right man for the job”. Her endorsement raises the question of whether Palin has any standards for her support other than anti-government rhetoric.
His questioning Palin’s endorsement standards is apt for all conservatives, especially we who call ourselves Christians.
What is it we really want to see in those we chose to honor in representing us in our nation’s government and how easily will we be satisfied with what they offer us?
Tom Tancredo, Sharron Angle, and Christine O’Donnell were all discouraging answers to that question.