Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Littwin: Tancredo looked like deer caught in the bright lights

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published May 8, 2007 at midnight

Text size  

More News Columns & Blogs

More stories »

The reason Tom Tancredo bombed so badly in his first presidential debate is that he forgot why he was there.

For a moment - actually, for about 90 minutes - he must have actually let himself believe he was a legitimate candidate for president of the United States.

Standing on the stage at the Reagan Library - alongside all those diversity-free Republican worthies - he seemed caught up in the bright lights and the big stage and the shadow of the giant Air Force One looming overhead.

He must have been so seduced by the whisperings from adoring Tancredistas that he thought maybe, just maybe, he was the real thing. And so he forgot that he was really just Tom Tancredo, the back-bencher, the one-issue guy whose only purpose on the stage was to talk about his one issue. (The guy who once told me of his chances: "I know stranger things have happened, but, as I always say, I can't think of one." )

You could see he had the bug, which may be why moderator Chris Matthews decided to ask him about organ transplants. Personally, if there's an an anatomy question for Tancredo, I'd like to hear him expound on the big photo shoot of the 18,000 naked people in Mexico City. Maybe that's why he wants to build the fence.

But Tancredo didn't come to the Reagan Library to pull a Mike Gravel. He had decided to appear, um, presidential.

To which I can only ask: How did it ever come to this?

And so, as I mentioned the other day, if Tancredo had actually brought a bomb to throw at the debate, it would have exploded in his hand.

And because Tancredo lost track of why he was there, so did everyone else.

Tancredo didn't say anything outrageous during the debate. He didn't say anything gratuitous. He didn't say anything notable either, although he did twice try to quote Ben Franklin.

In fact, the only stir Tancredo created all night didn't require him saying a word. That was on the evolution question - when the question was asked if anyone on the stage did not believe in evolution.

Tancredo tentatively raised his hand - after Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee did. I'm not sure what Tancredo was thinking, other than that he didn't want to be out-religious-righted.

The next day, of course, Tancredo semi-retracted his anti-evolutionary hand-raising, because - hands down - you don't get elected president putting yourself in line with flat-earthers. And so the former middle school social studies teacher put out a clarification: "Evolution explains changes in life. Creationism explains its origin."

Hmm. The next debate will be in South Carolina on May 15. I hope somebody gets in a follow-up: I'd definitely ask Tancredo how he feels about the concept of survival of the fittest. Because if he believes in it, I'm not sure how he survives his debate reviews.

For Tancredo's uncreative efforts, Time magazine gave him a generous D-minus. From Mark Halperin's critique: "Amazingly, passed up chance after chance to highlight his unconditional, candidacy-defining anti-immigration stance . . . Memo to a single-issue candidate: TALK ABOUT YOUR SINGLE ISSUE EVERY CHANCE YOU GET."

The National Journal, in its first post-debate ranking, placed Tancredo 11th among Republican candidates. That's 11th in a field of 10. That's two places behind Ron Paul.

So, what was Tancredo thinking during the debate? I think you can find the answer in the last question of the night. I don't blame you if you didn't make it that far. But it gives a clue to Tancredo's future, which, let's agree, will not include white-tailed dinners with the queen.

The candidates were asked what separates them from George Bush. This was Tancredo's chance to go into his amnesty riff - the one that has made him a favorite of everyone from Peter Boyles to Lou Dobbs. He could have repeated his observation that Bush's term has been, in large part, a "disaster." Instead, he told the national audience he was "proud" of the president.

I can see you're confused, too. But I have a theory on this, which is that there are at least three Tancredos in this race.

The first is running for president and hears daily from campaign manager Bay Buchanan that he could actually win. Bay Buchanan ran her brother Pat's race. Pat never got to be, thank God, president. And I've met Pat Buchanan, and Tom Tancredo is no Pat Buchanan.

The second is the guy running that single-issue campaign, who knows that as long as he stays in the race he can always get a free breakfast at a Rotary Club in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

And then there is the Tom Tancredo who secretly harbors thoughts of running for Wayne Allard's seat in the U.S. Senate, and who believes - though I'm not sure why - he could beat Bob Schaffer in a primary, who is nervous, though, about beating Democrat Mark Udall in the general election, and who must think that running for president somehow helps his chances.

I'm not sure what he's running for - president, senator, congressman, think-tanker. But if he thinks the campaign is helping in any way, all I can say is he must not have TiVo-ed the debate.