Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Tancredo, who is retiring, agonizes, but without ballot-box pressure

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 29, 2008 at 1:05 p.m.
Updated September 29, 2008 at 11:53 p.m.

Text size  
Rep. Tom Tancredo

Rep. Tom Tancredo

More Money & Markets

More stories »

The Coloradans facing the toughest re-election campaigns are having the hardest time backing an unpopular $700 billion bailout for the beleaguered banking industry.

The state's congressional delegation had an unusual 4-3 split Monday as the House rejected legislation meant to head off a potential collapse of financial services and stock markets.

Retiring Rep. Tom Tancredo was the only Colorado Republican to vote for the White House- backed legislation, joining Democratic Reps. Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter on the losing side of the 228-205 vote.

Two other Democrats, Reps. Mark Udall and John Salazar, and Republican Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and Doug Lamborn, voted against the legislation.

Udall is locked in a closely watched U.S. Senate race with former congressman Bob Schaffer, a Republican who has said there were major problems with the House version of the bill.

Musgrave also is in a hotly contested campaign, while Lamborn just survived a Republican primary challenge and John Salazar represents a somewhat conservative district that was held by Republicans until recently.

"I take very seriously the warnings about how conditions in the credit markets could affect the overall economy," Udall said in a written statement. "But the cost of this bailout was too high and the return far too uncertain for the American families who were being asked to bear the burden."

Congressional offices, including Udall's, have been flooded in recent days with phone calls from angry constituents opposed to the bailout package. Schaffer said that matches what he has heard on the campaign trail.

"The public ought to be skeptical, and I'm skeptical, about the various things in this proposal," Schaffer said Monday. "One is that the Congress has to pass a bill that is one-third the size of the federal budget quickly, without thinking too much about it."

Tancredo's vote for the bill was a surprise, considering he has spent much of his career opposing big-government programs, often bucking President Bush and clashing with Democrats.

The vote is expected to be among the last of Tancredo's congressional career.

"It's ironic that this whole thing would potentially be the last vote of my career, and I would be voting in the way that a majority of my colleagues, and especially my conservative colleagues, would be voting against.

"This vote I cast today would be the one I have to live with for the rest of my life," Tancredo said. "I tossed and turned with it. I asked the Lord for guidance."

Tancredo called the financial situation "very dangerous," and speculated that Republicans in tight races voted against the unpopular bailout while quietly hoping it would pass without their names attached.

"There are a lot of people who voted no, hoping the bill passed . . . That's part of what's happening here. I'm positive of that," Tancredo said.

Opponents, however, said they objected to the bill on principle.

Lamborn called its rejection a "victory for taxpayers." He said bailing out private institutions "is an invasion of the free market, which I believe is the best way to sustain prosperity for our country.,"

After the vote, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged a record 777 points, phone calls to congressional offices suddenly shifted, with more people demanding action from lawmakers.

Still, Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo said her boss's concerns were about serious policy issues, not politics.

"The bill did not include a lot of the things that would protect American taxpayers," Trujillo said. "The cost is too high and we needed a bill that would assure this wouldn't happen again."

DeGette, D-Denver, said she supported the bill despite her own misgivings.

"Our nation faces serious economic challenges that require serious action," DeGette said. "Doing nothing risks a freeze in our financial markets, further exacerbating the economic meltdown while everyday Americans suffer. After the vote today, about a trillion dollars of wealth in our economy evaporated in just a few hours."

Comments

  • September 29, 2008

    1:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    BigSky182 writes:

    "he had to make a tough call without simply doing what his constituents demanded."

    WTF? I thought the ENTIRE CONCEPT of representative government was that the Politicians are REQUIRED to do what their constituents demand!!

  • September 29, 2008

    1:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    wyhammertime writes:

    I wonder how big his offshore bank account grew after this vote?????

  • September 29, 2008

    2:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    FCZ writes:

    John Salazar

  • September 29, 2008

    2:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    cogramma writes:

    BigSky182 . . You are entirely correct. The entire concept IS government by representation. However, this country has not operated by that concept in a very long time. That is precisely why congressmen and -women have the $$ and the bennies and we do not. The system is set up for any newcomer to either 'go with the flow' or drown. That's the biggest thing that needs changing in our government.

  • September 29, 2008

    2:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Blacksheep writes:

    Eat you heart out redumblicans. No more hiding behind that party of corporate thugs and not because Obama's running is change gone come but the most high wants his spot Back!

  • September 29, 2008

    2:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    FlyfishDude52 writes:

    I wonder how many angry constituents called tancredo regarding the bail-out vote? Is that a public record thing? I'd like to know if mr tancredo voted against his contituents' wishes.

    Yeah cogramma! I've been espousing that very thing for many, many years. Most people don't seem to get it or ignore what representative form of government means.

    I want the avaricious, scum-su(king wall street guys, bankers, the bleeding-heart liberals AND the big business repubs who made it possible for all the bad loans to be approved to be divested of their personal wealth (ALL in the US & offshore) & sent to real prison [(not white collar type) (oh yeah, we need to do away with those, also.)]. Oh, one more thing, with no wealth they get the best public defender that no money can buy. It's too bad that their familiies will have to suffer, but that's what happens when you choose your bedmates unwisely.

  • September 29, 2008

    3:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    doneDad writes:

    Trancredo's comment says it all:

    "There are a lot of people who voted 'no,' hoping the bill passed … That's part of what's happening here. I'm positive of that," Tancredo said.

    These self ordained _leaders_ are really a bunch of whimps; incredibly dumb whimps at that.

  • September 29, 2008

    5:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    immunizer writes:

    "I asked the Lord for guidance." ... "And the lord said: 'F*** the little people!'"

  • September 29, 2008

    5:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    teklost writes:

    Maybe he voted his conscience. Still I'm glad it didn't pass. We are in deep trouble, this bill was a just way of putting a coat of paint on it to make it look good. Temporarily. Now we get to see whether or not we really need these greedy, grasping, lying bunch of ....monetary wizards or not.

  • September 30, 2008

    12:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jstott1 writes:

    I wrote Trancredo and told him since he was retiring if he voted FOR this, I would have to vote DEM just for spite. Looks like I'll be voting DEM. We're all $3500 richer, we should all be celebrating. Too bad for you DEMS, next year when you request $5 billion to rescue starving children in the USA, these same people who voted for the $700 billion will say there is not enough money. Is Ron Paul on the ballot, if not he should be.

  • September 30, 2008

    8:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ElGordo writes:

    Hey Tancredo, isn't this the illegals fault. I also read on Yahoo, but I can't find it anymore. That small communities are hit really hard. These communities had an average earning of 168,000 dollars. Yeah I think we should worry about the real people's communities.

  • September 30, 2008

    10:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jbowen43 writes:

    For the last vote in his entire career Tancredo decided to act like a statesman and not like a politician. Weird.

  • September 30, 2008

    9:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AspenFreePress writes:

    Guys with Tancredo's view predicted the sky would fall if Bush's bailout bill failed in the House. Guess what, the market was up nearly 500 points today. The proposed bailout scheme is nothing but crony capitalism. And isn't Bush the guy who hurried us into Iraq with scary images of WMD and mushroom clouds? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Prediction: A candidate will run for President some day who, while campaigning in a defensive posture, will exclaim, "Yes, I did vote for the bailout, before I voted against it."
    Sterling Greenwood
    Aspen Free Press

  • September 30, 2008

    10:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AspenFreePress writes:

    The Bush Administration shouldn't expect action on its proposed bailout for Wall Street to proceed any faster than its own response in the wake of Katrina.
    Sterling Greenwood
    Aspen Free Press

  • October 1, 2008

    12:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    daRock writes:

    AspenFreePress,
    The feds were not invited to intervene with Katrina because they were blocked by Gov. Blanco (D). Thankfully she has bee replaced by Bobby Jindal. Bush and the federal govt shares NO blame in the Katrina fiasco. Lay the blame where it belongs. Bush is responsible for 1000's of school buses being under water when the could have been used to evacuate people? No wonder your rag is free. And yes that was partially tongue in cheek. But prolly not worth the paper you print it on.

    Sheesh, get a clue.

    DeGette voted for it because her house seat is safe. There are safer and less expensive ways to solve this problem. If it is such a great deal, why didn't her fellow democrats pass this as the republicans have no power to stop it?