Con: "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."
"On the Issues," Tom Tancredo's official campaign website (accessed Dec. 3, 2007)
None Found: No position found as of Nov. 3, 2007. ProCon.org also emailed the Tancredo campaign on Nov. 9, 2007 with this question. They did not respond to our email or follow up call.
Pro: Co-sponsored H.R.2934: Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2004
"Whoever, in the course of committing a terrorist offense, engages in conduct that results in the death of a person, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life."
"H.R.2934," GovTrack.us, Introduced in Congress on July 25, 2003
Not Clearly Pro or Con: Tom Tancredo voted No on "H.R.2669: Higher Education Access Act of 2007"
"The College Cost Reduction Act (H.R.2669) seeks to lower the cost of higher education by reducing lender subsidies by $19 billion and then investing those funds in programs that increase grant amounts to students, improve access to student loans, cut interest rates on student loans, provide for the repayment of parts of the loans through employment or service in areas of national need, and reward colleges for lowering costs to students."
"H.R. 2669: Higher Education Access Act of 2007," Govtrack.us, July 20, 2007
None Found: No position found as of Nov. 1, 2007. ProCon.org also emailed the Tancredo campaign on Nov. 9, 2007 with this question. They did not respond to our email or follow up call.
Pro: "Congressional opponents of common-sense oil and gas exploration, and their friends in the radical environmental movement, appear hell-bent on hampering the ability of America's energy sector to contribute to both the creation of jobs for American workers, and cheaper energy for American consumers.
Obviously, the most high-profile front in this battle is the tug-of-war over whether or not to permit energy exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The case for allowing such development in a tiny fraction of the 19 million acre refuge was recently bolstered by a report released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The report found that development in just 2,000 acres of ANWR could increase domestic oil production by nearly 20% - or some 876,000 barrels of oil per day.
That is 876,000 barrels of oil that Americans would not be importing from overseas, and 876,000 barrels per day being produced in America, by American workers - and not just those in Alaska. One study found that investment in ANWR could create more than 700,000 jobs by as early as 2005, and that most of them would be in other states. Indeed, of the $22.5 billion spent between 1980 and 1984 on development on Alaska's North Slope, some 78% was spent outside Alaska. Had responsible development in ANWR not been vetoed by President Clinton in 1995, that energy - and the jobs it would have created across the country - might be helping to provide fuel for the American economy today."
"Fueling America's Economy," Tom Tancredo's official congressional website (accessed Nov. 1, 2007)
Not Clearly Pro or Con: Voted No on "H.AMDT.902 (amendment to H.R.4690): Amendment clarifies that the limitations on funds concerning the Kyoto Protocol shall not apply to activities which are otherwise authorized by law."
"H.AMDT.902," Library of Congress website, June 26, 2000
Pro: "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."
"Issues: Gay Marriage," Tom Tancredo's official campaign website (accessed Nov. 1, 2007)
Con: "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."
"On the Issues: Second Amendment," Tom Tancredo's official campaign website (accessed Dec. 3, 2007)
Con: "One of the most interesting parts of this debate about health care is the fact that we continually talk about the federal government's role in it.
We should actually be debating that specific point, not what kind of government program...
Really and truly, it's a fascinating thing to think about this, that we have moved all the way to the point of simply debating what kind of federal plan we might have rather than debating what's the constitutional right of the federal government to get involved in this particular issue. That's a challenge I think we all have to accept.
Now, if there's a federal role, I completely accept the idea of giving people the greater opportunity -- individual opportunity to use health savings accounts. Why? Because that takes individuals. They become the consumer in the marketplace dealing directly with the provider.
That's called a marketplace. That will drive down the costs. Get the federal government -- don't even talk about our responsibilities, because they always -- gives people the option to think that there is -- naturally the federal government should be involved. It shouldn't."
Republican Presidential Debate, Orlando, Florida, hosted by FOX News and the Republican Party of Florida, Oct. 21, 2007
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I say that, look, when we -- if you look at this issue and stand back for just a second and say there are two kinds of Irans that we are going to have to deal with here, one headed by a gentleman who believes that he is going to be responsible for the coming of the 12th imam, and the guy with a bomb, that should put us in the position of saying that anything we can do to stop that is imperative.
And if Israel is put in that position, and if we need to be involved in order to protect both ourselves and the Israelis, then of course we respond in the appropriate fashion...
But I'm telling you that if they are -- if there is a threat to the existence of Israel -- which is, by the way, I think, a potential threat to the existence of the United States -- then you have to come to that -- the aid of Israel."
Republican Presidential Debate, Simi Valley, California, hosted by MSNBC, May 3, 2007
None Found: No position found as of Nov. 1, 2007. ProCon.org also emailed the Tancredo campaign on Nov. 9, 2007 with this question. They did not respond to our email or follow up call.
Pro: "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."
"Issues: Iraq," Tom Tancredo's official candidate website (accessed Nov. 1, 2007)
[Editor's Note: Prior to Tom Tancredo's undated Pro position above, he voted for H.R.861, to deny a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.]
Con: Tom Tancredo voted for H.R.861:
"Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary
Declares that: (1) it is not in the U.S. national interest to set an arbitrary withdrawal or redeployment date for U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq; and (2) the United States is committed to completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, and united Iraq."
"H. Res. 861," Library of Congress website, June 16, 2006
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I can't get over it, because even the arguments that are made, that are constantly made, with regard to marijuana, are irrelevant, totally irrelevant in this debate. It's not about marijuana, it's about states' rights. The federal government has no right to interfere when a state makes that kind of decision. The federal government should stay the hell out of it."
"Your Guide to the Candidates' Views on Medical Marijuana: Tom Tancredo," Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana website (accessed Nov. 1, 2007)
Not Clearly Pro or Con: Voted Yes on "H.R.7, 'Care Act of 2002,'":
"To provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government program delivery to individuals and families in need, and to enhance the ability of low-income Americans to gain financial security by building assets...
Modifies the definition of convention or association of churches to state that no such grouping shall fail to qualify merely because individuals are members or because individuals have voting rights in such organization."
"H.R.7, 'Care Act of 2002,'" Govtrack.us website, July 19, 2001
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I have no doubt of what the greatest mistake in my life has been. And that is that it took me probably 30 years before I realized that Jesus Christ is my personal savior."
Republican Candidate Debate, Des Moines, Iowa, hosted by ABC, Aug. 5, 2007
Pro: "There is no question that the system is broken. Projections show that by 2016, the only way to avert its collapse will be deep cuts in benefits, heavy borrowing, or substantial tax hikes. The best suggestion I have heard is to switch from a defined benefits approach to a defined contribution approach with payroll tax funded private investment accounts. These accounts would be made available to young workers and function similarly to 401Ks."
"On the Issues," Tom Tancredo's official campaign website (accessed Dec. 3, 2007)
Con: "There are billions of dollars going into this research right now. It does not require me taking money from federal... from taxpayers in the United States to fund it and -- because it is morally, I think, reprehensible in certain ways."
Republican Presidential Debate, Simi Valley, California, hosted by MSNBC, May 3, 2007
Pro: "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."
"Issues: Gay Marriage," Tom Tancredo's official campaign website (accessed Nov. 1, 2007)
Pro: "Well, let me just say that it's almost unbelievable to listen to this in a way. We're talking about -- we're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that -- that nuclear devices have gone off in the United States, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a -- a bad thing to do? I'm looking for 'Jack Bauer' at that time, let me tell you.
And -- and there is -- there is nothing -- if you are talking about -- I mean, we are the last best hope of Western civilization. And so all of the theories that go behind our activities subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the United States, they go out the window because when -- when we go under, Western civilization goes under. So you better take that into account, and you better do every single thing you can as president of the United States to make sure, number one, it doesn't happen -- that's right -- but number two, you better respond in a way that makes them fearful of you because otherwise you guarantee something like this will happen."
Republican Candidate Debate, Columbia, South Carolina, hosted by FOX News, May 15, 2007