In an interview with Univision last week, President Obama said: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

Many conservatives took great issue with Obama’s use of the word “enemies” to describe political opponents. Tonight in Cincinnati, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) will give a major “closing argument” speech in which he will attack Obama for the comment:

“Ladies and gentlemen, we have a president in the White House who referred to Americans who disagree with him as ‘our enemies.’ Think about that. He actually used that word. When Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush used the word ‘enemy,’ they reserved it for global terrorists and foreign dictators — enemies of the United States. Enemies of freedom. Enemies of our country. Today, sadly, we have president who uses the word ‘enemy’ for fellow Americans — fellow citizens. He uses it for people who disagree with his agenda of bigger government — people speaking out for a smaller, more accountable government that respects freedom and allows small businesses to create jobs. Mr. President, there’s a word for people who have the audacity to speak up in defense of freedom, the Constitution, and the values of limited government that made our country great. We don’t call them ‘enemies.’ We call them ‘patriots.’”

Boehner’s sanctimony is truly stunning, considering that since the start of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and through his time as President of the United States, an office for which Boehner professes much reverence in his speech, Republicans have directly attacked Obama as everything from a “gangster” to Adolf Hitler, and suggested in myriad ways that Obama is an enemy to America, or perhaps not even actually an American.

A limited collection of the worst things Republicans have said about Obama:

– Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) was forced to apologize for “calling President-elect Barack Obama a ‘Marxist’ and comparing him to Adolf Hitler.” [11/12/08]

– Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) also compared Obama not only to Hitler, but also Hugo Chavez. [07/09/09]

– Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) questioned whether President Obama was an American, saying: “Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate. You have to be born in America to be president.” [02/23/09]

– Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) also questioned Obama’s citizenship, saying birthers “have a point” and that “I don’t discourage it.” [07/29/09]

– Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said she was “very concerned that [Obama] may have anti-American views.” [10/17/08]

– Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) called Obama “an enemy of humanity” for his pro-choice views. [09/26/09]

– Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) called Obama “a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda,” and said he was “a dedicated enemy of the Constitution.” [07/22/10]

– Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said that the Obama administration was a “gangster government.” [11/12/09]

– Bachmann, too, accuses Obama of heading a “gangster government.” [06/10/09]

– As Republican vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin famously said Obama is “palling around with terrorists.” [10/04/10]

– Palin also said the president was being advised by “thugs” from Chicago. [06/10/10]

Boehner did not repudiate a single one of these comments, but has suddenly found a sense of political decorum. Perhaps the next time an elected Republican accuses Obama of trying to destroy America, Boehner can give another speech.

Three years ago, Tom Tancredo — who, at the time, was a Republican congressman from Colorado and is now the American Constitution Party’s nominee for governor of that state — made the shocking claim that he would like to bomb the Muslim holy sites in Mecca and Medina. “If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo told an Iowa conservative group. “Because that is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do.”

Tancredo’s comments were roundly denounced, even by members of his own party. “Historically, we’ve tried to avoid doing what the Nazis did, and that’s bombing every kind of possible target. … There are some things that are off limits,” Mike Huckabee said at the time. The State Department also slammed Tancredo, saying his comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.”

At one point, Tancredo tried to pretend he never suggested bombing Mecca and Medina, telling CNN that it was “absolutely untrue” that he ever said such a thing. Now, however, Tancredo admits he said it, and that he still believes it. During an interview with a local radio station Thursday, when asked if he still believed in bombing Mecca, Tancredo said he did and that it was “quite defensible”:

HOST: If you say, you get involved with talking about bombing Mecca and Medina, is it possible that there would be a fatwa on Colorado?”

TANCREDO: You guys, remember, the statement that I made, in the context in which it was made, I think is quite defensible. I still do, and I still would say it. It is just that I would have absolutely no reason to say it as the governor of the state of Colorado. There are a lot of other issues of which I would become involved. So it is kind of goofy to say, ‘What if he said something like that again?’ Well, you know, the fact is that there is a lot of people who, just as you say, are worried about these issues. But if they are not relevant to the state of Colorado, I am probably not going to be talking about it.

Listen here:

When Tancredo began his third-party run for governor, Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams wondered whether Tancredo would run on a platform of “impeach Obama and bomb Mecca.” Tancredo has already written an op-ed calling for the president’s impeachment, and now the second half of Wadham’s hypothetical has come true.

(HT: Colorado Independent)

Third party gubernatorial candidate in Colorado Tom Tancredo was campaigning on Fox Business Network last night when host David Asman started complaining about “the arrogance of power.” “There is this arrogance. This sort of thing, I don’t care what you think I will do what I think is best for you,” Asman said referring to Tancredo’s Democratic opponent, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. Tancredo agreed, but added a strange twist, saying that it’s “elitist” for lawmakers to think they were elected to make laws:

TANCREDO: It is an attitude that you see all the time. Yes, I spent 10 years in Congress. I could certainly see it there. There is a sort of an elitist idea that seeps into the head of a lot of people who get elected. And they begin to think of themselves as, really, there for only one purpose and that is to make laws. And why would you make laws? Well, because you know, better than anybody else what to do.

Watch it:

Why else would a lawmaker make laws? Because that’s exactly what they were elected to do. That’s why they’re called “lawmakers” — because they make laws. Indeed, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “lawmaker” as “one who makes laws.”

In fact, it seems a lot of Tea Party-backed candidates don’t seem to think it would be in their job description to do much of anything. “Once again, Harry Reid: It’s not your job to create jobs,” Nevada GOP U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle regularly says on the campaign trail.

Similarly, many Republicans running for Congress are actively pushing the idea of a government shutdown if they don’t get what they want. Powerful Tea Party-allied Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) even said recently, “This idea that government has to do something is not a good idea. So I think the less we do, the better.”

So if Tancredo doesn’t think it would be his job as governor to make laws, what exactly does he think he would be doing?

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that “more people signed up for Medicaid last year than at any time since the program’s inception,” and that 48 million Americans are now enrolled in the federal-state health insurance program designed to serve low-income Americans who otherwise would not be able to afford to get health care.

In an interview posted on YouTube last week, Tom Tancredo — the American Constitution Party candidate for governor who has overtaken GOP candidate Dan Maes in the latest polls — explained one way to reduce enrollment or eliminate participation in the insurance program would be to starve the government of the funds to operate it.

While explaining that he is interested in Colorado’s Proposition 60, which would limit how taxes can be raised in the state and would automatically reduce some taxes, Tancredo says that it’s been his “experience anyway that the only way you actually get government under control is by reducing the flow of dollars.” He argued that the only way to “eliminate” Medicaid and similar programs is when the government is “pressed to the wall financially,” concluding, “I like the idea of doing something that absolutely presses you to the wall”:

TANCREDO: It’s been my experience anyway that the only way you actually get government under control is by reducing the flow of dollars. I’m not an anarchist. There are some things that have to be done by the state, but it is so hard to get the state to look at things that don’t have to be done. I’ll give you an example, there are at least a dozen increases in medical services came about as a result of what the legislature and the people did by passing the cigarette tax [...] I don’t think you can attribute all of the increase in Medicaid recipients to this but a substantial number came about as a result of it. We went from 260,000 people eligible for Medicaid to almost double, 480,000. Now as I say, recession plays a role to that, less jobs [...] but also there are a whole bunch of things we don’t have to do. Now have you ever heard anybody suggest that we can eliminate those? Even though you could, it is not mandated by the federal government. The only way you get to that point is when you are pressed to the wall financially. Will we ever really deal with PERA unless we are pressed to the wall [...] So I like the idea of doing something that absolutely presses you to the wall.

Watch it:

Although Tancredo’s explanation for exactly how he plans to stop the government from helping sick Americans is new, his opposition to any government role in health care is not. During a GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate in 2007, Tancredo admitted that his views are “unique, different and scary to some people,” but he doesn’t believe that the federal government has any role in helping people get health care. He opted instead for boosting “individual responsibility.” When the questioner asked Tancredo about voting against an expansion of children’s health insurance, the former GOP congressman proudly boasted, “You bet I did.”

In July, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) lambasted then-Republican gubernatorial primary candidate Dan Maes as an “unelectable” disaster in the making. Unwilling to watch the GOP blow an opportunity to defeat Democratic nominee John Hickenlooper, Tancredo jumped in as a third-party candidate, believing he presented the best opportunity for a conservative victory.

But Tancredo’s third-party candidacy is garnering him anything but love from the conservative base. Immediately after announcing his entry, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and 21 state Tea Party leaders pummeled Tancredo for siphoning votes away from a potential GOP victory. Constitutional conservatives of the Vail Valley 9.12 Project in Colorado later joined in decrying Tancredo for pursuing the type of candidacy that “guarantees the re-election of liberals” and demanded that he “drop out of the race and come back to the conservative party.”

Fed up with his obstinacy, two Colorado Republican voters upped the ante yesterday by filing suit in Denver District court to prevent Tancredo from being placed on the November ballot. The lawsuit, filed by Colorado Republican Party treasurer Richard Westfall on their behalf, states that both Tancredo and his running-mate Pat Miller switched their party affiliation from the GOP to the American Constitution Party too late, violating state and party bylaws and rules:

“The goal is to make sure the American Constitution Party follows its own rules when it comes to ballot selection,” said Richard Westfall, attorney for the plaintiffs. “This is an important precedent to be set. You can’t allow a particular member of any political party be affiliated with a major political party and then at the eleventh hour just switch over and be the governor candidate for another party.”

“Under their bylaws it says you have to be a member of the party, the ACP, for at least six months prior to being nominated, but they [] can waive that,” said Richard Kaufman, the attorney for Tancredo’s campaign.

But the party’s vacancy committee, made up of five members, cannot validate a candidate on its own, as it did with Tancredo’s candidacy — only the party’s state assembly has that ability, the suit alleges.

“Tancredo and Miller’s last-minute nominations are the result of, in the Tancredo campaign’s own words, ‘inter-party squabling’,” the lawsuit states. “Tancredo’s ACP nomination is nothing more or less than a failed gambit to force the duly nominated Republican candidate for Governor, Dan Maes, to withdraw his candidacy.

Colorado law says that a nominee cannot be “registered as a member of a major political party for at least twelve months prior to the date of the nomination” unless the ACP bylaws indicate otherwise. Tancredo switched in July and Miller switched in August and nothing in the ACP bylaws supersede Colorado law, according to the lawsuit.

Tancredo’s campaign manager Bay Buchanan pointed out that the Secretary of State Bernie Buescher (D) already certified the general election ballot last Friday. In a statement to the Denver Daily News, Buchanan said, “Our attorneys have reviewed the recent complaint by a disgruntled Maes voter related to this certification and are confident that the courts will find no grounds on which to overturn the decision by the one individual with authority to make such decisions.”

While both plaintiffs emphasized that they were taking action “in their individual capacity only, and not on behalf of any candidate,” both voters “have contributed to Maes’ campaign.” The case is set to be heard Monday. Despite the lawsuit, Buescher’s office “continues to print ballots with Tancredo’s name on it.” Wadhams said that while “he does not believe Tancredo’s name will be removed from the ballot because of the lawsuit,” he will certainly “watch with interest.”

Despite the backlash from the Colorado GOP, Tancredo has outraised Maes 4 to 1, pulling in almost as much funding in August as Maes has raised in total. And in a further blow to the state GOP, Chairman of the Republican Governors Association Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) said today that RGA will no longer “throw good money” to “badly damaged nominee” Dan Maes, adding that “we don’t give to sure losers.”

As conservative blog Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey points out, “the RGA move appears to send an official Amityville Horror message [to Maes] … get out.” If Maes heeds calls to pull out of the race and the state GOP replaces him with former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, that move “might convince Tom Tancredo to withdraw his independent bid.”

Last week, businessman and tea party hero Dan Maes defeated former congressman Scott McInnis to secure the GOP nomination for governor in Colorado. Both candidates stumbled to the primary under the weight of scandal. Maes’ razor-thin victory finally offered the GOP a chance to unite behind the GOP nominee against Denver Mayor and Democratic nominee John Hickenlooper.

However, during his victory celebration, Maes pointed out the “800-pound gorilla in the room” preventing conservative unity: former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Tancredo, who is now running a third-party candidacy under the umbrella of the American Constitution Party, abandoned the GOP in July after both McInnis and Maes failed to heed his demand that they drop out of the race. Deeming them “unelectable,” Tancredo believes he has “a better resume” as a committed conservative.

But his application is not faring well with the conservative base. On the same day he announced his candidacy, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and 21 state Tea Party leaders lambasted Tancredo for jeopardizing a conservative victory. And this Saturday, a defiant Tancredo was met by “a somewhat hostile crowd” at a Vail Valley 9.12 Project event in Colorado. The group of “constitutional conservatives” slammed Tancredo for pursuing the type of candidacy that he once said “guarantee[s] the re-election of liberals”:

Vail Valley 9.12 Project’s organizer Michael Schneider kicked off the event by talking about a letter Tancredo wrote to 9.12 members and Tea Party activists last December that said third-party candidates split conservative votes and guarantee the re-election of liberals and socialists.

“You will split the vote and (John) Hickenlooper will become the governor,” Schneider said. “Be a hero, be a champion of the conservative causes that you’ve always been — drop out of the race and come back to the conservative party.”

While Schneider believes Tancredo’s third-party candidacy ruins their candidate’s chances of winning, Tancredo insists on the opposite. In response to Maes’ request to stop his campaign, Tancredo said, “I think that [Maes is] the third-party candidate and it’d be a good idea for him to drop out to reduce the split among conservative voters.”

So far, Schneider is proving the wiser. A PPP poll of the gubernatorial race last week shows that while Hickenlooper is strong in any race, Tancredo reduces Maes’ support by 16 percentage points. This irony seemed to dawn on Tancredo during last week’s GOP primary. “Did you see the turnout? We did so much better than the Democrats,” Tancredo excitedly said of GOP voter participation before stopping himself. “I’ve got to quit saying ‘we,’” he said.

Last week, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) gave Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidates Scott McInnis and Dan Maes an ultimatum: drop out of the race and make room for him under the Republican Party ticket, or face his third party candidacy. It turns out Tancredo is following through on his threat. The Denver Post broke the news earlier today that Tancredo will seek the nomination of the Constitution Party once he files some papers and registers as a member.

However, Tancredo is running into some heavy opposition from his own right-wing base. Today, leaders of 21 state Tea Party groups sent an open letter to Tancredo, accusing him of “betraying” them and asking him to reconsider. The groups quoted Tancredo, who once said that “leaving the [Republican] party is not the answer.” Chairman of the Colorado Republican Party Dick Wadhams took on a harsher tone in what was described as an “all-out-brawl” with Tancredo that took place on Peter Boyles’ KHOW radio station this morning:

WADHAMS: What’s your agenda? What are you going to talk about? Impeach Obama and bomb mecca? [...]

TANCREDO: All of a sudden you’re opposed to my attacks on Obama? [...] What does that have to do with my race?

WADHAMS: You’re talking about it as a candidate for governor!

Listen here:

In itself, Tancredo’s decision to run under the banner of a party which claims that its platform is “predicated on the principles” of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights is rife with irony. Just last week, Tancredo’s absurd interpretation of the Constitution led him to call for the impeachment of President Obama — claiming that Obama is “awfully close” to violating his oath of office by not securing the border and identifying him as “a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda.” In the past, Tancredo has also proposed imposing a “civics, literacy test before people can vote” and pushed Congress to pass a bill that essentially repeals the 14th amendment by denying citizenship to children of undocumented residents.

Tancredo claims his candidacy is motivated by the fact that the two Republican candidates are “unelectable.” However, state GOP officials believe a Tancredo candidacy is a potential disaster. In a separate statement, Wadhams concluded, “If Tom Tancredo carries through on his threat to run as a third party candidate, he will be responsible for the election of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper as governor and for other races that will be imperiled as well.”