Looking at Tom Tancredo's press release, one gets the impression that he doesn't want to debate the immigration issue - he wants to dictate terms on the immigration issue, including how it is discussed, which solutions may be considered, and he claims the right to call any solution that he doesn't like amnesty, and will trot out accusations that his opponents favor open borders (including the broad-brush tarring of Mormons and Catholics), whether or not it actually fits the accepted definition from the dictionary. Furthermore, as Pondering American has shown, his agenda does not end with illegal immgiration.
That said, it is not so much Tancredo's agenda that makes me see red. I have my disagreements with other people, like Internet Esquire (over Iraq). My partner on this blog and I first came across each other in a disagreement over reactivation of the Iowa-class battleships. But these disagreements have had a quality that has been in very short supply from the Tancredo-Malkin crowd: Respect.
I'm sorry, but when your response to a person's disagreement with you is to tell them to shut up, it means you do not have much of an argument. Why does Tancredo fear the Administration making its case for a comprehensive bill? Is it because recent events (and polling) have shown that the President's approach might be passed into law if it is explained?
Tancredo has not only revealed that he lacks class or respect for those who disagree with him and wants to be able to freely demagouge a serious issue, he's also revealed that he doesn't have the guts to have a fair debate with the President of the United States. That says a lot more about Tancredo than it does President Bush.