You probably read here on VDARE.com that Marcus Epstein declared the GOP race to be "A Victory for Tancredoism?," since the other candidates are trying to "out-Tancredo Tancredo" by adopting normal American attitudes to illegal immigration. I see that at least two other writers have followed by saying roughly the same thing—Marc Ambinder in the The Atlantic, ("Tancredo...can fairly be said to have the most effect, policy-wise, of any presidential candidate.")and Mark Steyn on the Hugh Hewitt show:
Well, I think in a sense, Tom Tancredo’s task is accomplished. He was never going to be a presidential runner, but he got his issue in the game, which I think is a critical issue for the base. The base doesn’t want a McCainite policy on immigration. It doesn’t want this, you know, whatever Huckabee claims his position is as of the moment. It wants a reliable border enforcement, and it wants respect. It wants the same respect that the American people have for American citizenship laws, and doesn’t want citizenship corrupted. Tom Tancredo, it’s, you know, it’s cruel, it’s a cruel world, but he was never going to be a presidential contender, but he did his job, and he got his issue there, and if he’s concluded that Mitt Romney is the best person to advance that issue for him, I think that is quite a big deal.
I'm pretty sure Marcus Epstein was the first to say that, but it's not important. The point is that most of the GOP candidates and some of the Democrats are going to be making promises to do the right thing, which is good. The downside is that if they're not carefully watched, they'll break those promises, as Tom Tancredo, if elected, would not have.