Mission accomplished declares Tancelot, pointing to the notably Tancredo-esque positions the rest of the field have taken this year on immigration. Is it true that they wouldn’t have tacked right if he hadn’t run, though? After the uproar last year over comprehensive immigration reform and then the shamnesty rebellion this summer, I’m skeptical. They might not have gotten there as quickly, but they’d have gotten there. If anything, Tanc being in the race insulated them a bit from criticism that their positions were too hardline. Whenever they were accused of “nativism,” they could simply point to the moment at one of the early debates where they rebuked Tanc for calling for a moratorium on legal immigration and that would be that.

But credit where credit is due. When it came to gratifying his pride by sticking it out until the caucus versus freeing up his supporters to do some good for the cause by voting for another guy, he went with principle and fell on his sword. He makes no bones about it here either in explaining why he endorsed Mitt: “He’s got the best shot” against Huckabee and McCain. An honorable end.

Below the vid you’ll find Steve King’s response to Tancredo’s endorsement. There’s virtually nothing to it; the only reason Fred’s camp is circulating it, I assume, is as a perfunctory reminder that not every immigration stalwart thinks Romney’s their best hope. Duly noted, but between the Tancredo brand and the King brand, no one would choose the latter. No offense, congressman. Click the image to watch.