It would seem the first candidate to notice you don't win by focusing on that was Matt Throckmorton. Once he learned that lesson he shifted gears from trying to defeat Chris Cannon to working with him and trying to influence his voting record. It seems that strategy is working.

The next would be Merrill Cook, who ran in the same district against the same incumbent and didn't learn a lesson from the Throckmorton race. Then John Jacob beats Cook at convention, actually out did Chris Cannon at that same convention. Just not enough to outright win it. Once in the primary John Jacob basically adopts the Merrill Cook platform, showing he didn't learn anything either.

Immigration is important. What people what is a balanced approach. Enforcement is very important but people want visas fixed, and are not after trying to deport 12 million people. And until the enforcement crowd learns that lesson we aren't really going to get anything fixed.

Nickle, Schwann, and Bacca didn't win because the St. George Chamber of Commerce (and the sitting city council) endorsed the "soft on illegal immigration" candidates with paid radio and newspaper adds for weeks before the election. Also, the "soft on illegal immigration" candidates put on the "I'm also tough on immigration" front in the last few weeks of the race.

I'll wait to see what action the newly elected council members take against illegal immigration. While I've got a feeling they will be status quo Joe's, I doubt they cound do worse than the current mayor and council members who have made St. George an illegal alien sanctuary. When my children wait on the corner for the bus in the morning and a group of illegal aliens gather on the opposite corner something must be done.

We don't need a "balanced approach".... we need leaders that will enforce the law!

When those running for city council saw the results of the primary, they realized a quick change of position was necessary. "We did some research and talked to people and found out that this was the most burning issue on the minds of the people we knew would actually get out and vote," Pike said. "I do believe the citizens were telling us that they wanted some things to change." Who says advertising doesn't work in politics.

By the way James Rep. Cannon has been feverishly trying to remake his image on the immigration issue. It has forced him, even as a ten year incumbent, into a primary the last two election cycles. A good candidate would have been able o beat him either time. As far as 2008 is concerned, the leopard doesn't change his spots. All of the paint Cannon has been using to cover the spots won't change what he really is.

When the winners saw incumbents who ignored Illegal Immigration go down to defeat in the primary they soon jumped on the band waggon and said how much they were against it. On the contrary, across the country, those who are pro illegal immigration lost. The mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania won 90% of the votes. Old faces won in St. George but it was very close and the tide is turning big time.

Looks to me like the enforcement-only message that can win a Republican Primary won't translate into a general election. Immigration might rally a base, but it is never going to capture the independents that you need to win.

tenx spin it anyway you want but immigration is not going to help the GOP in the general election.

If we don't get a handle on illegal immigration then this country as we know it today will be gone. Already our national debt is somewhere between the official $9 trillion and the realistic $50 trillion (when you include the IOUs the government has made to Social Security and other programs.)

Illegal immigration sucks $40 billion dollars a year out of the economy as those dollars are sent to other countries then when you include the costs here in social programs, that figure increases $30 to 40 billion more per year.

Add the desire of those wanting universal health care and not only does the debt increase but we will be inviting even more illegal immigrants to come.

Me, I'm only going to be around another 20 years or so, but the following generations will have to deal with it.

Stewart, point taken but put this in context. The standard answer is that when a candidate loses, they could always have done better. And to your point, you could always find a better candidate.

I have been reading for a few years now that when enforcement first candidates lose we always chalk up the moral victories, then a few weeks down the road get into mistakes the candidate made, then ultimately that the candidate was never good.

Could it be that the candidates are just fine? The real issue is that the one method solution is not what the general population, at least the voting population, want?

James,

You obviously don't know your facts or what the American people want. In fact the American people do want enforcement first and have supported these policies. They will not support amnesty or benefits for illegals. This has been proven over and over. Furthermore, the enforcement first philosophy is winning and has won. The American people have stopped every amnesty bill in congress. The DREAM ACT two weeks ago is the latest example of this. Do you remember last June when the American people said no to the McCain/Kennedy Amnesty? What world do you live in. Deborah Bulkey who wrote this story lives in a dream world and is a constant advocate for illegal alien criminals. Since the Feds and Bush have failed, the states and local communities have begun to enact enforcement regs. Oklahoma is a great example where enforcement is actually working and even long time illegals are picking up and leaving. States like Utah where we are a magnet for Illegals will be the losers. In fact you will continue to see every candidate rail against illegal immigration because they know the American people are fed up. Just hold tight buddy and watch the next four years.