While I'm still a bit bothered by the fact that many Americans seem to be switching enemies in the middle of a war (or perhaps declaring wars on too many fronts), I want to attempt to detach from my emotions and look ahead. To the Fall.

Will it be the Fall of the Republican Party? I don't know.

The immigration issue (astutely described by Baldilocks as "suddenly inflammatory") is a hopeless political quagmire, and the problem will continue to get worse because political realities prevent consensus-based solutions such as closing the border. Instead, one faction proposes draconian measures which will never become law (even if passed, Bush won't sign), while the other wants to legalize millions of people in an amnesty which most Americans don't want.

While this is happening (or not), the price of gas is going up, up, up -- apparently because of the political machinations of both parties. (The voters have no say in these matters, because environmental regulations have nothing to do with democracy, and are tightened regardless of which party is in power.)

The Republicans are in power as the majority party in both houses, and the White House.

If the voters are still upset by immigration this November, voting out the Republicans will make absolutely no difference. Likewise, if they're upset about the high price of gasoline, same deal; no difference.

I think the election may turn on public perceptions over the war in Iraq. If the Democrats are smart, they will not run on an antiwar platform. That's because they'll get the hard core antiwar vote anyway (who never vote Republican). The voters who may tip the election in their favor are the fatigued, slightly squeamish voters. These people are tired of the war, but uneasy about voting for sign-wavers of any kind.

Thus, the best strategy for Democrats (except those running in stridently left wing areas) is to simply shut up about the war. War and Democrats are a little like Republicans and gay rights (and certainly gay marriage). Because of resonance from years of noise, there's a certain built-in assumption that Dems tend to be anti-war, and Republicans tend to be anti-homo, so if a candidate says nothing about these issues, these assumptions alone will tend to get him the votes from the people who feel strongly about them, because they know the other side is "worse."

However, Republican silence about the war will not play to their advantage in the same manner. It might be interpreted as uneasiness. If war-fatigued voters are not reassured by Republicans, if instead they perceive a deer-caught-in-the-headlights vulnerability, they may vote Democrat as a sort of "enough is enough" statement. Not really antiwar.

(Just sort of like tired of the war kinda maybe.)

The way things have been going lately, you almost wouldn't know there was a wartime election.

AFTERTHOUGHT: While I didn't take them into account, it occurs to me that there may be Republicans who actually are sick of the war in Iraq. I don't think being sick of the war is a winning strategy, but what if it's not a strategy?

Oh well. I'm not running for anything.