So on one side of the ledger, we have David Paul Kuhn fitting illegal immigration into his Grand Unified Theory that the Democratic Party desperately needs a bigger penis. "The rising American discontent with illegal immigration," he says, "has the potential to sever Democrats from the majority of voters — especially those in the working and middle class — like no issue has in four decades."
On the other side, we have yesterday's elections in Virginia, which the GOP sought to use as a test run for the immigration appeal. And how'd that work out? "Voters across Virginia chose candidates in state and local elections yesterday not out of anger over illegal immigration but based on party affiliation, a preference for moderation and strong views on such key issues as residential growth and traffic congestion. With a few notable exceptions, the trend benefited Democrats and not those who campaigned the loudest for tough sanctions against illegal immigrants."
Indeed, over at TAP, Garance reported on Karen Schultz, a Democrat who was trying to win a GOP seat by accusing her opponent of being bought by "amnesty-lobbying money," and Charles Colgan, a Democrat trying to retain his seat in Prince Williams County, where the immigration issue has exploded. Schulz, running on her anti-immigrant platform, lost, and Colgan, running against a hardcore restrictionist, won.
