I was the person who took on Zack Space the day you posted your diary about writing up profile on the blue dogs.

I have researched him heavily and as a result I do not believe he belongs on the list. Yes, he has made some calls in this his FRESHMAN year I do not agree with. FISA, and votes for tax breaks for the wealthy are his big follies. BUT, 80% of the time his votes have gone according to party lines. According to Progressive Punch, merely removing 2 of his votes (the tax reform votes) gives him a Progressive score close to 90%.

More importantly, OHIO IS A SWING STATE. This is the first time a DEM has held a seat in the 18Th for 12 years running. The GOP is throwing everything they can to unseat him. I think this would be a tragic turn of events for the Dem party. He may not be perfect. but as far as I can see. he is decent and honest and deserves our support. Lastly, if for no other reason, challenging him is political suicide.

So, march on brave Netroots soldiers. March on in your quest for the Holy Grail.

I cant wait to see how well Representative John Salazar is going to be received here were he to toe the nutroot's line.

War criminals? Are you completely off your rocker?

Any politician that voted to get us into the Iraq war and any politician that votes to continue it is factually a war criminal and is subject to criminal prosecution for war crimes in any country for the rest of his or her life.

These are facts, not expressions of ideology.

The notion that opposing literal war criminals in primaries is imposing a "purity test" is absurd. It also speaks volumes about the anti-democratic nature of the "Democratic Party" establishment. In a genuine, representative democracy, all political primaries would be contested. Yet, wanting to have the worst of the so-called Democrats subject to contested primaries is ridiculed as ideological extremism by party hacks. Moneyed interests have way too much power in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Iowa is probably the wrong place to go to complain about not advancing the liberal agenda. I suspect that the liberals won't make much headway there. Especially since Boswell has been in office for 11 years now and has handily defeated all comers. Its probably because he pretty well represents how his constituents think. The only thing that some west coast or northeast liberal group is going to do in Iowa is piss us off.

Certainly the general wimpyness of the Democratic response to Bush's continued assault on the rule of law since taking power on the hill is a grave disappointment that needs to be addressed.

[Table './drjjoyne_wp/wp_bdprss_items_v3' is marked as crashed and should be repaired]

Followed by a huge amount of text and broken html?

The first step in stopping this behavior is to identify the people engaging in it and offer up criticism. There are a few reasons for this. One, many of these members feel no pressure to vote correctly or uphold progressive values. Criticism is the signal they are relying on to let them know when they err. Two, some of these members may need to face a primary challenge, and it's useful for potential primary challengers to know that there is criticism of these members. Three, other members considering joining the Bush Dog caucus may be dissuaded if they know there will be criticism. Four, candidates running for office will finally have a signal on how they should talk about being good Democrats that are willing to take tough votes.

I see nothing in that paragraph that says, "My way or the highway." In fact, it leaves considerable room for conservative Democrats to make the case that they can't vote with leadership and still win their districts. But at least they will have to make the case. This is called politics, not a purge. Joyner's just wrong.

Somebody well left of center just isn't going to win in conservative leaning districts, especially in the South.

I think targeting certain congress members isn't always a bad idea, but I think the candidate chosen to unseat them in the primary needs to be carefully chosen, because unseating a member that gives your party majority control of the agenda, but doesn't always vote your way, may in the end backfire by handing the other party control.

Better, perhaps to target the worst offenders, recruit carefully, and try to encourage the others with letter writing campaigns and the like.

Therefore, he may very well succeed in pushing his party to the left... But in doing so, he will be pushing his party even further out of the mainstream, and further away from being electable, thereby.

On that basis I say, more power to him. It’ll be the best thing the Republican party has had happen to it in a while.