should we hold Reid accountable for?

Frankly, this post is ridiculous.
Harry Reid has 51 Democratic senators.
One is convalescing and one is Joe Lieberman,
so that leaves at best 49 Democratic senators
to work with, in an institution that requires
60 votes to do anything important.

I think another thing that hurt Reid was sucking up to Fox. when looking to push down approval ratings, it always helps to have multiple sources of consternation. that way you get a general negative sense about someone, rather than argument over one topic.

On the question of what should we get behind, I think you are going at it from the wrong direction.  Rather than looking for where to put the bright line that will be as far to the left as possible but still unite Democrats we should be looking at the long list of issues that are NOWHERE NEAR this bright line but which EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT can agree on.  I have a suggestion for where to start in the case of Iraq:

The Democratic Party is against the permanent occupation of Iraq and therefore renounces the building or maintenance of any permanent bases there.

Even Joe L. might be able to get behind that one even though that isnt a criterion I would pick.  Once we get agreement on this we move to the next easiest issue.  That way we build up momentum as we move along and are likely to get agreement on a far more progressive ultimate position than if we start with the most progressive position that is politically possible.

After all, nobody really doubts where the Dems are headed.  We want out.  They dont.  Saying we dont want to stay "forever" isnt a very extreme position but it happens to be one the Republicans wouldnt agree with.  Time to stick that in their faces.

thank you matt.

i for one am extremely frustrated. murtha's funding constraints ought to be the minimal response. personally, i prefer NO MORE FUNDING FOR THE OCCUPATION. and no more forcing an oil law to benefit USA oil companies.  these two things make the world more dangerous for americans - and do iraqis no good either.

funding for troop safety, troop withdrawl, non-military aid for iraqis (especially refugees)... that's what we should be doing.

Not sure if you are just talking about how to wake up Senators or talking about getting out of Iraq.

For my part I think we could learn a lot from the Free South Africa movement. Time to shift from Capitol hill to other areas.

The Free South Africa movement demonstrated at gold exchanges and other businessess with heavy SA investment. Maybe it is time to take a look at that sort of work.

By trying to find a 'bright line' we stray into the promotion of extremely specific policies. I don't think that's the strength of the netroots: we're good at generalized pressure in a desired direction, not at fine-tuning details.

We get behind the Murtha plan, then what happens when another plan, either almost or just as good--or better--emerges? We back the best one? We stick with our bright line? We include every possible plan that's okay? There's a dozen withdrawal/defunding plans, and I'm a committed blog-reader and I don't have a clue which is which.

Best not to get started with that. How about looking at this from another direction? If some withdrawal/defunding plan isn't passed by such-and-such a date, then we freak out. Pin this to the date instead of the content?

Or: if such-and-such a parliamentary procedure (refusing the let the Senate go into recess, or whatever--I dunno anything about procedure) isn't utilized, then we freak.

Or: if X, Y, and Z aren't brought to a vote, then we freak.

I guess I'm asking more than I'm telling: what bright lines can we draw that aren't tied to specific plans?

Here is a petition to congresspersons with a fairly Liberal agenda, The Iraq section:

END THE WAR IN IRAQ NOW through support of the Woolsey-Waters-Lee "Bring the Troops Home and Iraqi Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007"; H.R. 508, and renunciation of George Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine in all its manifestations. The Bush war policy is a formula for endless global conflict, deterioration of the rule of law among nations, and growing impoverishment, indebtedness and evisceration of civil liberties at home. Further, the CBC must resist all attempts to draw the U.S. into war with Iran, and block covert and overt U.S. schemes for "regime change" elsewhere in the world, most notably in Venezuela.

Well I actually like the primary strategy. But theres no way the netroots or even the progressive movement in general has enough resources to fund primary challenges against every Democrat who is reaffirming Republican frames, undermining efforts to defund the war etc.

I say pick one of the worst and crusify them. Hammer them day after day on the blogs and start looking for a challenger. Pick a target with a solidly blue constituency and without particularly strong fundraising and campaigning.

Targeting someone in the Democratic leadership would produce more results if we won but obviously it would also be harder. God would I love to see a challenge to Rahm though. I'd spend a summer in Chicago, for sure.

Sen Reid has a more difficult task considering he does not have a majority.  (Lieberman is not in D camp) .  

In order to pass legislation he needs to compromise which angers netroots.

If the legislation has no possibility of passing--why waste time--this even angers the netroots more.

The solution is to make sure we have a bigger veto proof majority in the Senate.

This is a structural suggestion. I think Dems in Congress would be doing much better on this and other issues if they were in better communication with their constituents, especially activists and netroots. What if all you influential bloggers get together and start a campaign to pressure all congressional Dems to pledge to attend a local meet-up on a monthly basis. I think a little face-to-face time with impatient voters would do wonders for congressional attitudes. What do you think?

We should promote the Murtha plan.  The moles in the party can't stab us in the back with it, by confirming the not supporting the troops meme.

If the Democrats decide to do nothing to end the Iraq war, I think the Republicans will use it to win the election in '08.  EVERYONE wants this war to end.  There is no greater issue.  Stumble around, Democrats, and watch what the machine does to you.  Do NOT be fooled.  They will use your inaction against you, and we will all lose.

More or less for the Democrats to pass anything inrealtion to ending the war in Iraq. They have to figureout how to Pressure 10 or 11 Republican Senators to vote for it,and very simply Republicans still support this stupidity in large numbers. It's not because there are that many more people who support this or much more support by number but simply because people who disagree with the policy are simply leaving the republican party and becoming ind or liberterians. Therefore creating a higher conduction of pro-war votes inside the republican party. Therefore it doesn't benefit more than maybe 5 of the republicans to take any stand on the war at all.

Bush and Republican Senators are blocking progress.  Blaming Reid and the Dems does not help. Blaming the GOP loudly and often for stalling will up the  pressure.  

Repeat after me:

It is the Republicans that are blocking the Senate from discussing Iraq and bringing our troops home.

Murtha Plan, all the way. It doesn't even make sense when the right argues that it helps to undermine our troops. I'd love for someone to call them on that claim.