Why don't we judge people on their actual actions rather than on what we speculate they might do at some point in the future? If he's willing to take these positions now when he's in an extremely tough race as a challenger, why assume that he's going to get corrupted by some future events?

Point noted, Glenn, and I admit I don't know Martin from Adam. From other commenters he sounds like a good choice against an awful Sentator in Saxby Chambliss. But one look at your writings over the past 6 months should handily answer your own question. I think there is enough evidence readily available to assume that corruption of members of Congress (new or otherwise) is a very real and ever-present threat.

Remember Obama? He said he would filibuster any attempt to grant amnesty to law-breaking telecoms. Wasn't he a civil rights lawyer for cripes sake? And what did he go and do? What does that tell you about past actions vs future speculation?

Look at Russ Feingold. He's from a very purple state. He's had a very close and tough re-election fight in the past. Yet there he was, in October 2001, standing alone voting against the Patriot Act, and has made opposition to surveillance state expansions the centerpiece of his career in the Senate ever since.

Russ Feingold is truly one of my American Heroes. The guy just does the right thing time and again despite all that surrounds him. I live in Missouri and have contributed money to his campaign because both of my own Senators are as corrupt and principle-free as you can get. But even you admit that Feingold is a very rare exception.

We definitely need to support more people like Feingold, and if Martin is one of those people, then let's get behind him. However, taking a position on an issue you did not have a vote on is one thing, but actually voting the way of your original position is quite another, as we've seen repeatedly with this criminal Congress. My overall point was that the system is so rotted that very few escape its poisonous tentacles, and THAT is what needs to be changed, and THAT is what we need to continue being suspicious of. We must keep exposing it for what it is, and calling on those people who say one thing pre-election, and then do a complete 180 after election.

Of course I realize you are doing yeoman's work in this area, and I support you with donations and spreading "Glenzilla" to anyone who will listen. I just think a healthy dose of suspicion until proven otherwise is a better position to take until a track record actually exists.