I don't think motives play into the equation -- at least not principally -- because (a) I don't think motives can be reliably discerned and (b) a bad vote and bad behavior is exactly the same whether motivated by fear, belief, or craven self-interest. Do you feel better about the people who voted for the FISA bill due to political fear rather than belief?

I agree completely with b) and mostly with a).

Regarding motives, of course we never know which way someone is going to vote in a given case and some legislators are truly unpredictable or plastic.

But then you have guys like Tom Daschle (or on the flip side Linc Chaffee) who preferred to go down with their ship rather than ever submit to popular pressure from their own party.

For a practical example of why that distinction matters, consider your own position on Obama. His more or less unconditional support for Bush's FISA bill puts him squarely in the camp of his party's primary offenders — yet he is one of the tractable ones, and it makes sense to still support him, even if passively, into the presidency.

But what if Lieberman had somehow ended up with the Democratic nomination? His most recent round of FISA voting is, practically speaking, indistinguishable from Obama's. Yet it would be foolish to support him for president with the same expectations of a Lieberman White House being sensitive to progressive influence. It might even make sense in that case to abandon the party in the presidential race.

My view is that they're all equally affected by one common threat -- the threat of being removed from office.

Removing unrepentant reactionaries as a way of getting rid of them and removing slow-moving knuckle-draggers as a warning and example to the rest amount to the same thing, it's true.

But there's still the question of the carrot. There's an increasing number of "Moveon Democrats" now in office, some newcomers who literally owe their seats to the progressive netroots and others, like Dodd, who probably don't but still acknowledge the support and show their appreciation of it.

I still think the original question raises a useful point about a) whom to go after first, all other things being equal, and b) whom to support in the expectation of having their ear, and whom not to. It doesn't necessary require an answer, but it will still require answers as this effort progresses.

I see by "A Tiny Revolution" that:

John McCain is having a townhall-by-telephone for Virginians tonight at 7:00 pm ET. Anyone with a Virginia area code—and maybe people with unidentified area codes—should be able to call in and possibly ask him a question. As far as I know questions aren't screened, and everyone has an equal chance of being called on.

Here's how it works:

Dial: 1-877-850-4146

Passcode: 84831

These are a few questions I'd try to ask if I were from Virginia:

1. Iraqi leaders are now saying they want a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops. If you become president, and the elected Iraqi government has decided it wants all US troops to leave by a certain date, will you commit here and now to following their wishes?

2. Phil Gramm, one of your top economic advisors and your close political friend, said yesterday we are having are “mental recession” and that we’ve become a “nation of whiners.” You've just said Mr. Gramm doesn't speak for you on this. If he doesn't speak for you on the economy, why is he one of your top economic advisors?

3. You've just said about Social Security that "it's terrible to ask people to pay in to a system that they won't receive benefits from." Do you know that, according to the Social Security Administration's projections, even if the trust fund is exhausted in forty years, recipients will STILL get higher benefits than retired people today get? [If YES: Then why are you claiming young people today will never get any benefits?] [If NO: Why are you talking about Social Security if you don't understand anything about how it works?]

4. You've said that you have a strategy to capture Osama bin Laden, but it's something that can only be done in secret by the president. Instead of waiting to be president yourself, why haven't you just told President Bush what your strategy is?

—Jonathan Schwarz

Virginians Can Ask McCain Questions In Tele-Townhall Tonight At 7:00 PM

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002424.html

1) Some economists claim that the government under the Republicans has destroyed the value of the Dollar and the opportunity for the working class to get jobs or make ends meet. Why should I vote for you?

2) Experts say that your promise to destroy innocent lives in Iran will push a barrel of oil to over 400 dollars the day the attack starts. Why should I vote for your plan to destroy Iran?

3) Many people who know you well have said in the past that you are unable to control your anger and would make a very dangerous man to put in charge of America's military arsenal. Why should I vote for an adult given to adolescent fits?

Re: "4. You've said that you have a strategy to capture Osama bin Laden, but it's something that can only be done in secret by the president. Instead of waiting to be president yourself, why haven't you just told President Bush what your strategy is?"

I missed that one.

Is that like Richard Nixon's "Secret Plan To End The Vietnam War"?

These are the Democrats that had to make up an entire new name for themselves, progressives, in order to deflect attention from the fact they should've chosen the word "regressives."

Eerily quiet from the Obama-Rama Carnival Show barkers. Hey, when's the next show start? They all lool so shell-shocked. Like people who just discovered that the 5-legged calf really has just 4 legs. And the only contortionists here are the Obama-Rama supporters bending over backwards trying explain to each other why their guy voted for FISA, guns, backs off of late-term abortions by blaming women for faking mental illnessses, and quite possibly, Iraq troop withdrawal.

The sad fact is they bought into this carnival show hook, line, and sinker and we're left with a candidate that is a freakin' joke.

He can't even make a decision about putting his children on TV without flip-flopping on that too! I hate to say this, but I find myself agreeing with Karl Rove when he says Obama is an empty suit. And he ought to know an empty suit when he sees one!