In the Progressive Convulsions Start, I outlined what I perceive as the growing frustration that progressive leaders and Democrats at large have with Congressional inaction on Iraq.  Whether it is 'liberal thinkers' calling progressives 'children', or Carl Levin talking of military options against Syria, or the immediate negative reaction to Russ Feingold's attempt to defund the war, there's a simmering anger within the public at large.  Consider that last night, Harry Reid, out of deference to Senate tradition, said on Charlie Rose that he will not consider using Congress's power of the purse to end the war (for a war he unlike most Democratic Senators doesn't regret authorizing).  His approval ratings in the netroots are slipping dramatically, and he is much less popular in his home state than his counterpart, John Ensign.

The progressive caucus, which represents a group of people who have been neutered since 1994, is waking up a bit out of its slumber.  Here's Congressman Jerry Nadler in the New York Times validating what Raw Story reported last week:

"Nothing is going to happen unless we use the power of the purse," said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York. "It's time to draw a line in the sand."

I agree with Chris's point about framing this as a 'fully funded withdrawal', though the communications question is not the issue that is genuinely crippling us as a movement. At this point, the problem is the tremendous disconnect between the outside public and the machinations going on in Congress.  It's very difficult to find out who thinks what, because no one's cards are on the table.  It's hard to organize against the war because it's difficult to figure out how to put pressure against the right people on the supplemental coming this month.

As Chris has noted, this is dangerous for the Democratic Party.  There's an interesting dynamic playing out here, one you can see in Barack Obama's high approval ratings with liberal Democrats and independent voters in New Hampshire versus Hillary Clinton's high approval ratings among conservative Democrats.  Obama, who is more and more staking out progressive territory (not boldly, but he is going there), is appealing to a group of independent voters that are increasingly sympathetic to liberalism.  This makes sense.  Conservatism has died, intellectually speaking.  After watching New Orleans in tatters, Iraq in flames, and a government engulfed in corruption, the Republican brand is gone.  And yet the Democratic brand, while slightly improved, is not sparkling with dynamism.  

Independent voters, looking at the landscape, get that government needs to be there for them in emergencies, but they are also unwilling to associate themselves with an old Democratic brand.  Given a real choice of a party committed to liberal values, though, they will.  In 2006, prior to Lamont's victory in the primary, for instance, 30,000 voters joined the Democratic Party.    Poverty, global warming, corruption, corporate misbehavior, imperalism - these are all themes that resonate more than the Reaganite/Rambo antitax crusade of the last 40 years.

This energy could be captured by the progressive movement, or it could be captured by another set of actors.  In 1992, young voters spiked participation rates in the election, only to drop down to historically low levels in 1994.  Right now, the disconnect between progressives in Congress and those outside is stark.  Anti-escalation measures are passing all over the country - this war is hated, but there is almost no awareness of how the debate is shaping up within the Democratic Party in Congress.  The centrists are in control of the debate, which is their prerogative (and why Rahm Emanuel, who is in charge of House messaging, has allowed the bad framing to continue).  If the outside energy cannot work through the primary process within the Democratic Party, it will work through Naderite type candidates or a populist anti-war anti-trade anti-immigrant Perotista.

So what outside groups need is, as Congressman Nadler said, a 'line in the sand'.  That line is Murtha's plan.  If members of Congress are not going to protect the troops and are not going to work to end the war, that's a voting issue for the public.  We can't though vote on the war within the primary system if we don't know who stands where.  So Murtha's plan should be brought to a vote, and voted down so the public can know where their representatives stand.  Is Ellen Tauscher really that bad?  Well where does she stand on the Murtha plan?  Or Henry Cuellar, a whip in the Democratic caucus?  Or any other members?  We don't know, because they don't have to make the choice publicly.

They should.  Progressives should demand a vote on the Murtha plan.  Winning the vote is not the important goal - ending the war, which can only happen with an organized public putting pressure on Congress, the media and the new President, is the goal.  But we need something to organize around.  We need that line in the sand.