In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms.  But so far, it's been all over the map.  I'll try to corral all their statements into this diary, so you can see who the "good guys" are.

First, let's start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill.  They do deserve credit, as it's their jobs on the line.

Follow me below the fold to see the dozens of Democratic challengers who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.

It is with great please that I am able to announce that the next Blue Majority endorsed candidate: Dan Maffei, from New York's 25th Congressional District.

I am particularly excited about this endorsement for several reasons. First, I am from the district, and ever since Jim Walsh originally won the seat by a few hundred votes back when I was a freshman in high school, I have been itching for someone to defeat him. Second, Dan Maffei epitomizes one of my longest-running arguments about the need to run in every district. In 2004, no Democrat ran against Walsh, but in 2006 Dan came within 1% of defeating him. Third, having met Dan Maffei, I can honestly say that there is no member of Congress, or candidate for Congress, with whom I was more personally impressed and within whom I felt more personally comfortable (there are two or three who I feel roughly the same about). When we talked for over two hours over coffee and pizza, it felt like every idea we exchanged about strategy, policy, and life really clicked (like me, he went to local public schools, and hasn't exactly made a fortune working in progressive politics). Dan is a serious, brilliant progressive, who absolutely means more and better Democrats. Please, contribute to Dan today.

Here is a video Dan put together to introduce himself and the district to the readers of Dailykos, MyDD, Open Left and Swing State Project a few days ago:



Now, some of you might ask something to the effect of "wait-he is running against Jim Walsh, the Republican who just said he was now opposed to the Iraq War? Isn't that the sort of Republican behavior we should be encouraging, rather than immediately punishing with a major counter-endorsement?" If you are asking this question, I am glad you did, because even though the Maffei endorsement was decided upon several days before Walsh's announcement, since that time it has revealed the true danger Democrats face in offering up weak, meaningless, "compromise" bills on Iraq. The NY-25 is the first case study of how Democratic weakness in the House on Iraq can allow Republican to potentially blur the difference between the two parties on Iraq, and thus wipe out virtually our entire advantage heading into the 2008 elections.

Here is the situation. Over the past nine months, Jim Walsh has said he was in favor of withdrawal, and then voted a timeline that would actually mandate withdrawal. Even in discussions with local media yesterday, and in calls I made to his staff, he refused to come out in favor of a timetable. Walsh has said that he is in favor of oversight on Iraq, and then voted against oversight. He said he was opposed to the escalation, and then refused to vote against the escalation. In May, he said he was opposed to a blank check for Bush on Iraq, and then voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq in the capitulation bill. Everything Walsh is saying now, he ha already said before. The key difference is not hat Walsh has changed his opinion, but that Democats in Congress are changing the legislation they are trying to pass through Congress.

Back in the spring, House Democrats forced votes on stiffer legislation that required real oversight and mandated withdrawal. It only received two votes form Republicans, because the many so-called moderate Republicans who are supposedly against Bush's policy in Iraq are not willing to pass binding legislation opposing Bush's policy in Iraq. They are, however, willing to pass meaningless legislation that suggests Bush should change course, but does not actually require him to do so. For example, Walsh is a co-sponsor of the Kirk-Lipinski bill that does not mandate any troop withdrawal whatsoever, but sets it as a "goal." Compromise bills of this sort are in abundance nowadays, and I imagine Walsh will vote for all of them. However, if a bill comes up that actually mandates troops withdrawal, there is still no indication that he would vote for such a bill. Given everything he has said on the matter, I bet he won't vote for mandated troop withdrawal.

This is the crux of the problem progressives face in the 2008 elections. Bad, Bush Dog Democrats are coming up with cover your ass legislation that won't do anything to drawdown our military involvement in Iraq. Instead, the actual impact of these bills will be to allow Bush Dogs and endangered Republicans alike to appear as though they oppose Bush's policies, and thus strengthen all of their hands for re-election. In short, weak Iraq legislation in Congress will help empower Bush Dogs, and help prevent progressives like Maffei from taking over Republican seats. This is the exact opposite of the more and better Democrats refrain that has been traveling around the blogosphere. Weak Iraq legislation will allow Republicans like Walsh to blur their differences on Iraq all over the country, and the result will be fewer, and worse Democrats.

In the first major case study of this kind for the 2008 elections, we can't let this stand. Supporting Dan Maffei means opposing weak, toothless Iraq legislation in Congress. It means taking a stand against a self-defeating Democratic strategy that will not only do nothing to drawdown the Iraq war, but will also go a long way toward wiping out any chance of a second Democratic wave election. It means supporting more and better Democrats, instead of reverting to the pro-war, minority status Democratic Party of 2002-2003.

Contribute to Dan Maffei on Blue Majority. Fight Bush dogs and Republican blurring alike. This lean-Kerry district is going to be a very big race down the road, and a place where a true progressive like Maffei can hold a seat for a long time to come.

Right now, I am at my younger brother's house in Rochester, NY. Despite its small size, a metropolitan area of just under 1.1 million people, of all cities in the nation, Rochester will actually be at the center of Democratic House pickup opportunities in 2008. In addition to Louise Slaughter's district, three key districts extend into the city: NY-25, NY-26, and NY-29. In 2006, Democrats lost these three seats, combined, by less than 10,000 votes. Fortunately, the city is well served by an excellent local blog, Rochester Turning, which has roughly the same amount of traffic as The Albany Project. The infrastructure, opportunities and, with Dan Maffei and Eric Massa both running again, candidates are in place to make Rochester a city to watch over the next two years. Also, from what I have heard, rumors of Louise Slaughter endorsing Eric Massa's millionaire primary challenger are simply not true.

One thing I have noticed during my time here relates more broadly to the "short head" and "long tail" phenomenon in the progressive political blogosphere. I have been up since about 8 a.m. trying to blog, but I have found it difficult to complete article of any length of depth of insight. The "problem," if I can ever forgive myself for calling him such, has been my ultra-cute and lovable three year old nephew Liam, who has an insatiable desire to play with me while I am around. As you can see in the picture on the right, in addition to the fact that I don't look very good in the morning, as I was trying to blog, he jumped up on the couch with me, urging me to play with, among other things, his Darth Vader Mr. Potatohead.

As a single guy with no roommates and no one to support, this was not something I am used to dealing with during my writing. However, it is precisely these sorts of barriers that have prevent many people from entering the "short head" elite of highly-trafficked, highly-linked progressive blogs. While I can dedicate myself to undisturbed writing with broadband internet access for up to twelve hours a days if necessary, people with families, other forms of employment, or limited internet access cannot. Well beyond issues over blogrolls, hyperlink patterns and search engine optimization, the ability to write full-time is the main advantage that the "short head," (or, if you prefer, the so-called "A-list") has over "long tail" blogs in terms of content production. If I had a family, if my job did provide me with regular internet access, or if I simply could not afford to live on the salary of a full-time blogger, it would be entirely impossible for me to meet the content production requirements necessary to stay in "the short head." I'll have a lot more on this in an academic-style article coming out in a few weeks, but having a room of one's own to blog is the main barrier to entry into the "short head," not hyperlink patterns.

This actually relates to a problem facing our House challengers in Rochester and Western New York as well. Last night, as the picture on the left shows, I spent more than two hours chatting with Dan Maffei at a coffee shop in Webster, New York (second picture). Simply that I spent more than two hours talking with someone who I had never previously met in person is stunning for a generally shy person like me, but we just couldn't stop talking. Dan, who lost in 2006 by less than 1,000 votes against a long-term incumbent who wasn't even challenged in 2004, is a truly brilliant candidate who I think the blogosphere would see eye to eye with on a wide range of strategic and ideological principles (more on that later). He also, as he says, has to live on a salary equivalent to a graduate student during the campaign because he is fairly young, not from a wealthy background, and has dedicated himself to service and activism all of his life. It is in this way that those trying to enter the upper echelons of public service face similar problems to those trying to enter the upper echelons of the progressive blogosphere. Most people are simply not in a position where they can spend years dedicating themselves to a project, whether running for office or blogging full-time, which consumes over sixty hours a week and delivers fairly low pay in return. This problem is perhaps particularly severe in a region like Western New York, which is suffering a slight, overall population loss and extensive brain-drain among the demographics that can often make up the core of progressive netroots and grassroots communities in any given region. In fact, in order to find the type of engaging, creative employment commensurate with his education level in the Rochester area, my younger brother has actually decided to run for Monroe County legislature, and on Friday received the Democratic Party endorsement for his seat. Other creative class types looking for ways to support a family might simply have left the area. It is perhaps remarkable that the area is still able to produce excellent, non-self funding candidates like Eric Massa and Dan Maffei, and organically grown, progressive blogs like Rochester Turning, at all.

The lack of "a room of one's own" from which to blog or to campaign is, I believe, the major barrier to entry to regular participation in the blogosphere, and perhaps to the higher levels of politics in general. It is also, I believe, the main cause for the perceived lack of diversity in the progressive blogosphere, and the increasing ossification of the "short head." I am surprised people don't talk about this more, considering how much spleen we vent on things like blogrolls, which don't have nearly as much impact on traffic, and considering how there seems to be widespread agreement on the need for public financing of federal campaigns that will allow less wealthy candidates and donors a more equitable political playing field. If someone can blog full-time, that person's blog will have a competitive advantage over other blogs that can't afford full-time writers.

Speaking of which, I have to run, and familial duties will keep me from blogging pretty much the day. Maybe it is good for me to learn how the other half of the blogosphere lives.

NY-25's (Central New York, and suburban Rochester) now 10-term incumbent Jim Walsh was forced to run an actual competitive campaign for the first time in years last Fall when Democrat Dan Maffei pushed the 90% Bush Voter to within the margin of error, despite the institutional advantages a guy with 18-years of K-streets roots and who won over 90% of the vote while running unopposed in 2004.

Now, faced with a Maffei rematch, Walsh is forced to fundraise and really milk his Republican insider buddies for cash. So, this week he attended a fundraiser with Rudy Giuliani, raising over $200,000. But it's too bad he chose to do it Tuesday, missing 11 crucial votes in the process. That $11,764 per vote.

Let's see what issues Jim Walsh thought were worth less than $11,764 for his campaign coffers:

Editor's note from the Massa for Congress blog team: Eric Massa will not be live-blogging today.  He is on the road taking his son to freshman orientation.

It has been said the eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.  The broader quote could have been written today:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty--power is ever stealing from the many to the few.... The hand entrusted with power becomes ... the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.

First off, I just want to say what a great time I had at the YearlyKos fundraiser in Washington, DC, on Tuesday night. It was a blast to meet a lot of folks I've only heard about online. You can see some of the pictures from that event, including a photo of me with Dengre, in NYBri's recommended diary.

As many of you know, I defeated Richard Pombo, a seven-term Republican incumbent, and was elected to Congress in 2006 on a wave of grassroots and netroots support. But, what many of you may not know is that I ran in 2004 and lost.

Sometimes, it takes more than one election cycle for voters to realize it's time for a change. That's why I am proud to post the following request of MyDD'ers today.

Come over to the other side of this diary for the rest of the story.

As Chris Bowers wrote in Breaking Blue, Dan Maffei, the young former Congressional Staffer who gave 18-year incumbent James Walsh a run for his money last fall, is officially running for Congress again.

Dan has THREE Ivy League degrees: Undergrad from Brown, Journalism from Columbia, and a degree from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. He worked for NJ Sen. Bill Bradley, the late NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and then for the Appropriations Committee under Charles Rengel.

He's been an outspoken critic of the war, and has a great understanding of what working families need to make it in America, coming from a working town in a working part of the state.

Jim Walsh, the long-term Republican incumbent from NY-25, is very mad at the voters for nearly removing him from office: How dare the plebs vote for anyone but the local lord, whose seat was handed down to him by his father since time immemorial? I mean, Syracuse is a thriving city, that has consistently been lavished with benefits from our various Republican masters in Albany and Washington, D.C. Of course the elected representative should be mad at the voters, rather than the other way around. Worst. Victory. Speech. Ever.

This must be what happens to members of congress who are only seriously challenged once every decade or so. They feel it is the responsibility of voters to support them, rather than the other way around. See Lieberman, Joe for another case study in this sort of attitude. How dare the people who actually vote have a differing opinion on a given war than the DLC wonks at my cocktail party!

Walsh only defeated Dan Maffei in this district by about 1,000 votes, even though Maffei received virtually no support from either the national party or, for that matter, from the netroots. This is one we alllet slip through our fingers. However, after the November 7th slaughter of the Republican moderates, the NY-25 is now the fifth most Democratic district in the nation held by a Republican, with a partisan voting index of Democratic +3.4. Combine this with Walsh's condescending, aristocratic attitude toward the voters, and the NY-25 has the makings of one of our best pickups opportunities in 2008. If Walsh can only squeeze out a 1,000 vote victory without being targeted either by the netroots or by the DCCC, then he is in a lot of trouble in 2008. Given that this is my hometown district, I can't wait to help to the presumptive Democratic nominee as much as possible. And this time, I mean a lot more than moral support and the occasional canvassing trip Upstate.