Those three democrats that have won special elections in Republican Districts this year?  Blue Dogs.

The problem with Blue Dogs is that the Blue Dog caucus in the House, and many, many Senators, equate their 'centrism' with selling out on economic issues to the moneyed elites, surrendering to Republicans on issues of national security, and also surrendering on issues of constitutional fidelity and civil liberties.

I consider myself a progressive these days first and foremost because of my civil libertarian views and also because of my views that the economy has become unbalanced toward the elites and our foreign policy has become disastrous. Therefore, I cast a wary eye on anyone that wish to be described as a Blue Dog, because the Blue Dogs currently elected vote against my interests in those areas.

Dan, you may consider yourself a Blue Dog based upon your 2nd Amendment and perhaps more socially conservative leanings, but most of the elected Blue Dogs do so for economically elitist (e.g., anti-populist) and Republican-lite foreign policy reasons.  

By the way, Judy Feder strongly believes in fiscal responsibility and pay as you go.  She's been talking about that for at least 2 years now.

For my part, I think of myself as a moderate, but that doesn't really mean anything in itself. I think of it as, government shouldn't be too big or too small, it should be just right. But what "just right" is changes with the current circumstances. So by not changing myself at all, just with changing circumstances, I would go from being considered a liberal to a conservative.

For health care, as an example, it seems like Mike Turner is falling to the left of Feder. But just because of his position on this particular issue doesn't make him more or less "liberal" or "conservative", whatever those mean, than Feder. It's a matter of practicality. Personally, I have never given much time to the concept of single payer (then again, health care isn't among my top issues, personally, because I get fine health care through my job) but Turner's position is that nothing else would work. If the government were to provide a health care alternative, it would necessarily put the private health insurance companies out of business anyway because they couldn't compete.

I don't know enough about the topic to know if he is right (although, since he said it, and I very much trust his ability to process all of the information, I tend to believe him). But I really think Turner is coming from the position of determining what really is the best solution to the problem. Where that solution falls in the public perception left-right scale doesn't really matter. There are other such examples where less government involvement would be a better solution; it just depends on the problem in question.

I agree that the old labels do not apply. I, myself, might call this type of thinking "moderate", but that's not really very instructive to understand the nuance.

2. From what I can tell - and I'm certainly no expert on this subject -- Feder's health care plan is very close to Barack Obama's.  That certainly works for me!

I think Judy is the more polished candidate at this time, but hope Col. Turner stays involved and engaged in the process.  I like what I have seen and heard from him as well.

I talked with Thom Beres briefly outside the Obama rally at the Nissan Pavilion a little bit and wanted to talk with him about why he's supporting Mike.

Honestly, my initial impressions of Mike may have been way off, but they were not very positive.  He angered a lot of people that I know well in Loudoun with the way he talked to people, at times.  Fairly or not, this almost immediately ruled him out of my consideration for support.  Perhaps a flaw as I get older is a sometimes counter-productive penchant for forming judgments on people more quickly.  I need to work on that.

But at any rate, I was glad to read about your support for Mike and very interested in what you have to say about him.

I obviously cannot vote in the 10th primary tomorrow, anymore, but I will certainly be watching.

I do support Judy Feder, because I think she's truly progressive and certainly electable---I think she needed some work to improve and refine the messaging from the last go-around, something I feel she should be able to accomplish with the right staff and fundraising---which I feel she has.  At any rate, your post leaves me feeling good about the outcome in the 10th tomorrow, regardless of who that might be.

We need a stronger challenge to Wolf, be it from Feder or Turner, and I hope regardless of who prevails tomorrow that they will both band together to make sure that stronger challenge materializes.  If Mike does not prevail, perhaps he could help Judy as an adviser after the primary?

I honestly don't find the labels (moderate, progressive, Blue Dog, etc) very helpful. I know they are shorthand, and I suppose that's why Mike himself chose to use some of them. They seem to be shorthand for "someone who is like me and who I can feel comfortable with."

I've become less interested in surrounding myself with people who are "like me" for a number of reasons. In fact, I would identify our tendency to do that (and it's a perfectly natural tendency) as a primary source of what's wrong with our political process and civic life. All this argumentation about who is and isn't truly progressive doesn't tell me what I most need to know: Does this person have a strong sense of fairness? Because all of the values that I identify as "progressive" flow from that. I'm entirely confident that Mike has that strong sense of fairness.

That confidence, along with my sense that Mike is just a better fit for this district (not necessarily every district, but this one), his obvious intelligence and ability to get things done (he was a very effective precinct ops chair) is what drives my decision.

That should not be taken to mean that I don't think Judy possesses some of these same qualities. I fully expect that whatever the outcome tomorrow they will figure out the most effective way to work as a team.

Dear Friends,

Almost one year ago today, supporters like you helped me take the first step towards bringing effective, pragmatic, and responsive government to Richmond.  In the year since my primary election victory last June I have talked to thousands of Virginia voters and constituents about the change they want to see in both our state and federal government.  This Tuesday, June 10th, we have another opportunity to advance the cause of change in Virginia by electing Judy Feder as the Democratic Party nominee for House of Representatives in the Virginia's 10th district.

We need a Member of Congress who will bring a fresh perspective to Washington and deliver common sense solutions for Northern Virginia. Judy Feder is a candidate who can bring the real change we need in Congress, on health care, the war in Iraq and our struggling economy. Judy will bring her policy expertise to Washington and will fight for the 10th district to get us the resources we need.  To find out more about Judy, you can visit her website at www.judyfeder.com.

As Judy and I spent time this weekend knocking on doors and talking to voters about her campaign, it was clear to see how well her ideas and approach to governing reflect our own hopes and beliefs.  Turnout for the primary is expected to be low; I urge you to vote for Judy Feder for Congress on Tuesday, June 10th, to continue the progress we have made in Northern Virginia through November 2008!

Thank you for your consideration,

Margi Vanderhye

Judy Feder will be a great leader in Congress, especially on the issue of health care. Her expertise on this critical issue is just what we need to fix America's health care crisis. I hope all Democrats in the 10th District will join me in supporting Judy for the June 10th primary and in the November general election.

As someone who was at the debate in Sterling (while very impressed that my then-10-week-old baby, who has kept me from being all that active recently, would stay quiet through the whole thing), it is hard for me to see how anyone can watch that debate and not feel like Mike Turner is by far the superior candidate. I can only hope that the people who are going to vote have taken the time to watch the full debate video (if they didn't attend in person). I don't want to trash Judy Feder (although I'm about to) but I just felt like the difference was abundantly clear.

Mike Turner gave thought out answers to every question. Many of the questions asked different versions of typical questions - that is, take a prominent issue and then ask a question that takes on a different angle. Mike listened to the questions and responded to the question that was actually asked. Feder used it as an opportunity to pivot to her rehearsed talking points.

As an example, there was a question that started with the premise that the US is not graduating enough people in the field of engineering/science to support our growing need. Then the actual question was, should the US increase immigration of foreigners with such expertise. Feder didn't even try to address the question and just went on about how we need to improve education. I don't recall the actual details, but Turner actually gave a real answer regarding the actual question. It just showed me a real difference in terms of their grasp on the issues and their ability to process information.

The difference to me is one of problem solving skills. With every answer, Turner really described his problem solving prowess by first identifying the underlying problem (not just the symptom). For example, and I might get the details wrong, in a question about food shortages worldwide, Turner pointed out that increasing food production would not be an effective approach because a lack of food supply is not the problem - the problem is that the existing food isn't reaching the people who need it. This approach of really understanding the real problem and addressing that was a significant discriminator during the debate.

Also, honestly, it didn't help that Feder talked very slowly, as if explaining things to an 8-year old. It seemed like she either didn't have a deep understanding of things or that she just didn't respect my intelligence. Either way, it was thoroughly uninspiring, and I think that's part of why the voters didn't go for her last time around in 2006.

One other problem: Feder ran a terrible campaign in 2006, despite having tons of money, and I don't have any reason to believe she'll run a better one this time. For example, we received mailers from Feder every couple days. We are members of the LCDC and had a Feder yard sign up. Please don't waste money sending us mailers. We got annoyed every time we received one. And to me, a poorly run campaign is a major reason why in a year when a democratic wave crashed in congressional districts nationwide, Feder got crushed.

I volunteered for Feder's campaign in 2006 and I fully believe that Feder would be a reliable vote on most issues I care about. But I'm really not convinced she has the personality and charisma needed to oust Frank Wolf. And even if she does, then I still think we'd be settling for a lesser representative, gaining a solid vote but shortchanging ourselves of the opportunity to have a brilliant leader. Every time I have seen Mike Turner in person, I have walked away utterly convinced that he would be an ideal member of congress, the kind that actually makes a real difference.

In 2002, there was a candidate by the name of John Stevens who received a whopping 28% of the vote.  Then, a well-funded and charismatic young entrepreneur by the name of James Socas ran against Wolf in 2004, registering 36% of the vote.  And as you all know, Judy Feder ran in 2006, garnering a healthy 42% of the vote.  It's still not in winning territory.....but I heartily doubt that any candidate in 2006 would have been able to knock off Frank Wolf....and it will still be difficult in 2008!  This district indisputably is bluing, but it STILL tilts Republican.

Describing someone who received the highest percentage of votes against incumbent Wolf in more than a decade, and 14% more than four years previously, as "crushed" is simply lacking adequate historical perspective about this district.  Wolf needs to be challenged AT LEAST twice to lessen his name appeal versus a Democratic challenger's--because it DOES still tilt Republican.

Judy continued a strengthening Democratic trend in 2006 in the 10th Congressional District.  Her performance will improve again with the complete meltdown in the Republican brand in 2008.  I see no evidence that someone with a label that says "I'm more moderate" or "Blue Dog" will necessarily appeal more to the increasing number of DEMOCRATIC voters in the 10th.  And I think it's important to note that Democratic numbers are swelling, and Republican numbers are declining, not the other way around, based not only on the Congressional election returns, but on the state and local elections in the district.

Judy is perfectly electable because her message of change and common-sense solutions on health care, Iraq, and the economy will be coupled with a skilled communications and messaging team that knows how to make people amiable to what she has to say.   Frankly, Judy can afford that team and I have no doubt, will have that team.

I think everyone should support their favorite candidate and argue why they can make the best case, but let's PLEASE not engage in misrepresentation or degradation of either of our potential nominees.  Haven't we seen enough of that already?

Personally, I find Mike Turner to be a lot like Webb. Bi-partisan high-level military experience, the courage to say that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea before it started, and a message of post-partisan leadership. The fact that, in my mind, Turner's message is closer to that of Webb is what makes me think that he is more likely to win the 10th district than Feder.

(By the way, I've never heard him push the idea that he's more electable because he's more moderate, or a "blue dog", and I've never suggested that myself.)

This is largely moot, because most of us have already voted and we'll see what the results hold. So I'll just say that if Feder wins today, I don't think she can expect to run the same campaign with the same message (even if she has some more money) and expect a different result this time around. I would like to see evidence that she could run a better campaign, because, she would need one.