Marsh says:

But last night Mr. Reid sealed the deal in his refusal to act only through the "process" of legislation on the war. It makes him responsible for the war, because he is willingly allowing it to continue. It's called complicity, because by his very inaction he is choosing. Sweet words of calm delivery and his soothing cadence cannot hide this fact. Unfortunately, he has also doomed Democrats on Iraq, because the American people have spoken and the House can't do anything without him.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding of how defunding can work. To enact any piece of legislation to defund the war, the following must occur. It must be passed by the House and Senate, and signed by the President OR approved by 2/3 of the House and Senate. I believe it is absurd to believe that either of these things will happen.

So how come I am so stridently for defunding? How would it work? I have had this to say about that before:

I want to address the central defense presented for Obama's opposition to defunding the Iraq Debacle, that legislative realities make it impossible. To wit:

. . . In the Senate you still need 60 votes. . .

Indeed, count up to 67 to overcome a Bush veto. And this is precisely why Obama is full of it on this. NO LEGISLATION ending the Iraq Debacle can overcome this reality. That is why Obama's proposal, Murtha's proposal, Sestak's proposal, etc. are all bullspit. I am for defunding the war because it requires precisely NO passage of any laws, rather the ensuring that no laws are passed that fund the Iraq Debacle. The defunding bar is in fact the lowest we can hurdle, and thus the one REALISTIC proposal for ending the Iraq Debacle.

Defunding is a plan to do nothing on funding Iraq after a date certain. Taylor Marsh misunderstands this it seems to me. Reid need not do anything. Pelosi is the person to look for.

And what she needs to is ANNOUNCE the defunding date ahead of time in order to explain this to the American People. And that is where the Progressive Caucus comes in:

Okay, here are some more signs that the House Dem leadership is facing a backstage challenge from its liberal members over its plan to confront the White House over its request for more funds for the war.

I've just learned that Dem Reps. Barbara Lee, Jerrold Nadler, Maurice Hinchey and other key members of the House Dems' progressive caucus are planning to send out tonight a "dear colleague" letter to other members that will seek to build support among colleagues for an alternate approach to the one being pushed by the House leadership.

The alternate approach originated with Lee, who's also a member of the Out of Iraq caucus and who is proposing an amendment to the House leadership's current plan. The amendment would only allow financing to protect American troops in Iraq pending a full pull-out according to an established timetable. The idea would be to frame the proposal as "fully funding withdrawal," rather than as defunding the war effort. While some of these ideas have been made public, the new plan to start seriously rounding up support has not.

This alternate approach has the backing of a number of key House progressives, all of whom are expected to sign the letter.

This is on the heels of these developments:

About 30 members of the Out of Iraq Caucus met Thursday to plot strategy. They warned that they might vote against any supplemental bill that did not more strictly limit the president’s options, a vote that could prove embarrassing for a Democratic leadership trying to preserve a fragile majority. “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.”

It is the House that will end the war, not the Senate. And understand this is about ending the war, not identifying primary targets, as Stoller seems to think:

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.

The threat of a primary is not the goal - ending the Debacle is. I think Matt knows this and perhaps his language is intended to exert maximum pressure.

In any event, the Murtha Plan is not the line in the sand, it is only a first step. The Progressive Caucus' plan is more ambitious clearly. And thanks to them for that.