Last week, Patrick Murphy was one of ten Democrats in Congress to sign onto an anti-immigrant resolution which, among other things, states:

". . . any immigration reform proposal adopted by Congress should not legalize, grant amnesty for, or confer any other legal status condoning the otherwise unlawful entry or presence in the United
States of any individual."

I’ve admired Congressman Murphy’s fight for quality health care reform, his stand on the hopefully soon-to-be-defunct “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy and a general can-do attitude of a younger member of Congress. On his website, he even lists immigration as a constituent service, which I initially thought was encouraging and an indication that the issue was an important one for him.

In 2006, Patrick Murphy ran on a platform that notably opposed legalization, so some might argue that the guy is the type that sticks to his guns. On the other hand, things have changed since 2006 when anti-immigrant rhetoric was reaching its peak. I had hoped he wouldn't be the kind of guy Stephen Colbert described as believing "the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday."

Polls show a significant majority of Americans support immigration reform that includes some form of legalization. Political candidates who seek to run on primarily anti-immigrant rhetoric largely fail to win office.

I cannot fathom why anyone who’s young, progressive and looking for a bright political future – especially because he represents Philadelphia and Bucks and Montgomery counties – thinks it’s advantageous to sign onto a resolution that’s not only dopey (invoking "peace, prosperity, liberty and national security") but backwards socially and politically.

For one thing, if the Congressman opposes legalization, what exactly is his solution for the millions of immigrants who are here and the tens of thousands of immigrants in and around the Philadelphia area? mass deportation? indefinite detention? A notice that says: Please go away?

Wednesday night's Philly For Change Meetup offers a chance to meet, talk to, and show your support for an important leader working on a huge Civil Rights issue as Congressman and Iraq War vet Patrick Murphy stops by to discuss the legislation he's sponsoring to end the nation's bigoted Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy.

State Senator and Appropriations Committee member Larry Farnese explains the biggest local issue of the moment -- the State Budget -- from the inside and answer questions about what we can do the get the best possible State Budget.

That other huge issue -- Health Care Reform -- gets an update from Health Care for America Now's (and YPP's) Marc Stier, who'll discuss Thursday's big event and plot the preservation of the public option and what we can do to help get it to the finish line.

I like Patrick Murphy, Philly and Bucks County's young Congressman. He seems fairly responsive and upfront, he has a good personal story, he is likable, and many people think at some point, he will run for higher office. But he should be careful, because if the Congressman is ever going to be able to re-engage progressives on a level that he achieved in his 2006 election win, the time is coming for him to pick sides.

What I am I talking about? His membership in the so-called Blue Dog caucus.

The Blue Dogs are, in theory, simply supposed to be fiscally conservative Democrats. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But the reality is much, much different. What they really do is frequently kill or water down good actual progressive legislation, usually with the needs of big business in mind. So, despite the fact of of our impending global catastrophe, they made the climate change bill a weak, almost do-nothing, embarrassment. But they did it with a smile, and by calling themselves moderate.

And now, they have their hands around the neck of health care reform, and are squeezing as tight as they can to make good bills into bad ones.

How?

As a first example, the House suggested that we pay for health care by taxing the wealthy. This would not only make the healthcare plan deficit neutral, it would make the plan actually produce a surplus. So, if you are primarily concerned about deficits, as the Blue Dogs supposedly are, you would like that, right?

But, what if you are really concerned with helping high income earners, or big business at the expense of others? Then no, you don't like that option. So instead, the Blue Dogs effectively proposed a middle class tax increase, and that the government should insure less lower income people. Again, effect on the deficit: the same. But to the Blue Dogs, helping less people, and taxing more from the middle class? A good day's work.

As a second example, the Blue Dogs have been trying to oppose a real public option for universal healthcare. As most people know, a real public option is crucially important to achieve real reform, and not to simply fatten the coffers of the insurance companies. It is also supported by a large majority of the country. But still, the Blue Dogs persist.

Oh, and on a completely unrelated note, there is this:

The Blue Dog's political action committee has collected $1.1 million in the first six months of the year -- more than any other political action committee, according to CQ. (Subscription required.) Nearly 54% came from the energy, financial services and health care industries, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity. That's up from 45% in 2004. The center's reporting appeared in Politico.

Right now, the biggest obstacle to universal healthcare for all Americans, paid for in a sane way, is not the GOP. It is the Blue Dogs. Which brings me back to Patrick Murphy...

Yes, on occasion, Rep. Murphy has said he disagrees with his own caucus, including on the public option. And he is doing some good stuff- like picking up the mantle on "Don't ask, don't tell." But at some point, the fact that he caucuses with- and therefore lends power to- a group that has stood against a real climate change bill, real mortgage reform, real financial oversight, and that is now slow walking health care to its doom, matters.

At some point, Patrick Murphy has to pick sides. He can have it both ways for only so long...

A bunch has happened over the past few days. Let's start with a poll from Research2000/DailyKos, of the 2010 PA Senate race, which shows Arlen Specter as pretty vulnerable, in the primary to uber-nut Pat Toomey and in the general, as well.

Primary:
Specter (R) 43
Toomey (R) 28
Undecided 29

General:
Specter (R) 45
Matthews (D) 44

Specter (R) 48
Murphy (D) 36

Specter (R) 49
Schwartz (D) 35

Toomey (R) 35
Matthews (D) 46

Toomey (R) 36
Murphy (D) 44

Toomey (R) 36
Schwartz (D) 42

In other words, let's go Pat Toomey!

I am not particularly thrilled with Schwartz, Patrick Murphy or Chris Matthews as the Democratic candidate. Schwartz does things like vote for the bankruptcy bill and the Patriot Act, part deux. I just don't see her winning, nor being a very good Senator. I think she will run a centrist, quiet campaign against a guy who is perceived as very centrist and is liked. So, why then will they vote to replace the guy they know? Unless there are strong, clear contrasts, Specter will win, period.

And Patrick Murphy, who I would certainly favor amongst this group, has made some pretty bad votes in the House over the last year.

I would like better choices. How about Kathleen McGinty, for example, who was considered for the head of the EPA by Obama? She just pulled herself out of the running for the EPA due to family issues, so, she may not be particularly interested. But if she ran, not only could we get the first female Senator from PA, but we would have someone who would instantly be the Senate's top expert on the environment and renewable energy.

(The same poll shows the Democratic primary very close.)

It is easy to get upset and frustrated when we lose important fights in Congress, especially after working so hard in 2006 to win us a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate. We shouldn't forget that some of the people we fought hard for and gave money for have our backs now. The lesson of 2007 is that we need to fight even harder to keep the Representatives who have done good by us get more good people in Congress who share our values who have courage, integrity and honor, who will step up and speak for the American people, our troops and take seriously their oath to defend the Constitution. As kos wrote, "This is it. This is the way to change our party."