You are 100% wrong.

"I think it's pretty sad that a guy from Philly can serve in an illegal war, vote for Bush in 2000, move to Bucks, work as a corporate lawyer,"

Yes, we should reject people who change their minds. Only people who were in the minority should be allowed to be a part of the Democratic Party. Sounds like a winning formula to me.

"Murphy seems to me like a guy that's pretty right-of center in a lot of ways, and he could probably get along with Rick Santorum"

Can you quantify that in anyway? Or is it just a hunch? Name a stated position he has that isn't 10x better than Santorum/Fitzpatrick. I guess you might have a hunch, but you're no Sherlock Holmes.

"And, now you're sending a message to many would be candidates that instead of doing progressive organizing as a way of getting into office, they should serve in the military and then the progressive communities will rally around them if they say a few decent things later on down the road."

You must be a frog to make that many leaps. It's always good for arguments to actually have logical flow and conclusion. Too bad you make none.

I think it's pretty sad that a guy from Philly
Yeah, because there's no history of people moving from Philly to Bucks Co.

can serve in an illegal war
So, you're blaming the soldiers for this illegal war? How exactly are they to blame?

vote for Bush in 2000
Everybody makes mistakes. The key is that he, like Wes Clark and hopefully a lot of other security voters, realize now that the Republican security image is just a facade.

work as a corporate lawyer
So nobody who has worked at a corporation should run for office as a Dem? Besides that- how long did it take you to realize what you wanted to do? I'm 28 and I just realized last year what my calling was. Give me a break...

then suck all these supposedly progressive people into his ranks.
Are you calling me a sucker for supporting him? This is Young Philly Politics, so Philly rules apply. If you want to defame someone's character or their loyalty to family/city/country/god then you better be ready to say it to that person's face. I take direct personal offense to you questioning my progressive beliefs, since you don't know me in the least. I'll be in Philly at Drinking Liberally next Tuesday if you want to prove to me that you really believe what you're saying and you're not just a shit-talker.

And, can you please direct me to this wonderful progressive testing service that you are using? I thought that my progressive license was still valid, but it looks like I forgot to renew it.

It just seems as though there's a "principles gap" thats emerged between people that want to win at any cost and people that think that progressive principles are an important part of winning in the long
run.
I don't get it: Is losing a principle? Security isn't a principle? Or are you just biased against military personnel? I'm just curious which of these principles that Patrick lays out don't you find progressive?

Let me just make something clear: the security image of the Republicans is and always has been, IMO, nothing more than a myth. If crushing myths that only exist to serve the interests of the powerful isn't progressive, then I don't know what is.

My question is: okay, say Murphy wins and Fitzpatrick loses, then what?
We are one step closer to a majority in the Congress.

now you're sending a message to many would be candidates that instead of doing progressive organizing as a way of getting into office, they should serve in the military and then the progressive communities will rally around them if they say a few decent things later on down the road.
So reaching out to P4W and all the bloggers/activists who go to Drinking Liberally is a bad way to do progressive organizing? Really, are you on some sort of drug, are you just burned out, or are you a Lang Troll?

The Kerry campaign, by trying to be "strong" on security, lost large sections of the democratic party
Eh, wrong. Have you even looked at the results from the last election? Democratic turnout was reaaaallly bad, wasn't it? Actually, no, it wasn't- look it up. The huge swing in the last election was married women voters, who traditionally voted for Democrats, and who seem to have voted for the candidate that they thought would better protect them. They were irrational and stupid to think so, as Katrina proves, but politics consists in large part of perception. And for the record, IMO any "left-leaning" voter that sat out the last election is an idiot, plain and simple. Lucky for us there aren't that many stupid people in our party.

Yes, he was a "safe" candidate that excited many middle-of the road people, but he generated little enthusiasm from working families and people opposed to the war.
Tell you what- I'll meet you in Germantown and you can see the silver spoon that was in my mouth growing up. Damn, it's good not to have to work!

And, what did he do to help build a real long-term progressive movement in this country? Nothing.
LOL! You are on a site that is a direct result of the election, talking to someone who was drawn into politics as a career in the last election. I worked my ass off, like full time volunteering, trying to get Bush out of office while whiny little hacks like you hid under the covers crying about your progressive principles. So really- and I mean this in the nicest possible way- shut your friggin pie-hole and crawl back into the dimly lit cave you came from.

Any chance you can IP trace all this anti-Murphy trolling?