Our plan to recruit primary challengers against pro-war "Bush Democrats" is starting to draw howls from targeted incumbents, according to Sabrina Eaton and Stephen Koff of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer:

Matthew Thorton, a spokesman for [Rep. Zach] Space, said the bill his boss voted for would change U.S. policy in Iraq, as his constituents want.

"Congressman Space is holding the president accountable for the benchmarks that he himself has laid out so that we can return our brave men and women home as quickly as possible and not further destablize a very volatile region of the world," Thornton said.

This is an idiotic lie because the Supplemental Surrender Bill requires no change in U.S. policy and has no accountability. If Space thinks he's going to avoid a primary by lying to his constituents, he's a bigger fool than I thought.

As for Sen. [Sherrod] Brown, he said last night that he wants to support troops but will keep working on ways to end the war. Brown was attacked constantly in his Senate race last fall by then-incumbent Republican Mike DeWine for failing to "support our troops in the field." Brown of course swung back and won, and the war today is even more unpopular, but no one who follows politics can ignore that backdrop.

So where does that put him with the anti-war movement?

"I know that people are angry with him" for yesterday's vote, said Sue Udry, a spokeswoman for United for Peace and Justice, a national coalition of anti-war groups. "A lot of people in the anti-war movement endorsed him, worked for his campaign, and thought that he was going to be an advocate for ending the war in Iraq, not for continuing the war."

But she knows of no plans to protest against Brown personally.

Her coalition's leaders "realize he's got another 5-1/2 years in office, so this won't affect his reelection. But they are angry and have written him a letter about it."

Liberal blogger and author David Sirota, who has supported Brown on other issues, likewise is unhappy -- with every all 39 Senate Democrats who voted for the spending bill. Sirota will not comment on Brown specifically but told us via e-mail, "I have absolutely no idea why any U.S. Senator who says they oppose the war would vote to give George W. Bush a blank check to continue the war."

Brown's communications director, Joanna Kuebler, said, "Sen. Brown shares in the anti-war activists' anger." That is, the anger that President Bush vetoed an earlier measure that would have set a withdrawal timeline, and anger over the fact that Democrats do not have a big enough majority to override Bush's veto.

"However, Sen. Brown would not take his anger out on the troops," Kuebler said. The spending bill will provide money for four months, she said, and provide food, water and ammunition.

Brown "will not stop," Kuebler said, until he reaches his goal of ending the war.

This is another lie, because no one advocated "taking out anger on the troops." Kuebler's comments just demonstrate that Brown has consciously or unconsciously bought the insane Republican frame, that we "support the troops" by sending them to their deaths. Brown doesn't have to run again until 2012, but his constituents should make crystal-clear how they feel about the Supplemental Surrender by calling his office, writing letters to the editor, and calling local talk shows.

We obviously have a long way to go to penetrate the consciousness of "Bush Democrats." But when has hard work ever been a deterrent to progressives?