The liberal netroots has had considerable success persuading, cajoling, and shaming Democratic politicians into taking reasonable positions on numerous issues in the last few years.  These Democrats have been particularly vulnerable to phone calls and letters from constituents within their home districts.  In many cases, the Democratic politician in question hesitated from taking a stand on a particular issue because they feared they would be hurt with voters back home.  In other cases, these Dems were on the wrong side of an issue in order to please donors or adhere to the status quo.  Whatever the case, wayward Democrats have been willing to change their stance when subjected to a persistent netroots campaign within their respective district.

The question must now be asked: can the same be done with House Republicans?

First, it was the stem cell bill.  This week, it was Bernie Sanders' amendment to the Patriot Act.  Congressional Republicans are clearly antsy with the Bush agenda and liberal activists need to figure out how to both support these Rebellious Republicans and exploit the fissures they are creating within Bush's Party.  After all, the last time House Republicans showed signs of being this independent, the netroots didn't even exist.  For the first time, Republicans seem willing to listen.  How can we get to them?

There would need to be several prongs to the attack:

1. Identify and Reward Rebellious Republicans - with most Washington Democrats united against the White House, the cluster of Republicans who oppose President Bush's policies can be easily identified in a tight vote.  These Republicans should be rewarded with calls and letters from constituents within their district.  Moreover, we should examine why they voted against the President.  What themes and language can be used to persuade these and other wobbly Republicans the next time the issue arises?

2. Identify the Issues - the Rebellious Republicans who backed Bernie Sanders' amendment to the Patriot Act joined with liberal privacy-conscious Democrats in order to "limit government intrusion."  This language is a throwback to the post-Waco days when militia leaders hung out on Capital Hill with Newt Gingrich.  We need to praise the Republicans who support "keeping the ATF away from our gun racks" and shame those who do not.  The word "privacy" may be all tied up with abortion and gay rights issues these days, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.  How can we pinpoint the issues House and Senate Republicans are most willing to turn against Bush on and concentrate our fire?

3. ID Vulnerable Republicans - this may be the biggest challenge.  Having praised Rebellious Republicans and determined which issues they're most likely to support, we need to figure out which wobbly pro-Bush holdouts are most likely to heed the call of their constituents.  Perhaps the Congressman in question is from a particularly depressed district or has shown flashes of independence on other issues.  Perhaps a popular Republican "maverick" resides in a nearby district.  Whatever his or her vulnerability, they should be ID'd and targeted.  They need to get phone calls asking why they aren't standing with other Rebellious Republicans on the issue at hand.

The point of this entry is that the liberal netroots may be entering a new phase of influence.  In the past, House Republicans were so squarely in Bush's pocket that attempting to pressure them was pointless.  This is no longer the case.  With Democrats showing unprecedented unity, Rebellious Republicans have become the most important political class in Washington.  What can we do to control them?