Evan Bayh announces NEW MODERATE COALITION of 15 Senate Dems

[polichick]

Just made the announcement on Morning Joe, Bayh's neighborhood pal. (They go to Starbucks together.)

These more conservative Dems want "practical" solutions ~ according to the panel, the President and leaders will have to deal with them on things like taxes, cap and trade and health care.

[spanone]

1. yea, and joe scum was licking his chops....a more 'conservative' voice

[polichick]

4. It was sickening to watch - both Joe and Bayh. "Obstructionist" is the word...

...that came to mind.

[waiting for hope]

2. Crap - like we need anymore of these

"conservative Dems" banding together. Why not just switch parties?

[MADem]

6. And lose the ability to set the agenda? Become the minority party?

No thanks.

[waiting for hope]

21. At what point does being the majority

help if the members are not in agreement over core Democratic party issues?

[MADem]

25. Because if we are the majority, WE get to decide to vote on the STEM CELL BILL instead of the

INTELLIGENT DESIGN bill.

We set the agenda. We decide what legislation is voted on, and what legislation never sees the light of day. We control the committees, and decide what committees should hold hearings about issues. Do we want to talk about children's health issues, or steroids in baseball? What's important to you?

You aren't serious, are you? Having the majority is crucial to making good law. And it doesn't matter if everyone isn't in lockstep. Everyone on our side of the fence, as an aggregate, are better than everyone on their side of the fence.

You can't always get everything you want. Does that mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[waiting for hope]

44. Whoa - I guess you are okay with

having several little Joe Lieberbutt wannabees running around - again, how helpful is being in the majority if there are those within the party that do nothing but undermine the very things you mentioned?

Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot

~Snip~

That a Democratic Congress is so deeply unpopular even among Democrats may be historically unusual, but it is hardly surprising or difficult to understand. On key issue after key issue, it is the Bush White House and Republican caucus that have received virtually everything they wanted from Congress, while the base of the Democratic Party has received virtually nothing other than disappointment and an overt repudiation of its agenda. Since the American people gave them control of Congress, the Democrats in Congress have given the country the following:

Unlimited and unconditional funding for the Iraq war. Vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and retroactive amnesty for their telecom donors -- measures the administration tried, but failed, to obtain from the GOP Congress. The ability to ignore congressional subpoenas with utter impunity. A resolution formally decreeing parts of the Iranian government to be a "terrorist organization." A failure to outlaw waterboarding, to apply the torture ban to the CIA, to restore the habeas corpus rights abolished by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, to impose the requirement of congressional approval before President Bush can attack Iran. Confirmation of highly controversial Bush nominees, including Michael Mukasey as attorney general even after he embraced the most radical Bush theories of executive power and repeatedly refused to say that waterboarding was torture.

~Snip~

If simply voting for more Democrats will achieve nothing in the way of meaningful change, what, if anything, will? At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course: 1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to -- or actively embrace -- the right's agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and 2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative "Blue Dog" contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress.

Meet Your New Blue Dog Overlords

By: Jane Hamsher Thursday January 29, 2009 9:30 am

Of the twenty-seven Democrats who voted with the Republicans to oppose Obama's stimulus bill, twenty-one were Blue Dogs:

But according to Democratic leadership sources, the number was almost much higher – and could have been high enough to hand the Republicans a monumental victory – had it not been for a letter from President Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag.

The letter addressed to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David promised to return to “pay-as-you-go budgeting,” and stressed that the stimulus was an “extraordinary response to an extraordinary process” and thus subject to different rules.

“It should not be seen as an opportunity to abandon the fiscal discipline that we owe each and every taxpayer in spending their money – and that is critical to keeping the United States strong in a global, interdependent economy,” the letter stated.

Orszag also emphasized that Obama’s support for paying for any temporary tax cuts in the stimulus that he would like to make permanent. The budget director said Obama would detail those offsets in his budget.

“Moving forward, we need to return to the fiscal responsibility and pay-as-you-go budgeting that we had in the 1990’s for all non-emergency measures,” Orszag continued. “The President and his economic team look forward to working with the Congress to develop budget enforcement rules that are based on the tools that helped create the surpluses of a decade ago.

A commitment to "paygo" right now is problematic for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that it could doom any meaningful healthcare legislation. But the fact that Obama was forced to kneel to Blue Dog demands is as clear an example as I can think of about something we've been saying for a long time -- the Blue Dogs now hold the power in the House to either join with Republicans or Democrats and control what legislation gets passed. If eight more Blue Dogs had crossed over and voted against the bill, it would have failed.

In the Chris Bowers/Nate Silver discussion about whether supporting the bank bailout bill was the progressive position or not, Chris brought up the fact that there was a distinction between the members of the conservative New Democrat Coalition and the Blue Dogs and how they voted. Kagro made a very interesting point in the comments:

One ideological difference between Blue Dogs and New Dems is that Blue Dogs more often appear to have a political interest in being seen as distinct from Democrats rather than being a distinct type of Democrat, as is the claim of New Dems.

New Dems and Progressives have a political interest (at least at this stage of the game) in allowing themselves to be closely associated with the Obama administration, and in being seen not to be obstructing it. Blue Dogs, however, are a different story. They will, in large part, benefit politically by distancing themselves, and being seen as only skeptical, cautious and hesitant participants in his plans.

In other words, it wasn't so much that the bailout is a progressive thing as it was that not opposing Obama is politically beneficial to most progressives. It's also an old (and not that good) habit of progressives -- to allow their safe seats and sense of responsibility for sustaining the Democratic leadership (both legislative and executive) to be leveraged into votes that may not necessarily be in line with their principles. Or at least to subsume their ideological principles to their political ones.

You'll recognize it as the "where else are they gonna go" syndrome. Or in this case, the "you're not really going to make your new president and leadership risk XYZ, are you?" syndrome.

~Snip~

Making the Blue Dogs pay a price for this kind of sabotage is why we formed Accountability Now and launched the Primary project, and we'll be having some major announcements about this in the coming weeks. But is important to note that if left unchecked, the Blue Dogs could become a bigger obstacle than the Republicans to the change people voted for in November.

If this is to be a pattern, then I see a very hard road to passing legislation on issues that matter to the American people, like Health Care, job creation based on a Green Energy plan - Blue Dogs are another example on how this country is moving to a one party state, with all the ideological bells and whistles.

[MADem]

87. Are you always this dramatic? And a bunch of little Joe Liebermans wouldn't be the worst thing in

the world, frankly. It's by no means the BEST thing, but it beats the hell out of a bunch of little Bill Frists.

He has a blind spot about a few issues, I disagree with him vehemently on some things, but he's a social liberal in MANY areas, and that hits some buttons for me. Check his entire voting record before you cry to me about the sky falling. Lieberman, on most things, is more liberal than Bayh. On some things he's more liberal than Obama-touter and Obama campaign buddy Casey. He's more liberal on somee things than Jim Webb.

In fact, on many issues, he and Barack Obama are in lockstep. They weren't paired as Mentor and Protoge simply because they pulled names out of a hat--they are in ideological accord in many ways and are fond of one another. It's why Obama 'took Joe back' even after his grand betrayal of endorsing McCain.


I don't know what you want, really. This coalition has formed because it CAN, you see. They're consolidating their efforts and resources to make their voices heard. The progressives should note their discipline, and try doing likewise every so often instead of sitting on their hands, not speaking out, not putting their best voices (as opposed to their flakiest voices) out front, and engaging the issues on the merits instead of squawking perpetually and ineffectively. It's how sausage is made up on the HIll--but the progressives are all vegans and don't seem to get the process.

Those Blue Dogs aren't gonna fuck with the issues that are sincerely near and dear to Obama's heart. The ones that campaigned for him, and there are MANY, certainly not. What they might do, though, is give Obama the Closet Centrist some cover with the progressive crowd, who still believe he's more to the left than he actually is, refuse to acknowledge that his views on Afghanistan are long-held (and he's not being "forced" to do anything there), and who are are clamoring for stuff Obama never promised and isn't going to deliver, so Obama can give you a nudge and a wink, and say "Yeah, I was with ya, but those darned Blue Dawgs, ya know...."

See, he's not going to TELL you "Where are ya gonna go?" That would hurt your feelings. He doesn't want to hurt your feelings. He wants you to vote for him in four years' time.

But the result will be the same. You'll continue to regard Obama as a more progressive element than he actually is, pitted against Blue Dog elements who would betray him if they could. Obama, then, will be free to prosecute a centrist agenda, using these guys to cover his tracks. The benefit for the Blue Dogs? If things go squirrely, they've got an "out."

The Blue Dogs who "need" to vote against legislation favored by the President, because their constituencies will fire them if they don't, will be allowed to, after the votes are counted and the measure will pass even without those votes (like the stimulus package). LBJ knew how to count votes as Majority Leader, and Harry Reid does, too. They'll get permission first, though. Otherwise, they'll be on their own come reelection time, and they'd better have fat PACS because the national committee ain't gonna help 'em.

This is reality. Don't shoot the messenger.

[waiting for hope]

93. I didn't say one word about Obama - nor

did I criticize or even suggest he is progressive. Projecting much? But the campaign of Hope and Change meant Health Care for all, green jobs and taking back the promise of America (and please feel free to add any other promises) and that will be difficult with more conservative Dems who vote more ideologically as the Republicans have been doing for years. All I did was voice my displeasure over having more conservative dems in Congress - I am not the only one that thinks this, read the replies in this thread. As for what I want, a Democratic Congress with a bit more backbone in regards to what the party used to stand for. As I said earlier, why are they not Republicans? And calling me dramatic? Please, two articles from leftist journalist has your panties in a twist? Maybe it's this type of acceptance of "reality" is that has keep this country from making any real progress.

[MADem]

101. I didn't "accuse" you of that. I didn't even suggest that you did that.

I was simply laying out a little cause and effect and a bit of fact-based analysis. If anyone's "panties" are in a "twist" I fear they're your own. It's kind of funny that you ask "Project much?" when you're projecting a basic analysis I've made onto YOURSELF, when I never suggested these were YOUR views. Clearly, I know where you're coming from.

I do know, though, that you're unhappy with the present course of events, and that's as far as I'll take it with you.

But see, I'm not surprised or upset by all of this. It's quite logical, and for those who REALLY listened to Obama during the campaign, it's not a shock, either. People didn't believe it when others said "There's barely a hair of difference between BHO and HRC" because they didn't like the idea that BHO had a similar, pragmatic agenda. But he does, and he didn't keep it a secret, if only people listened to the policy speeches, and not just those bullshit stadium rallies where nothing except campaign slogans and generic bullshit was said and you couldn't hear it anyway over the sobbing, screaming, and teeny-bopper bullshit.

Why in the world did you think I was suggesting you were "criticizing" Obama?

I tell you the sky is blue, and you insist that there's an agenda behind it? Or that I "suggested" that you thought the sky was red?

It's why discussion is difficult on this forum at times.

The "Campaign of Hope and Change" meant this: Let's HOPE this guy is better than Bush, and if he's elected, it will be a CHANGE from Bush.

It did NOT mean a whole load of flower power and swords into plowshares, and Obama never, ever said that it would go down like that. He didn't say "health care for all"--he said "More people will be covered" and it would be "affordable." He did, like every candidate, advocate more green jobs (while not shutting the door on "clean" coal because he got money from those guys). He continues to advocate a strong and vigorous defense--he's not going to shut down DOD's adventures abroad, and any assets coming out of Iraq will, after R and R, head for Afghanistan in a more leisurely rotation.

"Taking back the promise of America" can mean whatever you want it to mean. It's why all that stuff went over so well with people who were sick of Bush. They painted their OWN desires upon this candidate, they didn't listen to his speeches, particularly the substantive policy speeches, and if they did, they glossed over the shit they didn't like, and convinced themselves that "He doesn't mean it, he's only saying that to get elected."

I'd say don't shoot the messenger but you're taking this way too personally. I am disagreeing with your assessment of the situation, and just because my view isn't "popular" doesn't mean it's not viable.

And, FWIW, I think President Obama's doing a fine job, and I also think these Blue Dogs are going to be a big help to him. They're going to be the "reasonable" conservatives, the ones who will accomodate the President for the good of the nation, because the GOP has abdicated that position. It's Clintonian, this business--it's third-party triangulation, and it's a neat trick.

[waiting for hope]

103. I don't see it that way - and once again,

I'm asking the question, how does being in the majority help in the Senate if there is to be a coalition within the ranks that is going to oppose legislation that the Obama adminstration wants to put through? You seem to have a crystal ball here, and alluding to a "grand master plan" that the Blue Dogs are going to work with Obama. I don't think that's going to happen:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/dem-centrists-plot-to-ham_n_176279.html">Dem 'Centrists' Plot To Push Back On Obama Agenda

Roll Call reports (subscription required) that a group of centrist Senate Democrats are working to block parts of President Obama's agenda. As Obama and Democratic leaders consider using a budget rule to bypass Republican filibusters, some in the party are not going along.

A bloc of Senate Democratic moderates is quietly maneuvering to keep open the option of vetoing two of President Barack Obama's most ambitious agenda items this year -- climate change and health care reform.

Eight Democrats who want to water down new climate change legislation have already joined with Republicans and signed a letter opposing any attempt to use fast-track budget rules to prevent filibusters. Many of the same Democrats also oppose using those budget rules to prevent filibusters of health care legislation.

Democrats aim to use a budget reconciliation rule to make some key proposals easier to pass. Under reconciliation, only 51 votes are needed to end debate and force a final vote, instead of 60.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) are among the eight Democrats who signed the letter opposing reconciliation. Republicans are on their side, claiming the move would break Obama's bipartisan pledge.

"That's absolutely a concern of a lot of people," Lincoln said. "We need everyone in the room. It needs to be done in a bipartisan way."

~Snip~

How you can see this is a good thing is beyond me.

[MADem]

138. Your premise is false, though. That coalition is not going to oppose ALL legislation Obama proposes

That's why the word "PARTS" was used. As in "parts of Obama's agenda."

And without a Democratic majority, Obama can "propose" until the cows come home, but said legislation never gets to the floor for a vote.

Having the majority is EVERYTHING. It is what makes all things possible. Not having it makes NOTHING possible. That's the point you are not grasping.

Your glass is half empty, and you're knocking it over because you can't have it all your way.

The fact is that not all Democrats are ultra-liberal progressives. It's a big tent. You need to deal with that, and understand that the agenda that you have in YOUR corner of the Democratic Party is not shared by everyone who belongs to the party and who contributes to candidates and who supports most of the planks in the national platform. There are centrist Democrats, moderates who lean this way or that on specific issues, and conservative Democrats. It's the rare Democrat who is ideologically consistent, always leaning left into the wind. Speaking of wind, even Ted Kennedy, "liberal lion," managed to find something he did not like about wind power....and what was that? That the windmills would obstruct the view from the famous "Kennedy compound." See, where you stand depends on where you sit--or where you spend your summers and go sailing. Never mind that they'd provide affordable power to his neighbors from Sandwich to Provincetown....see--NO ONE is "perfect." Not even Dennis "Let Me Flip Flop on the issue of Choice" Kucinich. He sure managed to change his mind on that "firmly held" view when it became clear that his ass was on the street if he didn't (much like prochoice Poppy Bush managed to go the other way).

People make decisions based not just on their personal ethics, but on their personal desires, pressures from constituents, AND their wish to get reelected. It's why people place themselves in these liberal/moderate/conservative camps--because they are responding to their constituencies and behaving pragmatically.

It may not be a "good thing" but it IS. Look, it's a BETTER THING than having a GOP majority running the joint, and if I can't make that clear to you, I give up. Your attitude is "My way or the highway." You're going to be disappointed. THAT's all I am saying.

No shooting the messenger--this is just how it is. And I continue to think that some elements of that more conservative bloc will be running interference for Obama, who is more of a centrist than many here choose to believe.

[waiting for hope]

146. Keep believing your Straw Man -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8269478

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5281639

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x285488

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5279677

And I'm not failing to grasp anything here - and if this is your answer to my question:

"Having the majority is EVERYTHING. It is what makes all things possible. Not having it makes NOTHING possible. That's the point you are not grasping."

You are really delusional to think that anything will happen - votes is what is needed, 60 to be exact. How on earth did the republicans get so many bills pushed through when they were the majority? My displeasure here is toward Congress - I would love to see Obama's agenda (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/) result in actual legislation that is passed into law and have him be successful. Good luck with your pipe dream and your definition of glass half full - and you do not know me at all - so defining me is a waste of time.

[MADem]

147. You can call it a straw man all you want, but the number of links you're putting up there prove MY

point. The "poutrage" from the left, as demonstrated in those posts, over this is focused on BAYH, not Obama. And Bayh doesn't give a flying fuck about the far left--they don't like him, they've never liked him, they never will like him. He's never needed them to keep his seat. For these reasons, he's the perfect guy to run interference for The Big O.

All of those links whine about how Bayh "won't tell" who's on the working group. Gee, maybe he was waiting for them to make their own announcements? Perhaps some of the working group "attendees" aren't yet sure they want to join? How dare they mull this over before they commit!! The nerve of them!

The "list" as it were, is more or less out.... http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/18/bayhs-four-secret-sens/

And included in that group (cue the cognitive dissonance) is Claire McCaskill, Obama's earliest female supporter from the Senate, tireless and vocal campaign champion, his "go to gal" for over a hundred media availabilities during his campaign, and member of his campaign team. And, like Bayh, one of Obama's short-listed VP prospects who went through full vetting.

Jeanne Shaheen, the Obama champion from NH, is in that bunch too...oops, how did THAT happen? And while she's in this group, she continues to praise Obama in fulsome fashion: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_03_16_Shaheen_praises_Obama_plan_to_aid_small_businesses/

Along with these folks:

Tom Carper of Delaware and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas will lead the group with Bayh. Other members include Michael Bennet of Colorado, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Udall of Colorado, and Mark Warner of Virginia. Independent supporter Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John McCain's former constant companion, is also on board.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+DiStaso's+Granite+Status%3A+Shaheen+part+of+moderate+Democrats&articleId=b94c44f7-e88e-4050-a48c-f890b661a9ac

FWIW, the conservatives are griping that this crowd isn't "conservative enough." See, get 'em all carping at this crew, and Obama is freed to do the business of government without having to deal with a lot of whining.



I've further articulated my views here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5286755&mesg_id=5288137

And no, I'm not "delusional." And these aren't "pipe dreams"--they're HAPPENING, a fact you continue to fail to appreciate. FWIW--Names will never hurt me, ya know...!

I've been around the block a time or two. I think Obama's a genius. For example, he's gotten you all bullshit at Bayh--and while you're bullshit at Bayh (and shooting the messenger as well), you're not bullshit at him, now, are you? He can move forward with an agenda that meets needs on the left AND right, and he can keep the far left "on the team," as it were, by giving them a Mean Old Boogeyman in the form of Bayh to bellow about. I guess the unrealistic "Rahm Emmanuel is FORCING Obama to do stuff" meme had about run its course (when Obama didn't say "Ah ha! You're a BAD man!" and fire him, or whatever). Consequently, enter a new team of likely targets, all of whom don't rely on the Far Left to retain their seats, and who can take the hits from the people who still believe that Obama is more liberal than he actually is. If Obama is lucky, hopefully this crew will be able to deflect the fire from the President for a few months, anyway.

Obama's having his cake and eating it too--and paving the way for a second term with a massive majority, if he can continue to run the ball down the middle--it's sheer genius.

And while he does this, you can continue to stay pissed at Bayh...and me, too, for pointing out what is obvious to anyone who stands back a few feet and looks at the whole picture.

:hi:

[waiting for hope]

151. Wow - once again -

How is any legislation that is put on the Senate floor going to pass without the required 60 votes? The purpose of my links wasn't to show any "leftist outrage" but how that being in the majority will not matter if there is a group of 15 Conservative Dems that are not going to play nice. You are reading way more into the situation - more so than any response I provided. You infer that I am pissed - I voiced my displeasure over having more conservative Dems - as many here have done as well. In 2008, Congress had the lowest approval rate and was dubbed the "Do Nothing" Congress - take a look at how many bills that the House put through (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/index.asp)and that died in the Senate. 60 VOTES. That was the entire purpose here - 60 Votes. If you don't get that, than forget it.

[MADem]

152. Consensus, my dear, consensus. And deal-making, like has happened for centuries.

You are still suggesting that NO legislation will be passed, and that's not true.

Quid pro quo, like always. I'll give you a little something, in suitable amounts relative to your "clout" on this floor, and you will go along with what I want...and just to make sure you don't screw me, we'll marry these two unrelated pieces of legislation together.

"We must hang together, or we will hang separately," as Franklin said.

And on the stuff that matters, that Obama wants, or ELSE, Reid can, with the DNC cash coffers as leverage, enforce party discipline--"working group" or no "working group."

I'm afraid the fifteen you're crying about are not all conservatives. They're also, many of them, FOOs--Friends of Obama.

I think you're overreacting. I think you're also not real familiar with how the sausage is made up there on the Hill, either.

:hi:

[waiting for hope]

155. I give up - and I do know how sausage is

made on the hill - and that it took three republicans to break from their party to get the Stimulus Bill passed. And as for the FOO, as you stated earlier, if it's not going to pass mustard with their constituency, then they are not going to vote with the Dems. Good luck with the 60 vote thing, I sure wish I had your crystal ball.

[MADem]

163. But it WILL pass "muster" you see--with consensus and compromise.

That's how that sausage is made.

You seem to think Obama is more liberal than he is, and you also seem to think that he can stomp his foot and have 'your' way.

That's not how it works.

You're not going to get that, but Obama is going to be able to get most of what he wants, and strut up the middle while so doing.

[polichick]

167. We can't afford to compromise on the environment anymore - some of...

...these guys will try to sink the President's global warming initiatives in support of dirty coal, etc.

Dems need to make plenty of calls and let them know that they'll be targeted in the next election if they obstruct the people's agenda.

[MADem]

168. And there's where the GOP might surprise you.

Check out the New Republicans, the Meghan McCain style "crunchy cons."

They're ENVIRONMENTALISTS. They like organic food, clean air, clean water, wind power, Birkenstocks...they're frigging hippies. They like their pot with their low taxes, strong defense, prayer in schools, and "no death tax."

People forget, this is not a Dem issue alone--Richard Nixon signed the EARTH DAY legislation. Richard Nixon started the EPA. Richard Frigging Nixon cleaned up Love Canal and started the Superfund.

There are a few of them on the GOP side in the House and Senate.

See, consensus and compromise.

Two big conservationists are the GOP Senators from Maine...which has chunks of their biggest county (which are bigger than some of our STATES) that are given over to conserving and preserving the land.

A lot of the coal states have a lot of Democratic representation--it's just not a D v. R issue. It's a "coal is our livelihood" v. "we don't care, we don't like it" issue. You've got to give those miners something else to do. You can't just take away their jobs and tell them to eat coal ash. Obama does get that, although he's beholden to the coal industry as well, which is why he wants to try to make the impossible (clean coal) possible. If they can pull it off, more power to them. Maybe they've got some technology up their sleeves...

[polichick]

170. I'm talking about Bayh's group - I've let my Dem coal state senator know...

...that I'll work to unseat him if he puts dirty coal over the citizens of this state, the country and the world.

There's no such thing as clean coal, and President Obama knows it ~ that's why it was safe to support it.

[MADem]

173. His group aren't the only ones voting on the issue, though.

i've got no clue how Jeanne Shaheen feels on the issue, or many others in that group. One of the fence-sitters, Casey, is from a coal state so you can figure out how he'll roll.

The point I am making is this--don't assume that these guys can join with a GOP minority and make environmental nefariousness happen. The GOP is more diverse on this issue than you realize. They aren't going to be lockstep on this subject.

[polichick]

174. Casey is the senator I'll work against if I have to - unfortunately very few...

Republicans vote with us on environmental issues ~ which is why Bayh's group is such a low blow.

[MADem]

175. I have been sounding the alarm on what the GOP is doing....

...and it's important for our party to not sit on our asses and rest on our laurels.

Bobby Jindal is no accident. Neither is Michael Steele. Neither is Republicans for Environmental Protection which is a growing organization populated with crunchy cons and politicians who identify with them: http://www.rep.org/

The number of GOP voting in a pro-environmental fashion is growing daily. And GOP are abandoning many of those neanderthal issues and heading back towards the 'rock rib' philosophy of yore.

While everyone's pointing and laughing at Rush Limbaugh, these REP guys are the guys who are sneaking up behind us. The GOP is getting ready to do a flip the size of the Southern Strategy. And we could, if we're not careful, alert and aware, end up with a handful of our own ass from sitting on 'em, if we don't get up off of that thing and be proactive.

[polichick]

177. Don't you see the Bayh group as a threat to the President's agenda - to the people's agenda?

[waiting for hope]

179. Good luck with your argument -

:)

[polichick]

180. Thanks! Kinda hard for me to see this Bayh group as a good thing. :)

[polichick]

199. Okay, I give up - sounds like Bayh himself! lol

[waiting for hope]

201. Good try though ...

60 Votes ... that's all that's needed, 60 fraking votes. I don't see this gang of 15 helping with that. :(

[MADem]

182. Nope. Not in the SLIGHTEST.

I see them as running interference for Obama on the right, AND, at the same time, providing a target for people like you who can't see what they are plainly doing. I mean, really--look at the makeup of that group. Do you know how many of them busted ASS getting Obama elected? And you're trying to tell me that now, magically, after all that work, they're imbued with mendacity against the very guy they worked their fingers to the bone to see in the White House?

They aren't dire enemies. They're his "peeps." They'll be the ones who tut-tut and nod to those on the right, and tell them that they "feel their pain." And they're taking the hits for him from people like you, who wouldn't vote for them anyway, most likely. And, they're playing the role of the boogieman for people like you, too, so you can "blame" them instead of Obama.

That way, he hangs on to your vote, and he's not saying to you "Well, where ya gonna go?"

That's loyalty! And it's some of the best triangulation I've seen in eight years.

[polichick]

184. "can't see what they are plainly doing?" - so far, they aren't doing anything...

...except organizing. From what some of them have said in the last week, they seem leary of some of Obama's spending and also costs resulting from cap and trade.

[MADem]

185. All they plan on doing is being a moderating voice. They don't plan on

being obstructionists. That is what Bayh and others have said. They just want to be a voice for the consensus/compromise crowd, as opposed to the MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY/Gridlock types.

I don't "get" the ire. These people are Friends Of Obama. What's pissing some off is that these friends aren't as far to the left as they continue to pretend that Obama is.

[polichick]

188. Looks to me as if they intend to make it impossible to use the 50-vote tactic...

...that would have allowed the President to pass his healthcare and energy plans as written.

50-vote tactic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3762764

Just in time to make my point (I guess they ARE already doing something): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8277768&mesg_id=8277768

[MADem]

192. I think their goal is to "correct" legislation before it comes to that kind of drama.

At least that's the way Bayh, et. al., have been putting it out there.

And that second link makes MY point. If the Bayh group pushes for health care over carbon caps, then my point is made.

Look real closely at what that link says. The money sentence:

This week, the White House and House Democrats made their choice: health care is the survivor.

This decision is coming out of the WHITE HOUSE. You know, where the President lives and works?

The House Democrats are on board, and this working group is designed to do the same sort of across the aisle cat-herding in the Senate.

But see, even with that sentence right in there, you're saying "Poor Obama can't pass his agenda, and these people are to blame." No they aren't. They're making sure his Senate glass is half empty, instead of having a shit flinging contest and gridlock on BOTH issues. Obama had to pick, and he picked. He knew he couldn't make both fly, this time. He picked health care. Carbon caps will have to wait for another day.

One more time: This week, the White House and House Democrats made their choice: health care is the survivor.

[polichick]

195. The President shouldn't have to pick one or the other - we need BOTH...

You think Bayh's announcement wasn't intended to send a signal to the President?

"Carbon caps will have to wait for another day," as you so glibly put it because Bayh and his fellow throwbacks put special interests ahead of our children's HEALTH and the HEALTH of the planet.

Good grief.

[MADem]

198. But you aren't going to get both--this year. You just aren't. So give that up.

Obama knows he can only get one, so he's made the decision. He's got a crew to run interference for him, and another crew to get that ball up the middle. And you're not getting his legislative strategy, so you're getting pissed at his team.

I am not being "glib" and I am not putting things "glibly." I am being something called "realistic." You're mad because Obama and those who support him in the Senate aren't doing it your way. You just can't bring yourself to direct your ire at Obama, the guy who made the decision to put health care first.

If you check the timeline, you're ascribing a cause (Bayh) to the reason that carbon caps must wait--you said they must wait BECAUSE of actions Bayh has taken. But Obama made the decision about which piece of legislation takes priority WELL BEFORE Bayh made his announcement. You still haven't been able to reconcile Rahm Emmanuel's enthusiasm for the group, either. He's basically, without saying it outright, the go-between, who will carry the message from this group about what is possible, do-able and achievable, and what's going to land them in a floor fight, a media whine, or what-have-you.

"Good grief," indeed. You don't get how sausage is made...no matter how much you claim you do.

[Honeycombe8]

200. As a moderate myself, I understand your thoughts. But you're naiive if you think

that they are "friends" of Obama. Bayh is a wannabe President himself, with thoughts of running in the future.

This moderate group may end up actually deciding whether most of the bills pass or not. Esp. if they get the three moderate Republicans to join. That means that they will be a go-to group, before a bill is even proposed.

They are Dems, that's true. They are definitely not Republicans. But they have an agenda that is different from the far left. And they were elected because they were moderate, so they cannot vote far left and keep their jobs. They will, in fact, be obstructionist on some bills.

It makes sense that they would form this group. They saw that they hold the power, so they formed a group to formalize (grab?) that power, and use it effectively. What politician wouldn't? Still, I hate to see it. It is a group that will of necessity be against the administration in some areas. If it weren't, there would be no need to form the group.

[MADem]

186. Dodgy connection, pardon my doubleclick.

[roguevalley]

124. bayh wants to be president and this is his stage, his chance to

be visible and 'presidential', nothing more. Fuck evan bayh and all the other whiners who cannot seem to get it that if you are going to be in a leadership position you can't be popular all the time. Nice way for them to stand on both sides of every issue and not have to take a real position that might lose them some support somewhere.

[MADem]

140. Bayh was on Obama's short list for VP. If he wants to challenge a sitting President, he should talk

to Ted Kennedy and ask him how well that worked out for him.

Jimmy Carter can give him the "Obama" perspective.

That shit fucked up our party for some time. Look at how long it took for a Democrat to win back the WH after that "stunt."

Bayh worked awfully hard to get Obama elected to want to take it away from him. You'd think he would have sat on his hands if he really felt as you suggest.

[roguevalley]

159. I believe bayh is only for himself. His coy nondisclosure of his BFF's

was a clue. He's a light weight ass.

[MADem]

165. I think he didn't want to "tell on" people and left it up to them to decide to tell.

To me, that's the opposite of a light weight ass. That's someone who considers the politics of his associates and doesn't "out" them without their specific permission.

For example, who could blame Jeanne Shaheen or Mark Warner for not wanting to announce their membership in this group? Particularly when they do have a small section of their "base" in what could be described as the far left.

Who could blame Obama Team member Claire McCaskill for not wanting to advertise her affiliation? She's Obama's favorite, and his first female backer in the Senate.

I think my theory on this is the correct one. If not, then Claire McCaskill is the lightweight, not Bayh. Who in their right mind spends over a year working tirelessly for a candidate, only to "turn" on them? The only logical response is that no one is "turning" on anyone.

This crew is giving Obama cover, by giving the far left a target, and the right leaners a place to gripe.

[tonysam]

160. Actually Lieberman is a Lot More Liberal Than Most of the So-Called

"blue dogs." Israel is his major blind spot, but he's good on many other issues.

I can't say the same for some of the other pseudo-Democrats like Ben Nelson, but understand Democrats couldn't get elected in red states like Nebraska if they weren't just slightly to the left of their Republican opponents.

This is the problem we are in. Most states are still not like both coasts with "progressive" ideas.

[butterfly77]

29. Bayh was saying that we have too strong of a majority...

what in the hell is that suppose to mean? Isn't that the purpose to gain a majority so that we can get things done. So is this new gang of 14 suppose to be setting the agenda?

[Cha]

86. It means evan bayh likes

fucking with Americans' well being.

[MADem]

88. He's helping Obama, giving him cover. Obama wants to be able to say that

all voices, from the liberal to the conservative, are heard in his administration. Right now, the only voices that are talking out their asses are the GOP ones. They're saying stupid shit and not sticking with the issues. Eventually, they'll come to their senses, and stop talking trash, but that's not happening right now.

If Harry Reid wants to enforce party discipline, he will. And if these fellahs don't play ball, they'll feel the pain. Otherwise, those guys had better spend ALL their time fundraising, because the DNC won't be sending them any checks for that pricy media time when they're campaigning in a hard-fought reelection.

[polichick]

10. He even mentioned working with Lieberman. oyyyy

[bullimiami]

3. is it the same nasty little group that conspired to enable bushco?

they SUCK.

[polichick]

5. Only some of the members are going public in a press release...

...others are in the "witness protection program" according to Bayh.

[babylonsister]

7. There's a bit more info here:

and yes, I'm thinking the usual suspects. I know there's a more current thread about who's in. I'll try to track it down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4646739

[polichick]

9. Yeah, a Blue Dog Coalition - only they're not using that name now...

He says they haven't named the group yet.

[Sebastian Doyle]

162. I have a suggestion for their name

"Treasonous Shitbag Coalition". :grr:

[butterfly77]

32. Are they representing the agenda of all of the country?

Are there any hispanics,asians or blacks in this group?

[fugop]

8. Here we go again

Sheesh, the Dems just hate being in power, don't they? They win two elections in a row - BIG - and put the GOp on the defensive and in the minority. So what do they do? They run away and give the power of the majority back, because when you take away those 15 Dems from the Democratic coalition in the Senate, the GOP is back in the catbird's seat. Un-freaking-believable.

[polichick]

13. Exactly.

[butterfly77]

68. That's because a lot of them are really..

REPUBLICONS...:hi:

[iamthebandfanman]

109. yup, they just run as D's

because in alot of places, you dont run for office unless you got a D by your name(and the same with some republican places)...

the democratic party used to have a different meaning to a lot of the older folks who vote for these dixiecrats

[YOY]

11. Republican Light DLCers...

They are what the Republican Party SHOULD be.

[polichick]

14. So true - they really are what the other side should be. They're them...

...without the complete lunatics!

[YOY]

Meghan McCain trying to do what her daddy should have.

Keep your fingers crossed for her. I would so like to see an opposition that doesn't make me want to fucking vomit.

She has her work cut out for her...but has gained my respect.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Bayh, like Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman, is a former DLC Chairman. Birds of a feather....

If Hillary had won the presidency, Bayh would be her closest ally in the Senate right now after being her top surrogate during 2008.
Thank goodness that didn't happen or Democratic leadership would be bending over for Rush Limbaugh's party for the next eight
years instead of fighting them as we are under liberal/progressive dreammaker President Obama.

[polichick]

16. This will really change the game - and Bayh mentioned already talking...

...to Rahm, their ally in the WH he said.

[ClarkUSA]

23. I doubt Rahm will want to accommodate DINO dithering. Remember, Rahm said he was a liberal on MTP.

More likely, Bayh is tooting his own horn by saying this. It's wishful thinking. Rahm's job is to push President Obama's agenda,
not Bayh's 2016 presidential ambitions/the DLC agenda. Bayh voting against the budget amendment after having his own
earmarks put in it did not endear him to Rahm and his boss.

[MessiahRp]

45. He can say he's a liberal all he wants...

but as head of the DCCC along with Schumer (head of the DSCC) they purposely looked for the most right-leaning "moderates" they could, even going so far as to recruiting Rich Republicans to run as Democrats and then railroad the progressives out of the primaries by endorsing their Right leaning candidate even before the primary had ended (and thus throwing a ton of financial support their way).

Madfloridian has a terrific link for this. I can't seem to find that post at the moment.

They made their bed with traitors who were never Democrats to begin with, now we all have to lie in it.

Rp

[ClarkUSA]

78. He's President Obama's Chief of Staff now. His job is to ram Barack's policy ideas thru Congress.

He's not head of the DCCC anymore and arguably, his strategy worked in 2006, so give him his due as to his effectiveness.
I have no doubt that he's going to be just as effective now that he is tasked with defending and implementing his boss'
orders behind the scenes.

[MessiahRp]

80. Howard Dean's strategy worked in 2006...

That and Hurricane Katrina hamstringing the GOP.

Rahm really doesn't deserve credit for that. And I don't care what his title is, a leopard doesn't change their spots.

Rp

[polichick]

81. I agree - most of the credit goes to Howard Dean.

[ClarkUSA]

To a certain extent that's true but it's all about teamwork; Rahm more than did his part in 2006.

You seem to have issues with him that will not be resolved by me. Suffice it to say that I don't think Gov. Dean should be judged
by his past membership in the DLC now. A leopard may not change his spots but politicians do.

[MessiahRp]

85. What about the lack of liberals/progressives in the Administration?

That has Rahm's fingerprints all over it. Dean doesn't get a job in the Administration. Several Republicans and all DLC/Centrist Dems aside from the Secretary of Labor take the main cabinet posts. Geithner and Summers, who had quite a bit to do with the economic mess we're in are put into the top financial positions in the country.

I believe Rahm's input was a vital part of every appointment and that they helped sway Obama to the right on many of these choices. That's why I doubt seriously that Rahm will champion any liberal agendas in his current position.

Rp

[ClarkUSA]

89. Their range is geographically limited for the same reason there's a lack of GOP moderates

[960]

70. Hoping this is sarcasm?

:crazy:

[Hieronymus]

71. I certainly agree with you. Richard Wolffe just said that Bayh

hasn't referred to himself as a Democrat in his most recent campaigns.
Screw the DLC.

[chimpymustgo]

74. Um...you forget Bayh was on Obama's very short for VP.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

100. Hahahahahahahaha. I just KNEW you would have to bring up the Clintons

you are TOO PREDICTABLE. Without even looking at this thread, I knew you would respond with the same old bullshit.

[PVnRT]

110. It's funny - your posts all contain a subject, verb and Hillary Clinton

Get over it.

[brianna69]

15. It is these traitors not the repugs that are going

to work to derail the Obama administration's agenda. Who needs enemies when you've got your fellow democrats stabbing you in the back. They make me sick.

[polichick]

19. Rahm has said that he wants to be at the formal announcement...

Bayh says he's an ally, but Joe said he's coming to measure them for body bags. lol

We'll see...

[underpants]

17. Oh good nothing should slow down things any MORE than introducing a third party

:eyes:

I am all in favor of third parties (we really need about 5 or so) but right now this will do nothing but aid the Republican obstructionists

I understand that Bayh is trying to expand his political power but not now Evan not now

[endarkenment]

30. not really a third party

as far as I am concerned 'more conservative democrats' are 'republicans'.

[bread_and_roses]

18. Will someone please explain to me what the hell "moderate" means?

or "centrist?" Other than "we'll give you scraps with little shreds of chewed up meat on them instead of bare bones?"

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. It is the opposite of extreme

[dionysus]

22. How does it feel being one of the 3 DLC apologists on DU? Have fun with your repulican-lite buds....

:rofl:

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. It feels great, particulary because the moderates keep winning

[dionysus]

56. DLC sleazbag tactic #3457856 : take credit for everything, even though they are closet republicans

hooookay buddy
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[bread_and_roses]

24. In context, Freddie, in context?

What "extreme" voices do we have in Congress other than on the Right? eh? What is the "moderate" position on the top 1% of the population owning roughly 40% of the nation's wealth? That they should own 20%? What is the "moderate" position on requiring the citizenry to pay for cleaning up pollution that swelled the coffers of that upper 1% while they get tax breaks so they have to pay even LESS of the costs and get to keep even more of their ill-gotten gains? The term is meaningless in context.

[dionysus]

27. "centrist" or "moderate" are the words they use because "almost republican" looks pretty bad

:rofl:

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. Which members of Congress have suggested that the government determine the percentage of wealth that

the top 1% of the population owns?

[bread_and_roses]

92. who passes tax laws? trade legislation? among other functions

of the government that directly relate to the accumulation of wealth?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

33. Since there are no extreme elements on the Democratic side of the senate, your post is the opposite

of rational.

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Bayh's new coaltion will ensure that it stays that way

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

66. That's up to the voters. Not you or Senator Good Ol' Boy.... I mean Bayh. nt

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[endarkenment]

40. or perhaps...

'french'.

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. Most DUers are moderates, they just don't know it yet

[ClassWarrior]

26. It's a weasel word. There is no such thing as a "centrist."

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought - call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/15/3174

("No Center, No Centrists" by George Lakoff)

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

130. that's a weasel post

:shrug:

Volumes have been written on centrism. Lakoff describes classic centrism - conservative on some issues and liberal on others.

[ClassWarrior]

166. No, he clarifies the term. It's curious how many who hide behind the label "centrism"...

...are so afraid of people having a clear definition of the term.

NGU.

[MADem]

149. Sure there are. Don't limit your measurements to "linear" ones.

If you toss out the number line, with progressives on the left and conservatives on the right, and instead, score the issues from one to a hundred, and then add up the results and get an average, the voter who scores between forty and sixty is a centrist.

It's all in the defining of the word. For example, people who think that children should be clothed, fed and kept healthy, who deplore homelessness, who want everyone to have health care, but who don't like unfettered welfare, who believe in a strong defense, and who dislike gun control might fit that bill.

See, this guy's "biconceptuals" are my centrists. It's all how you arrive at the end result. I just don't use a number line to arrive at mine.

[endarkenment]

31. republican

[butterfly77]

34. Yes but, it's republiCON..

and that is why Bush got away with destroying the country..

[brentspeak]

125. Means they take their fill of cocktails and lobster tails at lobbyist get-togethers in moderation

[Hansel]

133. It means "status quo". n/t

[Raineyb]

193. It means they're Democrats in name only

Bloody Dinos who will undercut any good that could be done. Some would go so far as to call them Republicans.

Regards

[WeDidIt]

28. And the Dems continue the pushing of the knife into the back

Damn, just when the Democratic PArty might be able to do something, it all turns into a massive EAT YOUR OWN buffet.

And the Republicans do exactly nothing, step back, and let it happen. Then they slip right back where they were.

Fucking bastards.

[fugop]

35. "Pay attention to MEEEE!"

Guess these guys were jealous of all the attention given to Snowe, Collins and Spector over the stimulus vote, so they're just trying for their own power grab.

[falcon97]

79. That's what I thought at first, too.

Let's hope it's mostly an attention grab. Did put a phone call in to voice my disgust, just in case.....

[Autumn]

37. What a bunch of asses,

these freaks are unbelievable.:banghead: We can't frigging win with those dregs around.

[Clio the Leo]

38. Wasn't Bayh a potential VP pick?

Do he and the President have any kind of a close relationship at all?

[Hieronymus]

75. I think Bayh was on Hillary's short list as her VP.

[MADem]

169. Bayh was on Obama's short list, too.

Most definitely. Do the google, there are dozens of articles about it.

[anonymous171]

39. Fuck them. Moderate Republicans are more useful than them. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. I love it - now we just need to replace these fools with progressive Democrats. Let's get it on.

[ClassWarrior]

42. They might as well paste "replace me" signs on their weaselly lil foreheads.

NGU.

[MessiahRp]

43. Which actually is the only good things about the coalition

We now have a very concise list of who we should go after with solid progressive candidates in primaries.

Rp

[polichick]

50. True - easy to pick them off now.

[GreenPartyVoter]

115. LOL

[Raineyb]

194. It would make them easier to spot

Maybe they wouldn't fool so many people that way.

Regards

[invictus]

46. Who are these other 14 who joined wtih Bayh?

They are going to be a mini-Repub Party working within the Democratic Party.

[polichick]

49. Bayh said most would be listed on a press release, but some are...

...in the "witness protection program" ~ chickenshits!

[Thrill]

47. I bet Claire McCaskill is one of them.

Can't wait to see the people react up here who think she is so great

[polichick]

48. Blanche Lincoln was the only woman mentioned this morning.

[Ino]

117. Yep, she is.

I hope I won't have to refute any more posts touting her for VP, for the next President, for anything. She's been a huge disappointment to this Missourian.

[Thrill]

122. I knew it,. She is big on talking loud. But actions don't usually back up

her Republican ways

[vaberella]

127. I get the feeling Feingold is included in this mix. n/t

[MADem]

141. The fact is, Obama's not a tanned Kucinich.

He's more of a McCaskill in a man body. They have more in common than most people here realize.

It's fiction that Obama is an ultra-lefty, who is beset by "evildoers" like Rahm Emmanuel (the guy HE hired), That DLC Witch Hillary Clinton (the SECSTATE HE hired) and other "mendacious meanies" who are tripping up the poor hapless neophyte who really is, like, ya know, sooooo coooooool and wants to be the Chavez of America!

Most people are known by the company that they keep. Look at the people that Obama has brought to his White House, to his cabinet, to his federal agencies. They're more like Bill and Hillary Clinton than they are Ted Kennedy.

Obama's a smart guy. He knows that most Americans can handle the "middle way." Too far left, and the right screams. Too far right, and the left screams. He knows what he's doing, and this "bloc" that everyone's crying about is HELPING him, by giving him a little cover.

[tonysam]

161. The Problem is He Has Neoliberal Tendencies,

and I'm sorry, but this is NOT what this country needs. The neoliberals are as wrong on the issues as are Republicans; they are basically cut from the same cloth.

[MADem]

164. No, he is a moderate Democrat who leans left on a few issues and has a centerline view of others.

You can't call them the same at all. The basic, ground level view of the GOP and the Dems with regard to the role of government is totally different.

Most of the country seems to be happy enough with Obama. He wasn't my first choice, but I am going to back the guy. I'm not going to second-guess him or be excessively critical before he's been in office even three or four months. In the military, everyone gets six months of "a bit of slack" where they can't be expected to know every frigging thing or be able to anticipate what might happen in a particular situation.

I find the piling on here, especially in light of the absolute AGGRESSION in favor of Obama--to the point where supporters of other primary candidates were drowned out or bounced-- ahead of the election here, really interesting, I must say.

[wyldwolf]

54. who's in? Bayh? Webb?

[polichick]

57. He said there is a press release coming...

...but a few of them are in the "witness protection program" and will not be listed.

[wyldwolf]

59. I'm curious if they're skewing further right than the Senate New Democrats who largely support Obama

I guess we'll see.

[polichick]

60. Well, Joe Scarborough was positively gleeful - said he and Bayh...

...have coffee together in the neighborhood. Joe did ask if Bayh was going to work with Republicans, but Bayh mentioned Lieberman instead of dwelling on that.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

62. I guarantee you Melissa Bean is in there.

[MADem]

183. I guarantee you she isn't.

Unless she strangled Dick Durbin and stole his seat.

This is a SENATE working group.

[pokercat999]

55. Headline should read:

Evan BAYH announces run for President in 2012.

[polichick]

58. Maybe so - he may see himself as the answer for moderate Republicans.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

65. He's an asshole. I go to school here in Indiana and I always wondered why he was

even a candidate for VP much less President

[Mass]

63. Some Members of Evan Bayh’s New Anti-Progressive Caucus Too Frightened to Admit Membership

These guys are courageous indeed.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/03/some_members_of_evan_bayhs_new_anti_progressive_caucus_too_frightened_to_admit_membership.php

[SemiCharmedQuark]

64. Yes, babylonsister posted a video of Bayh saying they were putting 2 or 3 members in "witness protec

[beachmom]

67. Bayh is the only Democrat named in the Earmark Hypocrisy Hall of Fame:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/photofeatures/2009/03/just-say-no-yes-to-earmarks.php?img=1

This page:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/photofeatures/2009/03/just-say-no-yes-to-earmarks.php?img=20

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Sen. Bayh wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed explaining his opposition to the spending bill: "The solution going forward is to stop wasteful spending before it starts. Families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet -- and Washington should too."

Hypocrite:

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Among Sen. Bayh's 17 earmarks in the omnibus bill totaling $14.9 million are $300,000 for a combined sewer outfall elimination project and $950,000 for Cline Ave. extension in East Chicago, IN.

Oh, and these "Moderate" want to kill cap and trade.

[polichick]

72. One of my big concerns is their cap and trade agenda - protecting dirty industries...

...in their states.

[Doremus]

69. Evan Bayh must go.

Fuck him and the rest of his repukes.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

73. Contact him and let him know how you feel!

Here's his DC info:

131 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
[phone]
[phone] fax


He has already gotten one withering fax from me, I feel another one coming on. :mad:

On edit:

I'm so steamed, I just fired this fax off to him:


Evan Bayh -

Many of your recent actions indicate you seem to have forgotten that the American people voted overwhelmingly for President Obama's agenda, and for the Democratically controlled Congress to enact that agenda.

A word of advice, Mr. Bayh:

Get with the damned program.

If I see you and your "moderate" cronies undermining Obama, the Democratic Party, and the will of the American people, I promise you two things:

I will actively support a Democratic primary challenger to unseat you in your next Senatorial run.

I will actively work against any attempt made by you for Democratic national office.

Capiche?

Hell Hath No Fury
Big "D" Democrat since 1979

[Hutzpa]

76. Excellent letter n/t

[Zodiak]

77. Oh look, the Benedict Arnold wing of our party is kicking up their heels

What a perfect time to announce that you are going to actively undermine a sitting, popular Democratic President and by doing so, make sure that he cannot solve the crises we face.....just so we can serve the ideology of a minority of the Democratic party.

You know why we have to get rid of these fucks? Not because they are conservative, but because they insist on waging an ideological war with "liberals" to the point where they enable the Republican party. If you want to be part of the Democratic party, then you do NOT go to war with liberals, but instead try to hold the coalition together.

They are overplaying their hand and eliminating all of the excuses we had for keeping them around.

I've been saying it for years....we cannot win games with moles on our team.

[mvd]

94. So true. NOW, Bayh and hs fellow "moderates" get energized

Whereas they were content to watch on the sidelines while Bush wrecked the country. I've said it all along - too many "New Democrats" have more in common with Repukes than progressives.

[ProSense]

82. 15 Senate Dems out of 58? There are probably a few more sympathizers

:rofl:

Aren't they the spineless, ruderless few who stripped the bills from the stimulus package?

Fuck them!

[MessiahRp]

83. 15 seems small to me too...

Considering there's so very few liberals in the Senate... Feingold, Kennedy, Sanders (who isn't a D but caucuses with them), Boxer and Kerry. Is that it?

The rest of them vote pretty pro-corporation which is essentially what this new group of assholes will be trying to protect.

Rp

[polichick]

84. Sure bites into the magic 60 though!

[LynneSin]

90. Wait - isn't that called the DLC

what am I missing here?

[polichick]

91. imo it's an announcement of opposition to the President's upcoming plans...

...especially with regard to taxes, cap and trade, and health care.

[wyldwolf]

95. no, it appears to be a Blue Dog Senate Coalition

Lots of differences in the two.

[polichick]

96. Do you see them as obstructionists?

[wyldwolf]

97. I have never had a lot of common ground with Blue Dogs...

... though I see the necessity in them electorally.

But, yes, this new group's sole purpose appears to be to obstruct President Obama's agenda.

[polichick]

98. That's how I see this coalition - we finally agree on something! :)

[mvd]

99. We agree 100%

There must be something wrong with the new group - LOL. :hi:

Yes, the Blue Dogs are still useful in some elections - I support primary opponents where possible, but it would be naive to say that all Blue Dog seats could be won by progressives. And if Obama did get more progressive, that would be ok with you - right?

[wyldwolf]

105. Obama is exactly where I'd like him to stay ideologically

[mvd]

106. But you wouldn't get upset, would you?

Since you have mentioned that there should be no purity tests from progressives.

[wyldwolf]

112. well, as with all pragmatists, conditions will dictate which direction Obama moves

The economic times in the 30s forced FDR to move left. So economically, considering the times we live in, I wouldn't be upset to see Obama move further left.

Other areas, no, I would prefer he stay exactly where he is.

[mvd]

119. OK, thanks for your answer

We still disagree, but I know more about where you are coming from.

[Bold Sea Captain]

111. right. the DLC is a rotting corpse, the Blue Dogs are still kicking

[wyldwolf]

113. yeah, that's a misinformed post if I ever saw one

:eyes:

[Bold Sea Captain]

123. you didn't notice that the DLC candidate was roundly rejected in the last election?

[wyldwolf]

129. lol

Roundly rejected? Another misinformed post.

Hey! You didn't notice the DLC won 16 new House seats in 2006 and 13 in 2008, giving them there biggest presence there ever?

You didn't notice Barack Obama tapping the DLC for high cabinet posts?

You didn't notice Howard Dean was replaced at the DNC by a DLCer?

You didn't notice Obama called himself a New Democrat?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

102. A contact list for the members --

Tom Carper of Delaware
Washington, D.C.
United States Senate
513 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.
355 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
[phone]
Fax [phone]

Michael Bennet of Colorado,
431 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington
DC 20510-4403
Phone: [phone]


Mark Begich of Alaska,
825C HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
Washington DC, 20510
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Herb Kohl of Wisconsin,
Washington Office
330 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
[phone]
Fax: [phone]


Mary Landrieu of Louisiana,
Washington, DC328 Hart Senate Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510 Voice: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Claire McCaskill of Missouri,
Office of Senator Claire McCaskill
United States Senate
Hart Senate Office Building, SH-717
Washington, D.C. 20510
[phone]
FAX [phone]

Ben Nelson of Nebraska,
Washington, D.C.
720 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Bill Nelson of Florida,
Washington, D.C.
United States Senate
716 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire,
Washington, DC
55 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]

Mark Udall of Colorado,
Washington, D.C. Office
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Suite SD-B40E
Washington, D.C. 20510
P: 202-224-5941
F: 202-224-6471

Mark Warner of Virginia
B40C Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


I am still tracking down a few more contacts.

[polichick]

104. Has there been a press release with these names??

[Hell Hath No Fury]

114. From ProSense's original thread ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8269478


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

"Leading the new group are Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper of Delaware and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas... (O)thers joining the group are Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mark Udall of Colorado, and Mark Warner of Virginia."

[polichick]

116. Thanks!

[mvd]

108. Thank you

These aren't all confirmed members of the new group, though, are they?

[vaberella]

128. Thanks for this. I'll give them a piece of my mind through Rangel. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

107. all i can say is... what are their names?

who can we get to run against them in the primary?


if they want to be forced outa the party like ole Joe the liar , then in the words of our last president... bring it on.

[polichick]

118. see post 102

[nichomachus]

120. And people still say that Ralph was wrong . . . .,

[wyldwolf]

121. he should have never made that third Karate Kid movie!

[Dinger]

171. I've Been Re-Thinking That Lately Myself (nt)

[Dinger]

172. I've Been Re-Thinking That Lately Myself (nt)

[polichick]

126. Fineman (on Hardball) says this group means that the President...

...won't be able to shove the budget through with 50 votes, as planned ~ that he'll have to curb spending.

[tbyg52]

131. Great. Just what we need. nt

[Hansel]

132. Good. Now it will be easier to know who to target in the next primaries.

I'm sick to death of these fools and their timid ways. They are the ones who keep anything of any consequence from getting done. The keepers of the status quo.

[ncteechur]

134. Evan Bayh is an ass who will NEVER be president.

[Sebastian Doyle]

136. Evan Bayh is an ass who should have never been elected at all

Cashing in on his daddy's name, just like a certain Chimp I could mention. And whose putrid agenda Bayh supported with his votes.

[MadMaddie]

135. How many of them are up for reelection?

If they are we need to mobilize to get rid of them. Lieberman is at the top of the list.

[Undercurrent]

137. De ja vu

The resurrection of FDR's Democratic opposition -- the Southern Democrats. Only they aren't Southern. (But they are still idiots.)

[wyldwolf]

139. This happens in some respects everytime Democrats hold power

In the early 90s, for example, Clinton was opposed on his Healthcare plan by both conservative and liberal Democrats.

[Vinca]

142. I swear I'll never give money or work to get any Democrat elected again.

This is unfuckingamazing. We work our asses off to get majorities and these assholes decide they're going to be Republicans and kill it. Write health care off. I'm so fucking mad I can barely stand it. My new senator, Shaheen, is among the bunch and she's going to be getting a long letter if I ever calm down enough to write it.

[Doctor_J]

143. There go the 2008 election gains

everything that America voted for last year is now on hold

[eridani]

144. Disgusting. Where were these assholes when Bush decided to start a trillion dollar war?

Is keeping all the appropriations out of the regular budget "fiscally responsible" or "moderate?"

[polichick]

150. They were cheering Bush on.

[traxster]

145. I saw that our new senator Kay Hagan is one of them. I'm thoroughly disappointed. n/t

[polichick]

148. I saw that too and felt the same way - also heard that Sen. Casey...

...may be involved ~ I really hope not!

[Political Heretic]

153. Our critical enagement is going to be even more important now.

Obama must not let crucial public policy be derailed or diminished by capitulating to these people. Any democratic congressperson who doesn't support the White House agenda ought to have primary challengers.

[polichick]

154. Yep - that's why I started that thread about making calls today...

It's going to be much harder now.

[Born_A_Truman]

156. Bayh announces same thing over and over (Daily Kos)

http://www.dailykos.com/
(no direct link to yesterday's post)

Bayh announces same thing over and over
by David Waldman aka Kagro X
Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:40:05 PM PDT

Hey, have you heard that Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) is forming a new, supposedly "moderate" Democratic voting bloc in the Senate?

You have?

Did you hear it today in The Fix?
Or last week in Roll Call ($)?
Or the week before that in Politico?
Or last year in Roll Call ($)?
Or was it seven years ago from the DLC?

Yawn. Sun rises in East, Evan Bayh forms "moderate coalition."

Too bad he's not as moderate in the amount of time he dedicates to making sure people hear how "moderate" he is.

[sampsonblk]

157. Self-interested cowards with no fixed beliefs

Everything - even human rights - is negotiable for "moderate" Dems.

[ShortnFiery]

158. ...

:puke: :thumbsdown: These "Moderates" a.k.a. Right-wing democrats would be considered moderate republicans in the 1970s.

The Corporate Adoring Republicans have migrated to the right wing of the Democratic Party.

[RepublicanElephant]

176. wow! they've even got their official theme song on youtube!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC9YwLM2VSI

by the o'jays, no less!

[last_texas_dem]

178. Yeah, 'cause it's common knowledge that centrists are regularly shut out

of the legislative process... :crazy:

[amborin]

181. disgusting! my main concern is global climate change...is there a form letter or email to send?

and to whom?

[polichick]

189. If your senator is in the group, I'd suggest calling his or her office...

...and letting them know that you expect support for the President's energy plan.

[amborin]

191. where is the list? can you post it, please?

[polichick]

197. Here it is...

post 102: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8268708&mesg_id=8269670

[Arkana]

187. So basically they think they're going to hold us hostage for the next two years?

Thanks Evan! You enormous asshole.

[LittleBlue]

190. Fucking Bayh, that scumbag loser

Possibly the biggest political opportunist in our party.

[Douglas Carpenter]

196. Evan Bayh is NO moderate - He is a foreign policy extremist nut job - neoconservative CRANK!!

"The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) is pleased to welcome Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) as an Honorary Co-Chairman. Bayh becomes the third U.S. Senator to join the committee after Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced their participation on January 28.

The Committee is a neo-con group that was formed to propagandize the country into war. It boasted such illustrious neocon members as Bill Kristol, former CIA director James Woolsey, and even McCain senior foreign policy adviser and Chalabi-bamboozler Randy Scheunemann, whom Josh has been blogging about."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/bayh_as_veep_he_cochaired_wing.php

-------------

Bayh is such a wacko foreign policy extremist that his biggest problem with the war in Iraq seemed to be that he was afraid it would prevent a war with Iran:

http://washingtonindependent.com/159/stop-obamabayh-08

-----------------

"This is a hallmark of Evan Bayh. A former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council and a past recipient Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson Award for Distinguished Service from the neoconservative security think tank JINSA, Bayh has been running to the right of his Democratic colleagues on foreign affairs for a while now."

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/02/03/evan_bayh_tough_but_smart.php