While people like Bayh and Carper are safe, most come from predominantly Republican or toss-up states like Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Alaska, Colorado, Missouri Missouri, Nebraska, Florida, and New Hampshire.

Except that it seems like a reformation of the DLC because most of this new "caucus" are DLC'ers.

You may be right, and this is a view I share. Watch Bayh like a hawk, however.

Good luck explaining this to the Firedoglake and OpenLeft crowds. Once they establish a belief about someone's motivations, they stick to it and mercilessly criticize. "Geithner is a corporate tool", etc.

Very rigid worldviews dominate in those corners of the left blogsphere. They're great during elections, but I can't read them otherwise.

Wolves in sheep's clothing are still wolves.

It's something that legislators can and do emphasize to dull the perception that they're out of touch with their districts.

That's one way to put it. They could be staying in touch actually with the majority in their districts who are neither far left nor far right.

Lots of people, including employees of businesses, have diverse pro-business interests.

DAmn are you missing the point. These Blue dogs in the senate are there primarily to prevent healthcare from passing. Let me explain:

They are justifying it under the guise of opposition to cap n trade policy being passed through the senate under the budget reconciliation process which only requires a 50 vote majority and can't be filibustered. But directly behind that is the health care reform policy...a chance for a national healthcare ins plan like Medicare for all.

Republicans have vowed to filibuster ANY national healthcare plan the dems present because "it will make the dems too popular and hard to beat for elections to come".

So knowing it will be filibustered the only way it would get passed was pushing it through by a budget reconciliation process requiring only 50 votes...THEN HERE COMES BAYH AND THE BLUE DOGS who have stated they will refuse to allow it to pass by that method agreeing to vote against so dems cannot get the 50 vote majority...thereby 'forcing' it to go he root of the filibuster...so we get no majority demanded national health care plan...all due to these Blue dogs who are siding against Obama's agenda in favor of republican obstructionism.

Get it now Plubius?

Democratic Underground has a video up (it's also on you tube)of Bernie Sanders in a meeting with republicans who are refusing to let Health care reform go the route of budget reconciliation (which they used amny times when the controlled the senate to decrease funding for medicare and medicaid and give tax cuts to the wealthy so dems couldn't filibuster) where he is also calling them out on this tactic. Well woth seeing.

"Lots of people, including employees of businesses, have diverse pro-business interests".

Damn straight. As powerful as are the communistic, anti-business forces throughout the country, Brodervilles abound in every congressional district throughout the USA.

"So maybe it's worth holding fire for a bit to see."

If your logic is correct, that's all the more reason for progressives to yell and scream and make a fuss! That gives them an easy means to optically distance themselves from OHNOLIBRULS while still voting a fairly progressive line. And if your logic is incorrect, we should be yelling loudly because these people are selling out a popular, progressive president for narrow-minded short-term personal gain.

So please - yell at Evan Bayh. It's a win-win.

I will point out that my rep, Colin Peterson as blue a dog as they come but there is no way this district would stay in dem hands otherwise. Not unless you found the most incredible and well funded candidate since Obama.

The only good thing about Bayh being picked as veep would have been taking him out of public and locking him up at the naval observatory.

It is these Blue dog demons who will be directly responsible for us not getting national healthcare reform passed by refusing to allow it to go through the senate by the reconciliation process.

They said and did nothing when Bush was spending and deregulating us into massive debt giving him everything he demanded so why now...why now start this nonsense when Obama is president? This group is either completely ignorant on how they are being manipulated or just republican complicit against the wishes of the majority of Americans.

You should be outraged at this group.

But let me be devil's advocate for a moment

Devil's advocate is a good term, I suppose, when your argument is that none of their positions are principled.

The rethugs never seemed to have to cuddle up to the Democrats when they were in power. Are you saying that none of them had close races back home? I don't buy this for a minute.

I am in North Carolina. This state has a Democratic governor, state legislature, and state senator. It sends a large majority of Dems to the congress. It voted for Obama this last election. Kay Hagan does NOT have to pretend to be a thug. If she voted for her constituents--especially passing deserately needed health care reform with a public owned option--she will never lose her senate seat. She WILL be vulnerable if she blocks this progressive agenda. I will do everything I can to fight her if that is the case.

"So maybe it's worth holding fire for a bit to see."

Nah.

Time to apply some HEAT to the Blue Dogs and turn them into Scalded Dogs.

Where to start? I live in North Carolina which is a "toss up" state as mentioned in the article. I voted a straight Dem vote in the last election with the hope there would be serious health care reform. Even if the economy tanks and I lose my job for the 4th time because of plant closings (trucking company and battery manufacturing plant) or down sizing (as from 3 shifts of production to 1 shift at a textile plant) I had hoped I would still be able to see a doctor without having to file bankruptcy because of ensuing medical bills. The reason I feel Evan Bayh would obstruct health care reform is because of his wife's position sitting on the boards of 5 health care companies. I see this as a direct conflict of interest on Bayh's part. As far as NC Sen. Kay Hagan, she has come out against portions of Obama's budget specifically cutting agricultural expenditures. Unless someone could show me otherwise, (if you can, please do) I take this to mean that Hagan is supporting Max Baucus' desire to continue paying subsidies to farmers already making over $500,000 a year. Continuing to pay someone to not grow something is as about as stupid as it gets in my view.

"Lots of people, including employees of businesses, have diverse pro-business interests".

Universal health care IS pro-business.

Universal health care is cheaper per capita, and cheaper in terms of percentage of GDP. dozens of countries pay less, pay a smaller percentage of GDP, live longer, have lower infant mortality, and spend less time sick. Name a country you'd think of as "industrialized" or "modern", they've got universal health care (in some form another), they spend less, and get more.

You can either like universal health care because it's a sin for a wealthy country like ours to leave people uncovered, or you can like it because we're greedy, and want the same cheaper better health care that all those other countries have.

How a senator can fail to sell this to his or her constituents, I do not know.

I think JL on March 29, 2009 at 7:16 PM hit the nail on the head.

Fine, if Obama adds 5% to his requests so they can look like heroes when they take it out. But Obama's initiatives look mostly like they're coming in pre-shrunk to gain bipartisan support, which he is beginning to realize he'll never get from Republicans, and now these ConservaDems.

I think, for the same reason that forming this group was a mistake, it is a good idea to let its members know that we, their voters and financial supporters, are not happy about it. While they're getting pats on the head from Broder and Cokie for being Moderate, they're hearing from their constituents that they'd better not undermine Obama to please the Beltway/Wall Street/Walton family.
I got a letter from Udall that has me half believing somebody in his office read my email, rather than just marking another tally in the crank column. Small steps, but small steps in the right direction.

I have this crazy theory.

What if the "moderate" group establishes its "moderate" credentials on a couple issues, and then spends the next few years endorsing Barack Obama's agenda?

"Even the ConservaDems support this. There's a huge majority in favor of the president's plan. This is a mainstream policy."

The reason I feel Evan Bayh would obstruct health care reform is because of his wife's position sitting on the boards of 5 health care companies.

Good find.

Max B. stated my objections quite well. Whether the Blue Dogs exist to make business happy (which is my suspicion) or are more of a cover group like you suggest, the left will do well to keep the pressure on. That will have a positive impact either way, just like the Obama people know that having Krugman push from the left gives them more freedom to maneuver.

Fine, if Obama adds 5% to his requests so they can look like heroes when they take it out. But Obama's initiatives look mostly like they're coming in pre-shrunk to gain bipartisan support, which he is beginning to realize he'll never get from Republicans, and now these ConservaDems.

On the other hand, if he started coming out with maximalist policies now, the moderate version that got passed in Congress would be put together by Democrats.

I think Barack Obama's plan to "change the tone in Washington" is an effort to build a new, responsible, decent opposition in place of the Republicans.

The heat should be kept on Evan Bayh. If he's accused every day of serving the Republicans' agenda, this will force him to prove that he is not.

It is worth pointing out that the last time health care came before the congress, the Democrats were in charge. It was Clinton's own party that derailed the reform of the system. They better not do it again!

Publuis:

Your post is a confused one that sheds no light and so I'm really not sure how to respond this.

You don't lay out the issue at hand at hand out clearly. You don't even use the word Evan (I thought maybe it was a different Bye) and you don't really own up to what you are saying except what is in your in your title--

You are ambivalent about Bayh and you still think there is reason (what that is, I don't know) to give him a 'chance' (what you mean by chance I also don't know).

?????????????????????????????????????????????

candideinnc,

"It is worth pointing out that the last time health care came before the congress, the Democrats were in charge. It was Clinton's own party that derailed the reform of the system."

Actually, the legislation had a majority in favor in both houses, but the Senate Republicans used procedural filibusters to block any attempt to even bring it up for a vote.

Yet ANOTHER good reason to utilize the reconciliation process.

Publius,

You see that group as a bunch of wimps, who care more about covering their ass (and mis-reading their constituency in the process) than about pushing Obama's -- and the nation's -- agenda.

My specs must be different, because what I see is a bunch of no-counts (mostly first-termers), posturing in front of cameras, to make themselves look important. That, in the process, they're giving a finger to those of us who supported them when it mattered -- pre-election and in the voting booth -- doesn't seem to bother them at all, because they figure that, come the next election, we'll consider them the lesser evil and vote for them still. Maybe. But maybe not. After 8yrs of Bush and his Congress, I have a very low tolerance for both: wimps (your vision) *and* conceited bastards. The rose garden they promised when running, never meant to have so many pricks in it.

First, Evan Bayh is nothing more than a useful idiot for the Republicans. He's a tool. He's a corporate, military-industrial complex tool, to be precise. And when the hell has a Democrat pretending to be a moderate EVER been a good thing? I don't know how old you are Publius, but remembering Democrats clear back to the late 1970's, even then, moderate Democrats were nothing more than corporate tools.

Second, I'm reminded of the famous quote about the French Army, which pointed out that in 1870 the French Army was ready to fight the war of 1815, in 1914 the French Army was ready to fight the war of 1870, and in 1940, they were prepared to fight the war of 1914.

Evan Bayh, the Nelsons, Leiberman, Blanche Lincoln, et al. and the other tools that used to call themselves "New Democrats" are prepared to politic like its 1993.

This is basically a last, desperate push for the corporate tools like Evan to stay relevant. Now that the DLC is dead, there isn't exactly much of a reason for these people to behave the way they have in politics, and it's either this, or actually, I don't know, vote like real Democrats.

Finally, Evan Bayh is a useful idiot. Wake me when he attacks Republicans the way he does his own party. Then I might be remotely interested in what he has to say.

Evan Bayh's wife Susan:

- Paid to be a lawyer for Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals when Evan was a state politician.
- On the board of directors of Wellpoint (Medical Insurance Company)
- On the board of directors of 2 pharmaceuticals & 3 biotech corporations

Total pay of Susan Bayh for being on corporate boards for 2007 - just under $900,000!!!!!

Evan Bayh is a TOOL for anti health care reform corporations & any amount of justifying his corporate biases will not change that fact.

You mean that Pelosi et al. are not "wild-eyed Bolsheviks wearing berets and smoking cloves?" Who knew?

The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party only controls the Congress today because they ran conservative Democrats in conservative districts and states. Why should you now expect those conservative Democrats to support the radically left positions of the Democratic Party caucus?

"...Why should you now expect those conservative Democrats to support the radically left positions of the Democratic Party caucus?..."-dbl

Simple...because the majority of Americans back this agenda according to the polls, especially on health care. These are not "radically left positions" they are mainstream and only a wingtard would suggest otherwise or a blue dog which you are neither so why call it "radically left".
Seems anytime there is a position repubs and mod dems oppose they call it leftist, far left, radical left or socialism to Marxism. In MO we are letting McCaskill know...there will be consequences for opposing Obama's agenda...the one we voted for.