As detailed in David Waldman's frontpager, Evan Bayh is whining about Democrats being mean to him just because he wants to be a Republican:
"It’s not fair to ask people to facilitate the enactment of policies with which we ultimately disagree," said moderate Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). "So the closer we get to the end of the process, the more, for me, the process and policy will be one and the same."
Nobody's coercing them to vote for the bill, just to caucus with the party on procedural matters. If they don't want to be Democrats, let them try surviving on their own. They are less than useless to the party -- they not only obstruct Democratic priorities by joining the GOP in sleazy parliamentary trickery,
they weaken the real Democrats who will be blamed for losing a popular reform. If they can't separate themselves from the GOP, we're truly better off without them.
I think the opt-out idea could be an acceptable cover to allow the corporate podpeople to at least support their party on a procedural matter. That's all that's being asked of them.
If they insist on joining the GOP obstructionists anyway, it seems to me there are two good and essential options for the Dem leadership to commit to:
1 -- Make it clear and inevitable that Dems joining the GOP caucus with their procedural votes will henceforth be treated like the party they voted with. They will no longer be regarded as Democrats when comes to committee assignments and party support in primary and general elections. The Democratic Party does not assign chairmanships or leadership positions to Republicans, nor does it support their electoral bids.
2 -- Let the filibuster run as long as it takes. Schedule popular bills on Social Security, transportation, military funding, etc. such that they can't be acted on because of the filibuster. Announce daily that they, along with healthcare reform, are being held up by a filibuster being conducted by the Republicans and the following Democratic senators....
We'll hear all about how this will divide and weaken the party, etc. The fact is that it will only lift the curtain on what's already the status quo. A convincing threat to cull the strays will do much to prevent either of the nuclear options from having to happen. All the strays really need is cover. Any damage to party prospects from enforcing discipline is insignificant compared to the destruction that weak-willed capitulation will bring. There have been few moments in history that presented a party with such a vivid choice between a triumphant future and a helpless slide to irrelevancy. The moral and pragmatic path could not be more obvious. Very soon we will know for sure whether "Democratic leadership" is an asset or an oxymoron.