McClatchy:

[A] small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. [. . .] "The economy is very weak right now. Raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting more money into the economy," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who isn't seeking re-election.

[. . .] Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., represents the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, one of the nation's wealthiest districts. [. . .] "Sometimes we forget how we became the majority. We did it by winning some affluent districts," he said.

Bayh, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota — have signaled that they won't back a permanent repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy. [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) the article operates from an erroneous premise - that legislation is need to sunset the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Actually, doing nothing causes that to happen. However, to give a tax cut for working Americans, new legislation is necessary. So what Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Gerald Connolly are saying is that they will OPPOSE TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS unless there are also tax cuts for the rich. Well, if that's what they want to do - OPPOSE TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, more power to them. But progressives and the President do not have to play along with them. Put it to a vote and let Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Gerald Connolly explain that they OPPOSED TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS because their rich friends did not get a tax cut too.

Speaking for me only