You're ready to throw every Dem overboard for life because of one freaking bankruptcy bill, but when Bush is dragged kicking and screaming to the table you think he deserves credit?

WHAT THE FUCK???

Yes, he deserves credit. And that wasn't one freaking bankruptcy bill, that was a sell-out of consumers by people who should have known better.

I actually think Khalilzad has done a decent job. Afghanistan could be much, much worse.

BTW, he's our back-channel to Tehran, which probably has a lot to do w/ his appointment to Iraq.

Steve:

Let me see if I have this right. Because Dems should 'know better' it's okay to throw them overboard because of one act, even if they're helping on a variety of fronts. But because Bush is unrelentingly evil, he gets props for one act, even if he was forced into it?

Are you serious? Is that really your political philosophy? Because from where I sit that's not politics, it's moral absolutism, and it's never going to get you anywhere.

Here's a suggestion. If you're going to have a standard, have the same fucking standard for everyone, instead of having a HIGHER standard for the people who are by and large ON YOUR SIDE.

It's like you're more concerned with making sure that the people you support are pure than you are with what's actually happening in the world today. Truly pathetic.

Aero, thanks for your insight, but if you're going to get angry because I give Bush credit for one thing a year, but get incensed at Beltway Dems for throwing consumers overboard, then you are at the wrong blog friend.

Aero...so essentially you want people who disagree with a vote that they strongly feel betrayed them and the party(The Corporate Loan Shark Protection or Moral Bankruptcy Vote) to just stfu. But you on the other hand are able to come here and criticize and condemn those who speak out. Wow! Amazing. Who made you the judge of just what is acceptable for those in the party to criticize and speak up about. Why is criticism only a one way street from Centrist Democrats--->Progressive Democrats.

I have been getting beaten up over my opinion (with others too) on this very same issue elsewhere in the blogosphere...it's as if we aren't allowed to ever get frustrated or angry. That is wrong. Most of us are reasonable people and given some time to work through this and to put this into proper perspective will continue to work in productive manner toward a common goal. We are only human here...give us a break and a chance once in a while.

Sorry I am not a blind follower like those faithful loyal republicans who disregard facts and reality. But Centrist Democrats for the past 4 years+ have been running the show and have failed to win any battles and lose election after election while they continue to compromise with the republicans on issues such as Medicare Drugs, Iraq War, Tort Reform, Worker Overtime rules...I say it is time to listen to people like Steve. It is time to rethink your losing strategy, unless you want even larger republican majorities. Now, you are also turning away and condemning the most active and vocal supporters. What will you have left? If your current tactics and recommendations had a proven track record of success and winning elections, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But the sad fact is is that you don't and that is why people are beginning to speak out. I don't expect to agree with everything, I don't expect every vote to go my way. However, I do expect party unity and discipline on key votes and issues that define the party. IMHO,The bankruptcy bill was one such vote.... Is that asking too much....I guess so.

if we claim to oppose bush because of his policies rather than due to "irrational bush hatred," then when he makes a good policy decision, we should recognize that. i would like to add my voice to steve's and say: excellent flip-flop, mister president.

on iran, that is. on iraq, he's still acting like an idiot.

too shrill?

Yeah, it would be completely insane to criticize Bush on the *extremely* rare occasions when he makes the right call. I don't think this isolated episode of sanity will distract Steve from the big picture.

Here's a direct quote from Steve Soto, Mr. Rational, after passage of the bankrupty bill:

"Let these pieces of garbage know what you think. I'm done with each one of them for good."

So he's done with people like Joe Biden, Daniel Inouye-Hawaii, Evan Bayh, Harry Reid-Nevada and even Hillary, but he's still got love for Bush.

And that all makes sense to you people.

Until the left comes to terms with this kind of insanity it's going to remain impotent. One standard, Steve, not two. One standard.

Aero, it's the same standard: Is somebody doing the right thing in a given situation?

The right thing would have been to vote against the Barriers to Bankruptcy legislation, and 17 Dems didn't do it. They were wrong.

The right thing was not to go all nutjob crazy about Iran, and to work with Europe to apply leverage. Against all odds, Bush chose the right thing. That's not to say that 95 times out of 100, we don't still expect him to do the wrong thing. Just that this once, he did something right.

Aero...and your ignorance about Steve and this site shines through with your comment at 3:12. When people do the right thing, Steve is the first to tell people about it and the first to tell people to reward good behavior.

Please tell all your DLC friends if they would please explain their vote to us, we would be more than happy to listen. I know I would. But telling me "well it was going to pass anyway" isn't sufficient. Of course it was going to pass, theoretically all republican legislation can pass because democrats are in the minority in all branches of government.

Please I want to know why 18 sellouts including Harry Reid voted the way they did. I have YET to hear any of them explain it...NOT ONE PEEP other than the lame anonymous staffer comments over at kos and the lame Harry Reid comment about we won't agree about everything. I want an explanation for their vote. Why are they silent on the issue. Please and explanation might help, but silence isn't the answer nor is well if you can't beat em join em.

Aero: "You're ready to throw every Dem overboard for life because of one freaking bankruptcy bill."

No, it is not just because some Democrats supported this bill. It is because there seems to be a continuing betrayal by some Democrats in the Party. This isn't the first betrayal and I am sure it will not be the last. Those who betray their Party can expect an effort by us to unseat them in the next election.

Shit, I gotta get this thread bronzed!

So, Steve, you finally decided that openly assuming that the President was intent on going against Iran militarily and then practically daring him to fulfill your foolish expectations would not only antagonize the natural allies we have there, but render us vulnerable to a wider war? Good for you. But let's not get the priority on this confused: Bush has always pursued diplomatic measures with respect to Iran. He has never banged the war drums over them like he did in the run-up to the War for Iraq. Therefore, by acceding to this European approach, he is merely following his usual form. It's nothing at all to him. Just like with the recent intelligence assessment on Iran. Let the obviousness of the danger of a nuclearized Iran seep in. Let the Europeans take the lead and gain the immediate credit: if even your beloved French say that soemthing must be done, who's the President of the United States to argue with that? The anti-Bush Left wouldn't deny that Iran must be dealt with if the degenerates in Europe are involved, would it?

It just gets done, gentlemen ---one way or the other.

As far as we know the Iranians never tried to kill his daddy.

Toby,

"Bush has always pursued diplomatic measures with respect to Iran."

That's because Bush is a pussy. He only picks on countries that he knows he can overwhelm. Iran isn't a decrepit nation like Iraq. Neither is North Korea.

Like all bullies, Bush talks tough, but he's a coward. Like you.

The anti-Bush Left wouldn't deny that Iran must be dealt with if the degenerates in Europe are involved, would it?

Huh?

Mary Landrieu on the Ed Schulz radio show when asked why she voted for the bankruptcy bill said they've been looking at reform for FIVE YEARS and they tried to get all these amendments but the (whine) Republicans kept voting them down, so the Republicans should be blamed that it's not a good bill, and now that it's passed, the dems can work on changing it for the better. Pretty shaky reasoning, I'd say. Got me swearing loudly in my car.

Sharon, Really Landrieu said that. Wow! No wonder I am having such a hard time with this.

Mary Landrieu is hot.

I don't think either Bush or the Europeans should be getting much credit for their current stand. Their position is that Iran must be prevented from ever having the capacity to process nuclear fuel even for peaceful purposes & even with safeguards in place to prevent their use for building weapons. The Europeans & the U.S. of course get to keep their capacity to process fuel for any purpose what so ever.
Iran may be a religious state but then so is Isreal. Iran has never invaded anyone & has a form of democracy that whether or not we approve of it is better than any other pseudo-democracy in the Middle East. They do support Hezbola & Hamas but they seem to be rapidly turning into political parties.
Seems to be a bit Eurocentric doesn't it?

My first reaction was that the current BushCo "cooperation" about Iran is just too similar to their "cooperation" with the UN in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

Sure, they'll say the right words, but, please, watch the actions. Recall Bush said Congress had to give him war powers as the only way to have peace, that he was taking the WMD issue to the UN as the only way to avoid war. All bunk. He wanted war in the worst way. All meanings intended.

I'm amazed anyone trusts BushCo, even a little.

I say watch out.