One of the Wasserman Schultz's top henchmen, Steve Paikowsky, has organized a groups of people to creep around whispering to the growing number of Wasserman Schultz detractors that Tim Canova isa threat to Israel and that his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal proves it. I guess he hopes that no one remembers that Israel also opposed that treaty and that plenty of sincere progressives-- Ted Lieu is a perfect example-- were also very skeptical. Wassermann Schultz voted for it and Canova was very critical of the deal.This morning, I mentioned to Canova that the Paikowsky squad keeps trying to turn people off to his candidacy by harping on his opposition to the Iran treaty, ostensibly from the left. Tim told me that he thought the treaty was "a terrible deal" but "now that it’s been adopted, I support its full implementation. The NY Times magazine published an article a week ago about Ben Rhodes, the White House communications person on the Iran deal, boasting about constructing a "false narrative" about how the moderates were really in charge in Iran, even though the administration knew the hard-liners were still calling the shots. Debbie Wasserman Schultz boasted about having been in on 20 meetings in the White House Situation Room. Was she duped by Ben Rhodes or did Debbie just keep quiet and go along with the false narrative? Many Democrats voted against the deal, including Ted Deutch, Lois Frankel and Alcee Hastings here in South Florida. I opposed the war in Iraq and the regime change actions in Libya and Syria."Thug lifeAnd he's a firm believer in legitimate Israeli security concerns. "The gravest threat to Israeli and American security," he wrote, "would be nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other authoritarian Middle East countries that promote radical and violent Islamic fundamentalism. The Iran nuclear deal was a flawed agreement in many ways. I am concerned that while Iran is required to decommission many of its centrifuges, they can simply mothball rather than destroy the centrifuges, thereby allowing them to restart a nuclear program for military use in the future. Just weeks after the nuclear deal was finalized, Iran began testing precision-guided ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. These missile tests also occurred after the lifting of sanctions and release of about $100 billion in frozen assets to Iran. A more measured and incremental lifting of sanctions and release of frozen assets would have provided continuing incentives for Iran to comply not just with the nuclear deal but also with its anti-ballistic missile commitments. Instead, the wholesale lifting of sanctions and release of assets may strengthen hard liners in Iran and provide the country with the resources to further aid Hezbollah and Hamas and other terrorist groups. Finally, I have concerns that the deficiencies in the Iran nuclear deal could lead other regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia, to seek nuclear weapons. While I have criticized many problems with the Iran nuclear deal, now that it has been entered into, I support its strict enforcement and implementation. U.S. policy should be to ensure that Iran abides by all of its nuclear and ballistic missile commitments. If there are any mate- rial violations by Iran, the U.S. should snap back to sanctions against Iran. Moving forward from this agreement, the U.S. must do everything in its power to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region, including diplomatic efforts to negotiate a general disarmament for the entire region that includes nuclear, missile, and conventional arms reductions. We should recognize that peace and security for Israel, the U.S., and the rest of the world is no longer possible without general disarmament and fundamental political and social reforms throughout the Middle East. We must work to bring about such reforms as much as possible through non-violent peaceful means using the full range of U.S. economic and diplomatic power." A lot to think about... and Wasserman Schultz has a plateful of problems of her own, as you've probably noticed over the last few days-- a plateful of problems that are rapidly cascading out of control. Even Fox has started taking note of the fact that Canova is giving her a run for her (lobbyist friends') money. Watch that clip from yesterday on Fox News about her woes. They're going to get a lot worse. Meanwhile, please consider contributing to Canova's campaign to replace her as the Broward/Miami-Dade congressmember from the 23rd district:
UPDATE: Karl Rove Weighs In On The FL-23 RaceAmerican Crossroads explained, rather cynically, why they'd rather see Debbie Wasserman Schultz keep her seat than watch Tim Canova win it. Aside from the reasons in their press statement endorsing her, there's the obvious point that with no chance of a Republican winning in the deep blue district, Rove wants a conservative like Wasserman Schultz who will vote with the GOP against working families. Tim is someone the Republicans fear. Wassermann Schultz is someone they find entertaining.
