The liberal blogosphere is falling down on the job yet again, and playing right into the hands of the right wing.
Factesque describes one instance of this phenomenon:
I'll say it again: the candidacies of Chuck Pennacchio (my guy) and Alan Sandals in the PA senate race provide our Echo Chamber a perfect cause with which to make our case clear: No more Me-Too Dems. And yet there is silence from our big guns. I don't know what they're waiting for. I don't know what their strategy is. I don't know why they think that anti-choice, pro-war, corporate Casey is an okay option for the most important congressional race in the country in a state that is wildly moderate.And Ezra Klein is basically accepting the Bushists' propaganda on Iran hook, line, and sinker:
I used to think that a Casey candidacy was telling women that the Democratic party doesn't need them to win. Now it's clear to me that that message of "thanks but no thanks" is extended to every Dem who sees him/herself to the left of Eisenhower.
I'm sick and tired of hearing our Echo Chamber make big bold statements about the chance that needs to happen in the party and then sit idly by while the right-wing status quo is more deeply entrenched. So spare me the outrage until there's some action to support it.
Iran may well be the next Iraq, at least in a political sense. Given the flagging fortunes of the Republican majority, an unhinged, unleashed islamic Republic wielding nuclear weapons is the perfect excuse to refocus the election on national security. Perfect because they're scary, sure, but perfect because they're real, too. Ahmadinejad's ascension and Iran's admitted, verified race for nuclear weapons are both independently observable events that are rightfully heightening focus and fears on the country. Unlike Iraq, where Bush conjured an urgent, rapidly-massing threat out of whole cloth, circumstances in Iran are changing for the worse and paying close attention to their evolution makes perfect sense.Repeat after me: Iran is not a threat unless the US and Israel make it one. The US has absolutely no legal standing to make any demands on Iran about its nuclear program. A nuked-out Israel is just as dangerous as a nuked-out Iran, but no one seems to be complaining about that.
An invasion doesn't.
But, as Kevin says, Democrats are going to have to figure out a way to handle the issue, both because it'll prove politically salient and because, on its own terms, it's genuinely legitimate. And, granted, I don't know how to do that, but being proactive rather than reactive strikes me as a start. If Reid's offices aren't packed with exhausted national security aides drawing up a comprehensive plan to deal with Iran and the DNC's PR guys aren't booking prominent Democrats to blanket television and set the terms of the debate, we've got a problem. One way or the other, Iran is going to be an issue. And given that, Democrats need to step forward on it first so, in six months, they're not left playing catch-up to the hawks.
Iran has not, to my knowledge, admitted that they are trying to build nuclear weapons. (If this happened in the last couple of days and I didn't notice it, I apologize.) And again, unless further developments have occurred very recently that escaped my notice, the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program has never been independently verified.
This is not a legitimate threat; it is bullshit conjured by the Bush administration and their lackeys in the media. Their bullshit is hard enough to counteract without liberals helping them to 'catapult' it.