The foreign-policy divide between MAGA Republicans and the party old guard has rarely been as stark as it is this morning. Happy Tuesday. Just hours ago, the Senate voted 70-29 to authorize $95 billion in additional military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Twenty-two Republican senators voted in support. Donald Trump and his allies in conservative media had waged a blistering pressure campaign against the bill.
That was enough to cow even some ostensible defense hawks: Sen. Lindsey Graham voted no after echoing Trump’s call for the aid to be “a loan instead of a grant.” And Trump’s allies forced an all-night session with a talking filibuster. But other Republicans forged ahead anyway: “Our base cannot possibly know what’s at stake at the level that any well-briefed U.S. senator should know about what’s at stake if Putin wins,” Sen. Thom Tillis told Punchbowl News yesterday. Although a majority of the House supports additional aid to Ukraine, the bill’s fate in the House remains uncertain. Speaker Mike Johnson has said he will not bring it up for a vote, citing its absence of border-security provisions: “The mandate of national security supplemental legislation was to secure America’s own border before sending additional foreign aid around the world.” Whether supporters will attempt to force a vote anyway via long-shot procedural maneuvers like a discharge petition remains to be seen. “The president did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn’t take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed, and order restored. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election! … [But] we have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.” –Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor, February 13, 2021 Three years ago today, most Republican senators voted not to convict Trump following his impeachment in the wake of the January 6 assault on the Capitol. January 6 and February 24Tim Miller made a good point on yesterday’s Bulwark Podcast: It’s one thing to take an irresponsible position on something that could happen in the future. It’s not good–especially if you’re president of the United States! Still, presidents can pop off with ill-considered thoughts they could later be talked out of or which they might not follow through on. But it’s another thing when things are happening—life and death things—and you choose that moment to do or say something wildly irresponsible. What was once foolish becomes reckless. What was once asking for trouble becomes cheering on—even colluding in—a crime. Donald Trump was always generally anti-NATO and pro-Putin. That prospective irresponsibility was dangerous. But his irresponsibility today, now that Putin has cast the die, is far worse. To glibly invite Putin to invade our NATO allies today—two years after February 24, 2022—that is horrifying. There’s every reason—based on Trump’s current statements—to think that as president Trump will help Putin win his war against Ukraine, and that Trump also won’t uphold our NATO commitments to Ukraine’s neighbors. This is just one way in which a Trump second term would be so much more dangerous than even his first. There’s of course another issue of fundamental importance about which one could make a comparable argument: Democracy and the rule of law here at home. It was one thing to be pro-Putin or anti-NATO before February 24; it’s another to be pro-Putin and anti-NATO after February 24. Just as it was one thing to be a defender or rationalizer or excuser of Donald Trump before January 6, 2021, and it’s another to be a defender or rationalizer or excuser after January 6. Being a defender of either attack—on Ukraine or on the Capitol—should be disqualifying for any candidate for federal office, let alone the presidency. And yet Donald Trump is stronger today politically than he’s ever been. He must be defeated. But will he be? —William Kristol How are our NATO allies reacting to Trump’s weekend comments suggesting he’d encourage Vladimir Putin to attack them if they didn’t spend enough on their own military defense? Here’s German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: “NATO’s promise of protection is unrestricted—‘all for one and one for all.’ And let me say clearly for current reasons: Any relativization of NATO’s support guarantee is irresponsible and dangerous, and is in the interest of Russia alone.” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk added that Trump’s remarks “should act like a cold shower for all those who continue to underestimate this increasingly real threat which Europe is facing.” Not to worry, though, say Trump’s Senate supporters:
Long Islanders To the PollsThe first House special election of 2024 takes place today. Voters in New York’s 3rd District will head to the polls to fill the seat vacated by George Santos, the freshman, serial fabulist, and alleged fraudster whom the House voted to expel back in November. The contestants: Former Rep. Tom Suozzi, the Democrat who held the seat from 2017 to 2023, and Mazi Pilip, a Nassau County legislator making her first foray into national politics. Suozzi, who opted to run for governor instead of defending his seat in 2022, has never had a particularly difficult race in the Long Island district—but the area has inched rightward in recent years over growing concerns about immigration and crime. Recent polls have Suozzi a hair up within the margin of error. NBC News reports:
The likelihood of a Democrat winning the special election is a large part of why Santos survived so long: GOP leaders winced at the prospect of losing even a single seat of their razor-thin House majority. Quick Hits1. ‘A Parade of Servility’Much ink has been spilled over Tucker Carlson’s interview last week with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Up at The Bulwark this morning, Cathy Young has a great piece on how it was received in the Russian-speaking world:
2. Au Revoir, RonnaDonald Trump shivved Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel last night, endorsing North Carolina GOP chair Michael Whatley as his next pick to head up the RNC in a campaign statement. As rumors about her job security swirled, McDaniel had reportedly traveled to Mar-a-Lago over the weekend to petition Trump to delay any talk of her stepping down until after the South Carolina primary this month. Trump didn’t stop there: “My very talented daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, has agreed to run as the RNC Co-Chair. Lara is an extremely talented communicator and is dedicated to all that MAGA stands for. She has told me she wants to accept this challenge and would be GREAT!” 3. GOP Establishment Embraces Kari Lake in AZ
Cheap Shots
You’re a free subscriber to Bulwark+. For unfettered access to all our newsletters and ad-free and member-only podcasts, become a paying subscriber. Did you know? You can update your newsletter preferences as often as you like. To update the list of newsletter or alerts you received from The Bulwark, click here.
|
