By Alexandra
DeSanctis
Monday, February
21, 2022
The signs of it are everywhere: Democrats
know that they should be preparing for a brutal showing in this November’s
midterm elections. Glenn Youngkin’s victory in the Virginia gubernatorial race
last year — and, more to the point, the substance and style of his successful
campaign — were the first sign of it.
But the hits have kept on coming. In San
Francisco last week, two progressive parents succeeded in their campaign to
oust three school-board members for being . . . too progressive.
Irked initially at how long it was taking for area schools to reopen for
in-person learning during the pandemic, these two single parents did some
digging and discovered even more to be upset about: an enormous
budget shortfall, an intensive campaign to rename dozens of school buildings,
and the replacement of a merit-based admissions program with a diversity-minded
lottery, among other issues.
Suggesting just how central education has
become to politics, San Francisco’s intensely progressive mayor, London Breed —
who last fall violated her own mask mandate at a concert and defended herself
by saying she was “feeling the spirit” — endorsed the school-board recall
effort.
“My take is that it was really about the
frustration of the board of education doing their fundamental job,” Breed said after
the results were in. “And that is to make sure that our children are getting
educated, that they get back into the classroom. And that did not occur. . . .
We failed our children. Parents were upset. The city as a whole was upset, and
the decision to recall school-board members was a result of that.”
San Francisco–based writer Gary Kamiya
suggests in a piece for the Atlantic that the
results of the recall seem to confirm the conservative narrative. Kamiya writes
that conservatives have argued “that the Democratic Party is out of step not
just with Republicans, but with its own constituents. . . . Progressives
rejected such conclusions, insisting that the recall was simply about
competence and was driven by an only-in-San-Francisco set of circumstances.”
Kamiya concludes that the best way to read the outcome is “closer to the
conservative view.” “At a minimum,” Kamiya writes, “the recall demonstrates
that ‘woke’ racial politics have their limits, even in one of the wokest cities
in the country.”
Over in Texas, meanwhile, failed Senate
candidate and failed presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke is gearing up to become
a failed gubernatorial candidate, too. Running against incumbent Republican
governor Greg Abbott, O’Rourke was most recently seen trying to pretend that he
isn’t a fan of radical gun-control measures.
Asked about the promise he made during his
run for president that he would “take away AR-15s and AK-47s,” O’Rourke
attempted a hard about-face.
“I’m not interested in taking anything
from anyone,” he said. “What I want to make sure that we do is defend the
Second Amendment. I want to make sure that we protect our fellow Texans far
better than we’re doing right now. And that we listen to law enforcement, which
Greg Abbott refused to do. He turned his back on them when he signed that
permitless-carry bill that endangers the lives of law enforcement in a state
that’s seen more cops and sheriff’s deputies gunned down than in any other.”
As Charlie Cooke has noted, this is utter tripe. It also isn’t working. The latest poll of the race from the Dallas Moring
News has Abbott up by seven points, 45 percent to 38 percent. O’Rourke
himself remains underwater with voters: Only 40 percent view him favorably,
while 46 percent say they have an unfavorable view of the candidate.
In 2018, O’Rourke lost the Senate race to
incumbent Republican Ted Cruz by more than 2.5 points, despite outspending the
Cruz campaign nearly three to one. In a $103 million race, O’Rourke raised
$70.2 million, at least some of which came from outside the state. Here’s
hoping he’ll waste as much money this time around.
Democrats at the national level also don’t
appear to have much of a clue as to how to stave off a massive defeat.
The New York Times has a story this morning on how Democrats are gearing
up for a campaign to add generous Covid paid sick leave to the upcoming spending
bill. A critic might say that this is simply the first small step toward making
such a program permanent for illnesses other than Covid, a program Democrats
have been demanding for quite some time.
Last week, meanwhile, Senate majority
leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) made the first moves toward a vote on the
Women’s Health Protection Act, a radical pro-abortion bill that has no chance
of getting the necessary 60 votes to pass. Putting his caucus on record in
support of an extreme bill — one that would invalidate nearly every pro-life
law in states across the country — that can’t even pass is quite a move ahead
of a difficult midterm battle.
Continued Uncertainty in Russia–Ukraine
Tensions
The New York Times reports
this morning that Russian president Vladimir Putin is calling an unscheduled
meeting of his security council today amid rising tensions over reports that
Russia will attack Ukraine imminently. The Kremlin’s spokesman indicated that
Putin plans to deliver a speech at that meeting.
Late on Sunday, news outlets began to
report that there would be a possible meeting between Putin and President Joe
Biden, brokered by French president Emmanuel Macron. According to the Times,
Putin and Macron spoke on the phone both on Sunday and early in the morning
Moscow time, discussing the potential summit.
Biden also spoke with Macron over the
weekend and agreed to the proposed meeting, provided that Russia pulls back
from its threats against Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal reported
late last night that Macron’s office says both Biden and Putin agreed to such a
meeting “in principle.”
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said
of the situation, “We are always ready for diplomacy. We are also ready to
impose swift and severe consequences should Russia instead choose war. And
currently, Russia appears to be continuing preparations for a full-scale
assault on Ukraine very soon.”
A second White House official told
the WSJ that there will be no summit if Russia invades
Ukraine, and that Secretary of State Antony Blinken will meet first with
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.
The ongoing tension was on display over
the weekend as Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky spoke at the Munich Security
Conference, offering several comments critical of how Western countries have
dealt with Russia’s posture toward Ukraine in recent years.
“It was here 15 years ago that Russia
announced its intention to challenge global security,” he said. “What did the
world say? Appeasement. Result? At least, the annexation of Crimea and
aggression against my state.” He also asked for “an effective package of
preventive sanctions to deter aggression.”
Zelensky asserted that if Russia attacks
Ukraine, it will threaten Europe and all global security, not just his country.
“We will defend our land with or without the support of partners, whether they
give us hundreds of modern weapons or 5,000 helmets,” he said of his western
allies. “We appreciate any help, but everyone should understand that these are
not charitable contributions. . . . This is your contribution to the security
of Europe and the world.” He also emphasized the importance of Ukraine joining
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, insisting that his country needs a
“clear and comprehensive timeframe.”
Over the weekend, Politico reporting noted that remarks from
Vice President Kamala Harris at the same conference, shortly after meeting with
Zelensky, seemed to indicate that the U.S. is not changing its tune as the
Ukrainian president requested:
Asked, “Is
there anything new that you’re planning to offer Ukraine?” Harris was
non-committal: “What I made clear in our meeting is that, again, this is a
dynamic situation. And depending on what happens in the coming days, we will
reevaluate the need that Ukraine has and our ability to support.”
Zelenskyy
complained that if the U.S. believes a Russian attack is imminent, then it
should implement sanctions now. A reporter referenced his argument and asked,
“If you believe [Russian President Vladimir Putin] has made up his mind, what
leverage do you really have? Why not put those sanctions in place now?”
Harris got
tangled in her answers. “The purpose of the sanctions has always been and
continues to be deterrence,” she said. “But let’s also recognize the unique
nature of the sanctions that we have outlined. These are some of the greatest
sanctions, if not the strongest that we’ve ever issued, as I articulated
yesterday. It is directed at institutions — in particular, financial
institutions — and individuals, and it will exact absolute harm for the Russian
economy. And their government.”
A reporter
pressed her: “But if Putin has made up his mind, do you feel that this threat
that has been looming is really going to deter him?”
“Absolutely,”
Harris said. . . . “As the president has said,” Harris told reporters just
minutes after saying the threat of sanctions will deter Putin, “we believe that
Putin’s made his decision. Period.”
As has been the case for quite some time,
it’s hard to predict where this potential conflict will go, but Macron’s recent
efforts at diplomacy are slightly encouraging.
No comments:
Post a Comment