First, thank you for promoting outreach to younger voters, as via TikTok, and to Jessica Craven for having dived in.
Second, it may become tiresome to hear the comparisons to Hitler, but they're true, particularly when you follow the money. Timothy Snyder in Bloodlands details the horrible devastation that Stalin wreaked on Ukraine, to get the breadbasket of Europe. Hitler used the same pretext of protecting ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia, where the borderland Sudetenland included their mineral-rich mountains and related extractive industries. NPR reported (on 2/20/2022) that Ukraine is a significant source of wheat, and countries are preparing for disruption to the supply chain.
I do have the best managing editor of all. For those you who follow her blog, she will be back online today. She had a slight setback with a chronic health condition but is back in the saddle.
Ellie, your historical notes regarding Czechoslovakia and Ukraine are really important. For some reason, the GOP is suffering from collective amnesia regarding the last century in Europe. Harley, Gosar, Greene, and Carlson are leading the charge, saying, "Ukraine who?" Putin believes that there are two Russias in Europe / Asia: Greater Russian and Lesser Russia. He sees the former Soviet Republics as vassal states. If we turn our backs on Ukraine, he will continue to invade every former Soviet Republic one-by-one. As I wrote in this edition of the newsletter, it's not about Ukraine. It is about the security of Europe. If we can't see that, we are in big trouble. So, I agree with you 100%
Feb 21, 2022·edited Feb 21, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Robert, I continue to appreciate the many ways you point out to resist the creep of darkness and turn on important lights to push back against that creep. A good friend and fellow activist recently confided with me that she was overwhelmed by the number of crises and seemed to feel there was more work to do than she could find time for. She was concerned that she felt spread to thin over too many efforts, resulting in feeling ineffective. She also said there were so many causes she felt were important and dangers we faced that she could spend all her time just trying to keep up with day to day events and not actually spend any time trying to make a real difference on any of them.
I shared with her that a number of years ago I had actually spent some very productive time with a therapist for exactly that same problem. That therapist provided me with among some of the best advice I ever received that I often return to. It was the following:
You cannot solve all the world’s problems, nor can anyone else. However, if you let them overwhelm you, you may well make a difference on none of them. That would be tragic because you have proved you can make a difference on some. So consider this. Pick out something you care deeply and passionately about. It may be a relatively small issue affecting only a few people. Choose one for which you have the talents and resources to make a real difference. Figure out what you can do that would help make a difference for someone impacted by that challenge, then do that thing whatever it is. Take the time to celebrate that small win. Then go find some others who care about that same issue. Gather them together and organize them to work on that issue for a few more people. When together you make a real difference in some lives celebrate those victories with the group you gathered and those in whose lives you made a difference. Realize that while you have not solved all the world’s problems you have made a difference in some lives. Your victories will gather others to work on that issue and your successes will grow. When you feel joy from those successes you may well decide to take on another challenge. Simply repeat what you did on the first challenge.
If everyone would pick a small challenge important to them and gather others to focus on what they feel is important we could make an enormous difference in the world. So stop worrying about all the problems you can’t fix in the world and pick one on which you can make a difference and focus on that. Gather others to help and remember to celebrate your wins together. You will be amazed by how much joy that brings and the wonderful friendships you will form as well.
Phenomenal advice. I may include in this evening's newsletter! Thanks!
BTW, I was asked that same question over the weekend by a group of readers. I started my answer by saying that they should recognize that it is not their burden to solve all of the world's problems, but to do what they could. So we are on the same page!
I feel, and it is just a feeling, that the Democrats will make history by not losing much in the mid-term elections. But I'm a hopeless optimist. The Republicans will continue to be the minority party as along as they cling for no good reason to Donald Trump and they may become even more minor until they disappear completely.
Catch Sunday night’s John Oliver. It fascinates me how the Rs are so spectacular at all delivering the same messages — who writes their playbook and gets them all on board?!? Critical Race Theory is a huge soundbite — it’s another hurdle for the Ds… But I’m with you — optimistic (hesitantly). Lots can happen before November.
Today I heard a lot about how Biden will crumble on Wednesday’s state of the union. I’m just not seeing that, but maybe so …
There’s a LOT going on — thanks for capturing key points! I especially needed your thoughts about the Axios article as I faced my immediate family during dinner singing the same tune of doom and gloom. I just let them talk and didn’t take the bait (this time), but it sure brought me down. Appreciate you boosting my spirits! Happy President’s Day!
I haven't read it yet, but a reader has alerted me to a post by Robert Reich that has the counterpoint to the Axios article--that Dems have reason to believe they will win in 2022. I will check it out and report on it.
Feb 21, 2022·edited Feb 21, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
This morning, I write solely in response to Concluding Thoughts and close with a modest proposal. Like me, I imagine other subscribers receive numerous emails both from our political representatives and from our organizations seeking our counsel regarding the best way forward. Perhaps, instead of downplaying pieces, specifically from reputable sources, that are critical of our Party, maybe we should try to discern factors that could be valid and pass them to Party leadership.
For example, as someone who takes great care to chose words that have the best chance of being understood, I, too, have considerable concerns about the slogan “Defund the Police.” To that end, whatever the issue, I would advise we amplify the prudence of expecting to be misunderstood and of taking precautions against that happening.
Robert, I note, instead of responding to my overall concern of downplaying pieces, specifically from reputable sources, that are critical of our Party, you merely commented on an example (the slogan “defund the police”) that largely has been associated with far left movements. I would note that the Axios piece also raised concerns about the slogan “abolish ICE” and, moreover, discussed the far right’s efforts to turbo-charge “fears of Democrats embracing socialist policies.”
Question: Is your position on these two additional associations with the far left movement as casual as your stance on “defund the police”?
Every time I read about efforts to get "banned" books into the hands of students, efforts by local school boards to censor school libraries, and worst of all state legislation to prohibit the teaching or talking about things that might cause listeners "discomfort" I wonder why the US Department of Education isn't doing something to address these efforts to undermine our public education system. The ED's mission statement is as follows:
Overview and Mission Statement
ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
ED was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. ED's 4,400 employees and $68 billion budget are dedicated to:
Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.
Presumably one of the Education Department's pilars is "focusing national attention on key educational issues." It certainly strikes me that censorship is a key educational issue.
Thanks again for your excellent summations of daily events. And particular thanks for your ever present optimistic outlook.
The Department of Education was created by Jimmy Carter. He appointed Shirley Hufstedler as the first Secretary of Education. Carter intended to appoint Shirley to the Supreme Court--making her the first woman Justice. Carter lost, and Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor. The damage done to the Department of Education by Betsy DeVos is tragic. I agree with you that the ED should step in, but as you know, conservatives have made the agitating against the "common core" a Republican talking point about government overreach--even though the common core was NOT developed by the Dept of Education but by states that came together to agree on a basic set of literacy and knowledge requirements.
I feel that the more I read articles like you referenced about the disaster awaiting Democrats in 2022 the more I feel better because I feel that these “ hit jobs” are being written because the Republicans are actually scared of the possible results in 2022. American voters are smarter than people give them credit for especially the media. The non cult Republicans I know are disgusted with Trump and his cult but aren’t in love with Biden or how he has managed or communicated his accomplishments. Biden really is an “ average Joe” which was great for the year after Trump but we need more of a demonstrative now.
Your M.E. should know that the concluding thoughts are sometimes the most impactful part of the letter and provide context for the rest. In light of today's theme, it would be unfortunate to cut that short.
Thanks Dave. I will be sure NOT to tell her that. (;<). Her instincts are almost always 100% correct. I should have kept the piece as Axios as an article, then included a short Concluding Thoughts, but truth be told, I ran out of steam, so I finished the Axios piece and sent the newsletter.
I now have a clearer understanding of the situation and agree that your approach is most likely to be a long-term success. Much like your letter promises to be and has been so far.
This is BREAKING NEWS: Not long after Robert finished Today's Edition, diplomacy kicked in big time.
'Biden agrees ‘in principle’ to summit with Putin if Ukraine is not invaded'. Of course, there could be a snag...
This is the same comment I posted on 'Letter from an American'. In addition the possibility of a Biden - Putin summit, you'll find information about Russia and China's Alliance. The two leaders summit regularly and the two country's are closer than they've ever been. That's not good for the West. Might Xi could influence Putin's decision making with regard to Ukraine and in what ways? The two countries' working together is a factor in Ukraine Crisis dynamic.
'The standoff over the expected Russian invasion of Ukraine appeared to have a diplomatic window open late Sunday after President Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed “in principle” to a summit meeting.'
'The office of French President Emmanuel Macron said the two leaders had accepted the meeting and it would take place only if an attack doesn’t occur. The details of the summit will be worked out this week, when Secretary of State Antony Blinken is scheduled to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.'
'Although senior U.S. officials say they believe that Putin has made a decision to invade, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement that U.S. officials “are committed to pursuing diplomacy until the moment an invasion begins.” She confirmed that Biden accepted the invitation — “again, if an invasion hasn’t happened.”
'She also reiterated the administration’s position that Russia seems to be “continuing preparations for a full-scale assault on Ukraine very soon.”
'The development came after Russia continued to keep in place 30,000 troops it has deployed in neighboring Belarus despite earlier promises to withdraw them by Sunday. And earlier in the day, top administration officials echoed Biden’s assessment from Friday that Putin has made a decision to invade within days.' (WashingtonPost)
Another aspect of this is the Russia - China alliance.
'How will China respond to a potential Russian military escalation against Ukraine? Relations between Russia and China have intensified in recent years, with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping holding regular summits and the two countries’ militaries participating in joint exercises and cooperating in some defense industrial efforts. Ties between Moscow and Beijing are now closer than any time since the days of Stalin and Mao, driven by a shared perception that the United States is each country’s primary foreign policy challenge. One top Russian official told media in December 2021 that the relationship now “exceeds an alliance.”[1] Chinese state media, meanwhile, have vocally backed Russia in arguing that the current crisis stems from the US “using NATO as a tool to cannibalize and squeeze Russia’s strategic space.”[2]'(ForeignPolicyResearchInstitute)
'China would back Russia diplomatically and perhaps economically if it invades Ukraine, worsening Beijing's already strained relations with the West, but would stop short of providing military support, experts said.'
'U.S. President Joe Biden said on Friday that Russia's Vladimir Putin had decided to invade Ukraine within days, a claim Russia denies. read more'
'China's foreign ministry has repeatedly blamed the United States for "spreading false information" and creating tensions, urging it to respect and address Russia's demands for security guarantees. read more' (Reuters)
Will Russia Invade? Perhaps Putin didn't intend to all along. He will see what he can get without going to war. Think of what the Ukrainian people have been going through
Thanks for the detail. I hope the proposed summit is not merely a ruse. Ten days ago, Putin said that Russia was withdrawing its troops. Since then, he has added 50,000+ to Ukraine's borders.
It might be helpful to add TASS to your reading list. I have done so in the last two weeks. High profile stories in TASS are ignored in the West, perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not. Today, TASS is reporting that the two Ukrainian provinces in the Donbas have asked Russia to recognize them as independent states. Of course, they have been making that request for years. The fact that it is headline news in TASS today suggests that Putin wants the Russian people to see that the Ukrainian provinces are begging Russia to recognize them. If that happens, Russia will sign a treaty with those provinces to "defend" them, which will be the same thing as an invasion. I hope not. But a reader with extensive background in the area has been predicting this outcome for weeks.
Thank you for recommending TASS. Reuter's recently downplayed the 'summit' possibility as well. Cannot say how China will influence Putin to invade or not, but its very much a player in the Ukraine Crisis
I must disagree with you about one thing, Robert. Putin is Aleksandr Lukashenko's friend. Lukashenko would rather be a Quisling than be strung from a lamp post, which is what would likely happen if the people of Belarus have their way. So, while he'd like to be president of an independent nation, I suspect that he'll settle for being the viceroy as long as it keeps his head in place.
One thing that ought to be noted is that Ukraine (which Biden refuses to treat as "a faraway country of which we know nothing") has put Biden right in the center of the news, and shoved T___p to the sidelines. Which is better than TFG deserves, but also better than when he is the center of attention. That, of course, means that Biden has to show up well--either keep the Russians from invading, or make it clear to the American people that he has done everything possible to prevent war, and if he can't do that then that he is taking all available steps to make the war unacceptably costly to Russia. That will be a tall order, but who ever said that being president was supposed to be easy?
You are right about Lukashenko, but that doesn't extend to Belarus writ large. Lukashenko is a Putin puppet, but inserting Russian troops into Belarus under the guise of military exercises and then refusing to remove them was an evil masterstroke. I doubt the people of Belarus would have sat idly by as Russian troops occupied their country otherwise. Indeed, see the anti-Lukashenko civil unrest after his sham election in 2020.
Hi, Maureen. First, I don't think we should adopt the term "The Squad" to dismiss or demean four ground-breaking women elected by their constituents to Congress in two elections. I am not suggesting you are but we should recognize that the right wing media has used that term to do exactly that. I acknowledge that AOC came up with a hashtag to promote a picture of the four of them when they were sworn into Congress, but they have not since then used that term to describe themselves. But the right wing loves it because it seems to relegate them to status of a clique of high school cheerleaders rather than serious representatives in Congress.
During the negotiations over the Build Back Better bill, those four representatives were the adults in the room, supporting Biden every step of the way and agreeing to compromises when Manchin and Sinema issued an ever-shifting set of demands. It is true that some of them voted against the BBB on principle, but did so in coordination with Nancy Pelosi, knowing that BBB would pass in the House even if they voted against it.
So, what do they support? Let me list their objectives, and you stop reading when you believe they are out of step with the American people: they want to give seniors coverage for dental; they want to reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the government to negotiate with pharma companies; they want to provide working parents with subsidies for childcare; they want to give working families a tax credit to end child poverty; they want to provide free education at the community college level; they want to roll back the tax cuts Trump gave to corporations that had not even asked for those cuts; they want to encourage the development of clean energy; they want to invest in job training for fossil fuel workers who will eventually lose their jobs; they want to forgive student debt that is crushing young Americans who can't afford a house because they are still paying for a college education they received 20 years ago.
I hope you are still reading. What they want is to help Americans have healthier, safer, and more productive lives. The right wing media calls those goals "socialist"--but those are exactly the same goals that Biden supported, that every member of the House supported, and that 48 Democratic Senators supported. They are not outliers; they are you and me.
Finally, the "cost" of achieving the above would have been paid for by savings and tax increases. The cost would have been about 10% of the military budget--a budget that is larger than the budgets of the next TEN nations COMBINED.
I appreciate your explaining this because the few times I have read or heard about AOC or the other women, they strike me as really smart and in touch with their generation and the needs of the country at large. In that sense, I find what they are talking about far more "patriotic" than what is coming out of the mouth of Tucker Carlson and Co.
'The Kremlin said there were no concrete plans for a summit over Ukraine between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his U.S. counterpart Joe Biden, after the French president said the two leaders had agreed a meeting in principle. However, both Washington and Moscow played down hopes of a breakthrough, and satellite imagery appeared to show Russian deployments closer to Ukraine's border than before.'
"...it might undercut his narrative.", 'it' being a "fact" which further research may have produced. Following a narrative instead of the facts should be a cardinal sin in journalism. But much of what passes for journalism today is not much more than narration, and the sinners are let off with a couple of Our Fathers and maybe a Hail Mary for their sins of omission when anyone notices their transgression and seriously calls them to account, and are then admonished to go, my son, and sin no more. Which of course they will do before the church door has even closed behind them.
Of course, one might say that Today's Edition has a narrative, too. I think it's called optimism. Which sometimes seems a bit incongruous with a lot of the facts that often appear on these pages. But as narratives go, it ain't a bad one, since it lacks any nefarious motive such as $$$. Well, not large $$$ anyway. We know you've got to eat and keep the lights on, Mr. Hubbell.
Thanks for your note. A reader responded who researched how many Democratic retirements were in "swing" districts that ranged from R+4 to D+7, which is a huge range. Given that range, only 12 of the retirements fell into that band, meaning that 18 retirements are in seats that are MORE than D+7. I think we still need more data, but at the moment, Axios should have written, "but only 12 of those retirements are in competitive districts", rather than "there have been 30 retirements, the most in twenty years."
Which is what they might have done if it weren't for that money-making narrative thing. But they know their audience. And the customer is always right, isn't he?
First, thank you for promoting outreach to younger voters, as via TikTok, and to Jessica Craven for having dived in.
Second, it may become tiresome to hear the comparisons to Hitler, but they're true, particularly when you follow the money. Timothy Snyder in Bloodlands details the horrible devastation that Stalin wreaked on Ukraine, to get the breadbasket of Europe. Hitler used the same pretext of protecting ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia, where the borderland Sudetenland included their mineral-rich mountains and related extractive industries. NPR reported (on 2/20/2022) that Ukraine is a significant source of wheat, and countries are preparing for disruption to the supply chain.
Third, you have the best Managing Editor!
I do have the best managing editor of all. For those you who follow her blog, she will be back online today. She had a slight setback with a chronic health condition but is back in the saddle.
Ellie, your historical notes regarding Czechoslovakia and Ukraine are really important. For some reason, the GOP is suffering from collective amnesia regarding the last century in Europe. Harley, Gosar, Greene, and Carlson are leading the charge, saying, "Ukraine who?" Putin believes that there are two Russias in Europe / Asia: Greater Russian and Lesser Russia. He sees the former Soviet Republics as vassal states. If we turn our backs on Ukraine, he will continue to invade every former Soviet Republic one-by-one. As I wrote in this edition of the newsletter, it's not about Ukraine. It is about the security of Europe. If we can't see that, we are in big trouble. So, I agree with you 100%
Agreed about the Managing Editor!!!
Robert, I continue to appreciate the many ways you point out to resist the creep of darkness and turn on important lights to push back against that creep. A good friend and fellow activist recently confided with me that she was overwhelmed by the number of crises and seemed to feel there was more work to do than she could find time for. She was concerned that she felt spread to thin over too many efforts, resulting in feeling ineffective. She also said there were so many causes she felt were important and dangers we faced that she could spend all her time just trying to keep up with day to day events and not actually spend any time trying to make a real difference on any of them.
I shared with her that a number of years ago I had actually spent some very productive time with a therapist for exactly that same problem. That therapist provided me with among some of the best advice I ever received that I often return to. It was the following:
You cannot solve all the world’s problems, nor can anyone else. However, if you let them overwhelm you, you may well make a difference on none of them. That would be tragic because you have proved you can make a difference on some. So consider this. Pick out something you care deeply and passionately about. It may be a relatively small issue affecting only a few people. Choose one for which you have the talents and resources to make a real difference. Figure out what you can do that would help make a difference for someone impacted by that challenge, then do that thing whatever it is. Take the time to celebrate that small win. Then go find some others who care about that same issue. Gather them together and organize them to work on that issue for a few more people. When together you make a real difference in some lives celebrate those victories with the group you gathered and those in whose lives you made a difference. Realize that while you have not solved all the world’s problems you have made a difference in some lives. Your victories will gather others to work on that issue and your successes will grow. When you feel joy from those successes you may well decide to take on another challenge. Simply repeat what you did on the first challenge.
If everyone would pick a small challenge important to them and gather others to focus on what they feel is important we could make an enormous difference in the world. So stop worrying about all the problems you can’t fix in the world and pick one on which you can make a difference and focus on that. Gather others to help and remember to celebrate your wins together. You will be amazed by how much joy that brings and the wonderful friendships you will form as well.
Phenomenal advice. I may include in this evening's newsletter! Thanks!
BTW, I was asked that same question over the weekend by a group of readers. I started my answer by saying that they should recognize that it is not their burden to solve all of the world's problems, but to do what they could. So we are on the same page!
What a really helpful comment. Feeling overwhelmed must be in the air. Thank you so much!
I feel, and it is just a feeling, that the Democrats will make history by not losing much in the mid-term elections. But I'm a hopeless optimist. The Republicans will continue to be the minority party as along as they cling for no good reason to Donald Trump and they may become even more minor until they disappear completely.
Catch Sunday night’s John Oliver. It fascinates me how the Rs are so spectacular at all delivering the same messages — who writes their playbook and gets them all on board?!? Critical Race Theory is a huge soundbite — it’s another hurdle for the Ds… But I’m with you — optimistic (hesitantly). Lots can happen before November.
Today I heard a lot about how Biden will crumble on Wednesday’s state of the union. I’m just not seeing that, but maybe so …
I don't think you are being a hopeless optimist. If we don't remain hopeful and work hard, then we might just as well hang it up.
There’s a LOT going on — thanks for capturing key points! I especially needed your thoughts about the Axios article as I faced my immediate family during dinner singing the same tune of doom and gloom. I just let them talk and didn’t take the bait (this time), but it sure brought me down. Appreciate you boosting my spirits! Happy President’s Day!
I haven't read it yet, but a reader has alerted me to a post by Robert Reich that has the counterpoint to the Axios article--that Dems have reason to believe they will win in 2022. I will check it out and report on it.
This morning, I write solely in response to Concluding Thoughts and close with a modest proposal. Like me, I imagine other subscribers receive numerous emails both from our political representatives and from our organizations seeking our counsel regarding the best way forward. Perhaps, instead of downplaying pieces, specifically from reputable sources, that are critical of our Party, maybe we should try to discern factors that could be valid and pass them to Party leadership.
For example, as someone who takes great care to chose words that have the best chance of being understood, I, too, have considerable concerns about the slogan “Defund the Police.” To that end, whatever the issue, I would advise we amplify the prudence of expecting to be misunderstood and of taking precautions against that happening.
Barbara. "Defund the Police" now exists only in the right wing blogosphere. Let go of it.
Robert, I note, instead of responding to my overall concern of downplaying pieces, specifically from reputable sources, that are critical of our Party, you merely commented on an example (the slogan “defund the police”) that largely has been associated with far left movements. I would note that the Axios piece also raised concerns about the slogan “abolish ICE” and, moreover, discussed the far right’s efforts to turbo-charge “fears of Democrats embracing socialist policies.”
Question: Is your position on these two additional associations with the far left movement as casual as your stance on “defund the police”?
Glad to hear that.
Lots of great information in Today's Edition Newsletter as we start another week, but I'd like to comment on the banned books segment. In some ways, banning these books have made them MORE popular (good thing). If you'd like to get some history on this subject, I recommend the three-part series on the "Now and Then" podcast with Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman. Parts 1 and 2 are available and definitely worth listening to: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vVk1QODQzNjc0NDgxMg?sa=X&ved=0CAMQ4aUDahcKEwjAlfmM-ZD2AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQNA&hl=en
Wonderful! Thanks! I will check it out.
Robert, thanks for the point about A.O.C. and context. So important.
Another excellent edition.
Every time I read about efforts to get "banned" books into the hands of students, efforts by local school boards to censor school libraries, and worst of all state legislation to prohibit the teaching or talking about things that might cause listeners "discomfort" I wonder why the US Department of Education isn't doing something to address these efforts to undermine our public education system. The ED's mission statement is as follows:
Overview and Mission Statement
ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
ED was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. ED's 4,400 employees and $68 billion budget are dedicated to:
Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.
Presumably one of the Education Department's pilars is "focusing national attention on key educational issues." It certainly strikes me that censorship is a key educational issue.
Thanks again for your excellent summations of daily events. And particular thanks for your ever present optimistic outlook.
The Department of Education was created by Jimmy Carter. He appointed Shirley Hufstedler as the first Secretary of Education. Carter intended to appoint Shirley to the Supreme Court--making her the first woman Justice. Carter lost, and Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor. The damage done to the Department of Education by Betsy DeVos is tragic. I agree with you that the ED should step in, but as you know, conservatives have made the agitating against the "common core" a Republican talking point about government overreach--even though the common core was NOT developed by the Dept of Education but by states that came together to agree on a basic set of literacy and knowledge requirements.
I feel that the more I read articles like you referenced about the disaster awaiting Democrats in 2022 the more I feel better because I feel that these “ hit jobs” are being written because the Republicans are actually scared of the possible results in 2022. American voters are smarter than people give them credit for especially the media. The non cult Republicans I know are disgusted with Trump and his cult but aren’t in love with Biden or how he has managed or communicated his accomplishments. Biden really is an “ average Joe” which was great for the year after Trump but we need more of a demonstrative now.
Your M.E. should know that the concluding thoughts are sometimes the most impactful part of the letter and provide context for the rest. In light of today's theme, it would be unfortunate to cut that short.
Thanks Dave. I will be sure NOT to tell her that. (;<). Her instincts are almost always 100% correct. I should have kept the piece as Axios as an article, then included a short Concluding Thoughts, but truth be told, I ran out of steam, so I finished the Axios piece and sent the newsletter.
I now have a clearer understanding of the situation and agree that your approach is most likely to be a long-term success. Much like your letter promises to be and has been so far.
This is BREAKING NEWS: Not long after Robert finished Today's Edition, diplomacy kicked in big time.
'Biden agrees ‘in principle’ to summit with Putin if Ukraine is not invaded'. Of course, there could be a snag...
This is the same comment I posted on 'Letter from an American'. In addition the possibility of a Biden - Putin summit, you'll find information about Russia and China's Alliance. The two leaders summit regularly and the two country's are closer than they've ever been. That's not good for the West. Might Xi could influence Putin's decision making with regard to Ukraine and in what ways? The two countries' working together is a factor in Ukraine Crisis dynamic.
'The standoff over the expected Russian invasion of Ukraine appeared to have a diplomatic window open late Sunday after President Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed “in principle” to a summit meeting.'
'The office of French President Emmanuel Macron said the two leaders had accepted the meeting and it would take place only if an attack doesn’t occur. The details of the summit will be worked out this week, when Secretary of State Antony Blinken is scheduled to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.'
'Although senior U.S. officials say they believe that Putin has made a decision to invade, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement that U.S. officials “are committed to pursuing diplomacy until the moment an invasion begins.” She confirmed that Biden accepted the invitation — “again, if an invasion hasn’t happened.”
'She also reiterated the administration’s position that Russia seems to be “continuing preparations for a full-scale assault on Ukraine very soon.”
'The development came after Russia continued to keep in place 30,000 troops it has deployed in neighboring Belarus despite earlier promises to withdraw them by Sunday. And earlier in the day, top administration officials echoed Biden’s assessment from Friday that Putin has made a decision to invade within days.' (WashingtonPost)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/20/ukraine-russia-invasion-
sanctions-blinken/
Another aspect of this is the Russia - China alliance.
'How will China respond to a potential Russian military escalation against Ukraine? Relations between Russia and China have intensified in recent years, with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping holding regular summits and the two countries’ militaries participating in joint exercises and cooperating in some defense industrial efforts. Ties between Moscow and Beijing are now closer than any time since the days of Stalin and Mao, driven by a shared perception that the United States is each country’s primary foreign policy challenge. One top Russian official told media in December 2021 that the relationship now “exceeds an alliance.”[1] Chinese state media, meanwhile, have vocally backed Russia in arguing that the current crisis stems from the US “using NATO as a tool to cannibalize and squeeze Russia’s strategic space.”[2]'(ForeignPolicyResearchInstitute)
https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/01/how-will-china-respond-to-the-russia-ukraine-crisis/
'China would back Russia diplomatically and perhaps economically if it invades Ukraine, worsening Beijing's already strained relations with the West, but would stop short of providing military support, experts said.'
'U.S. President Joe Biden said on Friday that Russia's Vladimir Putin had decided to invade Ukraine within days, a claim Russia denies. read more'
'China's foreign ministry has repeatedly blamed the United States for "spreading false information" and creating tensions, urging it to respect and address Russia's demands for security guarantees. read more' (Reuters)
[2]https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/china-would-back-russia-diplomatically-if-it-moved-ukraine-2022-02-19/
Will Russia Invade? Perhaps Putin didn't intend to all along. He will see what he can get without going to war. Think of what the Ukrainian people have been going through
Thanks for the detail. I hope the proposed summit is not merely a ruse. Ten days ago, Putin said that Russia was withdrawing its troops. Since then, he has added 50,000+ to Ukraine's borders.
It might be helpful to add TASS to your reading list. I have done so in the last two weeks. High profile stories in TASS are ignored in the West, perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not. Today, TASS is reporting that the two Ukrainian provinces in the Donbas have asked Russia to recognize them as independent states. Of course, they have been making that request for years. The fact that it is headline news in TASS today suggests that Putin wants the Russian people to see that the Ukrainian provinces are begging Russia to recognize them. If that happens, Russia will sign a treaty with those provinces to "defend" them, which will be the same thing as an invasion. I hope not. But a reader with extensive background in the area has been predicting this outcome for weeks.
Thank you for recommending TASS. Reuter's recently downplayed the 'summit' possibility as well. Cannot say how China will influence Putin to invade or not, but its very much a player in the Ukraine Crisis
I must disagree with you about one thing, Robert. Putin is Aleksandr Lukashenko's friend. Lukashenko would rather be a Quisling than be strung from a lamp post, which is what would likely happen if the people of Belarus have their way. So, while he'd like to be president of an independent nation, I suspect that he'll settle for being the viceroy as long as it keeps his head in place.
One thing that ought to be noted is that Ukraine (which Biden refuses to treat as "a faraway country of which we know nothing") has put Biden right in the center of the news, and shoved T___p to the sidelines. Which is better than TFG deserves, but also better than when he is the center of attention. That, of course, means that Biden has to show up well--either keep the Russians from invading, or make it clear to the American people that he has done everything possible to prevent war, and if he can't do that then that he is taking all available steps to make the war unacceptably costly to Russia. That will be a tall order, but who ever said that being president was supposed to be easy?
You are right about Lukashenko, but that doesn't extend to Belarus writ large. Lukashenko is a Putin puppet, but inserting Russian troops into Belarus under the guise of military exercises and then refusing to remove them was an evil masterstroke. I doubt the people of Belarus would have sat idly by as Russian troops occupied their country otherwise. Indeed, see the anti-Lukashenko civil unrest after his sham election in 2020.
I would like to know more about The Squad. Are they helping or hurting Democrats' chances in 2022?
Hi, Maureen. First, I don't think we should adopt the term "The Squad" to dismiss or demean four ground-breaking women elected by their constituents to Congress in two elections. I am not suggesting you are but we should recognize that the right wing media has used that term to do exactly that. I acknowledge that AOC came up with a hashtag to promote a picture of the four of them when they were sworn into Congress, but they have not since then used that term to describe themselves. But the right wing loves it because it seems to relegate them to status of a clique of high school cheerleaders rather than serious representatives in Congress.
During the negotiations over the Build Back Better bill, those four representatives were the adults in the room, supporting Biden every step of the way and agreeing to compromises when Manchin and Sinema issued an ever-shifting set of demands. It is true that some of them voted against the BBB on principle, but did so in coordination with Nancy Pelosi, knowing that BBB would pass in the House even if they voted against it.
So, what do they support? Let me list their objectives, and you stop reading when you believe they are out of step with the American people: they want to give seniors coverage for dental; they want to reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the government to negotiate with pharma companies; they want to provide working parents with subsidies for childcare; they want to give working families a tax credit to end child poverty; they want to provide free education at the community college level; they want to roll back the tax cuts Trump gave to corporations that had not even asked for those cuts; they want to encourage the development of clean energy; they want to invest in job training for fossil fuel workers who will eventually lose their jobs; they want to forgive student debt that is crushing young Americans who can't afford a house because they are still paying for a college education they received 20 years ago.
I hope you are still reading. What they want is to help Americans have healthier, safer, and more productive lives. The right wing media calls those goals "socialist"--but those are exactly the same goals that Biden supported, that every member of the House supported, and that 48 Democratic Senators supported. They are not outliers; they are you and me.
Finally, the "cost" of achieving the above would have been paid for by savings and tax increases. The cost would have been about 10% of the military budget--a budget that is larger than the budgets of the next TEN nations COMBINED.
I appreciate your explaining this because the few times I have read or heard about AOC or the other women, they strike me as really smart and in touch with their generation and the needs of the country at large. In that sense, I find what they are talking about far more "patriotic" than what is coming out of the mouth of Tucker Carlson and Co.
Recently in from REUTERS:
'The Kremlin said there were no concrete plans for a summit over Ukraine between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his U.S. counterpart Joe Biden, after the French president said the two leaders had agreed a meeting in principle. However, both Washington and Moscow played down hopes of a breakthrough, and satellite imagery appeared to show Russian deployments closer to Ukraine's border than before.'
"...it might undercut his narrative.", 'it' being a "fact" which further research may have produced. Following a narrative instead of the facts should be a cardinal sin in journalism. But much of what passes for journalism today is not much more than narration, and the sinners are let off with a couple of Our Fathers and maybe a Hail Mary for their sins of omission when anyone notices their transgression and seriously calls them to account, and are then admonished to go, my son, and sin no more. Which of course they will do before the church door has even closed behind them.
Of course, one might say that Today's Edition has a narrative, too. I think it's called optimism. Which sometimes seems a bit incongruous with a lot of the facts that often appear on these pages. But as narratives go, it ain't a bad one, since it lacks any nefarious motive such as $$$. Well, not large $$$ anyway. We know you've got to eat and keep the lights on, Mr. Hubbell.
So, go my son. Sin like hell.
Thanks for your note. A reader responded who researched how many Democratic retirements were in "swing" districts that ranged from R+4 to D+7, which is a huge range. Given that range, only 12 of the retirements fell into that band, meaning that 18 retirements are in seats that are MORE than D+7. I think we still need more data, but at the moment, Axios should have written, "but only 12 of those retirements are in competitive districts", rather than "there have been 30 retirements, the most in twenty years."
Which is what they might have done if it weren't for that money-making narrative thing. But they know their audience. And the customer is always right, isn't he?
Thank you! My thoughts exactly.