If Republicans win, the Dems will have to finish up some very important business
Greg Sargent has some urgent advice for Democrats:
We learned this week that a Republican-controlled House could very well move to oppose continued U.S. military aid to Ukraine. In response, a few voices have arisen — including ones from inside the Biden administration— to insist that in the end a GOP House would of course do the right thing and keep that aid going.
But even if Biden aides are professing confidence about continuing aid to Ukraine in 2023, Democrats should seriously consider locking in longer-term aid to Ukraine in the lame duck session, if they lose the House and/or the Senate.
Some Democrats have begun openly calling for this. “I would be in favor of any legislative initiative that commits the United States and its allies to a long-term commitment,” Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia told me. Connolly is right. Being overly sanguine about continuing aid to Ukraine doesn’t sufficiently factor in the dynamics and incentives that will likely shape a GOP House, including the development of an increasingly pro-Russia MAGA caucus that could only grow stronger after the midterms.
This all started when House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy let the truth slip in an interview with Punchbowl News. “I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” McCarthy said.That should be clear enough. But the White House does not seem to be taking McCarthy’s threats too seriously. Politico reports that aides to President Biden believe McCarthy will “blink,” and that he’ll keep the funding going, though perhaps less of it:
Their calculus is that a political blowback would singe the GOP if the money stopped, Ukraine suffered, and Russia emerged triumphant.
White House aides note that well-placed Republicans support continuing militaryaid to Ukraine. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) backs it, and so does Rep. Michael McCaul, who would chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee in a GOP House. McCaul told Bloomberg News that there’s still “bipartisan support” for Ukraine aid.
It’s true that many Republicans full-throatedly support the Ukrainian cause. A large majority of Republicans have so far voted for tens of billions of dollars in Ukraine aid. But 57 House Republicans voted against it. And a Democrat points out that a number of House GOP candidates — see here, here, and here — have opposed more funding, too.
It’s indisputable that the Republican Party is divided on this question. As The Post’s Eugene Scott notes, several GOP Senate candidates in the MAGA mold have signaled opposition. Now that McCarthy has signaled that aid may be in trouble, with influential MAGA Republicans like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene opposing it, the GOPdivide could worsen if the House MAGA caucus grows.
There’s also the role of ultra-MAGA-loyalist Rep. Scott Perry on the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Pennsylvania Republican and hard-right Freedom Caucus chair has floated the idea of launching House GOP investigations of Biden’s handling of Ukraine. In principle that workcould be conducted as good faith oversight, but it could also be abused in bad faith to obstruct badly needed military aid. Perry voted against aid and has raised strong notes of skepticism about it.
Rep. Connolly, who is also on that committee, notes that Perry has a history of using the amendment process to gum up its functioning, and suggests he may do the same on Ukraine.
“He has become a single-minded amendment factory,” Connolly told me, adding that Perry will likely try to “delay” Ukraine aid: “If past is prologue, that is his modus operandi.”
What’s more, it’s naive to think Republicans would fear political blowback if they blocked more aid and Ukraine suffered, as White House aides suggest. If you don’t think plenty of Republicans are capable of opposing aid to Ukraine and then blaming Biden as the guy who “lost Ukraine,” you haven’t been paying attention.
And if Republicans actually do gain the power to slow or stall aid, their political incentives could shift. In particular,certain segments of the right wing media might start clamoring more loudly for this, and there could be increasing rewards — attention, plaudits — for Republicans who adopt this position
[…]
“With the normalization of what started as fringe ideas, they have started to seep into common discussion points,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) told me, noting that it’s ominous that McCarthy is already “crumbling to his fringes.”
It is ludicrous that Democrats would believe, even for a moment, that the GOP caucus will see Ukraine as something they needs to fall in line for. Do these people watch the great oracle of white nationalism, Fox News? Do they realize who they are dealing with?
Kevin McCarthy will have no control over his caucus. None. They don’t respect him, they don’t care about him and they will do whatever they want. What they want is to own the libs and that means opposing anything and everything this administration wants to do. And they are very happy to see Russia win in Ukraine — they like Putin, they really like him. He’s their kind of guy.
Sargent is right that Democrats have to do everything they can to lock in aid for Ukraine — and raise the debt ceiling for the foreseeable future if the Republicans take over. They just have to.