Mediaboss Marketing

Progressive candidates who lost recent high-profile congressional campaigns launch national comeback bids to reenergize the left after bruising disappointments in 2021.

From the Midwest to the Deep South and Pacific Northwest, these insurgent progressives insist they have the right formula to take on the establishment wing of politicians they argue has politically crippled the country during the Biden era.

Were going to be flooding the streets, said a senior campaign adviser for former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D), who recently announced a second primary challenge to Rep. Shontel Brown (D) in the states 11th Congressional District. This will be a very bottom-heavy campaign.

Turner is not alone in her grassroots-style approach to a rematch.

In Texas, attorney and activist Jessica Cisneros is gunning for another shot against recently embattled Rep. Henry Cuellar (D) in the states 28th Congressional District after losing to him by less than 4 points in 2020. With Cuellar embroiled in a federal investigation, Cisneros has even more of an opening.

And in Oregon, Jamie McLeod-Skinner is running just two years after losing in the general election for the 2nd Congressional District in 2018. This time, shes aiming for the states 5th Congressional District, currently held by Rep. Kurt SchraderWalter (Kurt) Kurt SchraderOvernight Energy & Environment Biden tries to reverse Trump on power plants 23 House Democrats call for Biden to keep full climate funds in Build Back Better House passes bill to strengthen shipping supply chain MORE (D).

To some in the party, the progressive do-overs feel like an unnecessary rehash of recent events. They argue their organizing muscle would be better spent supporting Democrats who are already comfortably in office which is even more critical, they say, with control of Congress hanging on just a few seats.

The climate in Washington is already so polarized that they fear a scattering of challengers to fellow Democrats could further alienate voters who believe the party is falling off the rails and heading for collision in November.

For every progressive that may be challenging a moderate, what does that say about the resources in the end? said Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright. What does that say about trying to bring this party together and unifying this party?

The real opponent is on the other side, he said.

Progressives believe thats oversimplifying things. To some failed candidates, their bids come as badges of honor: the closeness of their defeats, the energized momentumfrom gains progressives have made in the Houseand, in some cases, the lessons learned from the past are all reasons enough to restart.

We always have known that this isnt a one-time-cycle fight, said Natalia Salgado, the director of federal affairs for the Working Families Party. Bernie SandersBernie SandersBriahna Joy Gray: Biden's Supreme Court promise 'bare minimum' gesture to Black voters Manchin sees best fundraising haul for in nonelection year Biden's 'New Political Order' MORE getting to the top of the ticket and being seen as a viable candidate versus a longtime party leader that is and was President BidenJoe BidenBriahna Joy Gray: Biden's Supreme Court promise 'bare minimum' gesture to Black voters House GOP leader says State of the Union attendance could be capped: report Record enrollment numbers send a clear message about health care affordability, access MORE is a big indication of how far we have come.

With all the stagnation on Capitol Hill, where Bidens legislative agenda has been held hostage, some say, by a few moderates in the Senate and House, more progressives in office could shake things up.

The energy right now is for surviving this existential moment for our planet and democracy. That means progressives flipping red seats and winning open seats more than primarying incumbents, said Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

The giant exception is for people like Henry Cuellar and Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaDurbin says 'several' Republicans could be open to Biden court pick Manchin hired security detail amid threats and protests Manchin 'anxious' to confirm Breyer's Supreme Court successor MORE, who occupy blue seats and actively block the Democratic agenda, which is why theres so much energy around Jessica Cisneross House campaign and even a 2024 Primary Sinema campaign.

In Texass 28th District, which has been one of Democrats biggest targets for the past several seasons, the contest between Cuellar and Cisneros has garnered national attention due to an FBI raid on Cuellars home, which is part of a broader investigation between U.S. businessmen and Azerbaijan. The investigation has subsequently drawn more eyes to his district, which many speculate benefits Cisneros.

Yet Cuellar still appears to have a fundraising advantage. He raised $700,000 during the last quarter of 2021, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. Cisneros raised $362,000 during the same period.

But Cisneros has been making what she believes is a more compelling case to voters, keeping in line with other progressives firmness in bucking corporate donations in favor of small dollar contributions. And shes gotten some top media figures to take notice, including going door-to-door with MSNBC as she literally introduced herself to her would-be constituents.

Cuellar and Schrader were among the moderate House Democrats who faced blowback during negotiations surrounding Bidens infrastructure package and a sweeping social spending bill known as Build Back Better. While the two moderate congressmen ultimately voted to pass Build Back Better in the House, progressives have slammed them along with seven other moderate Democrats for voting to pass infrastructure separately from the social spending package.

The fight around Build Back Better really clarified who within the Democratic caucus is really a progressive and who is not, said Joseph Geevarghese, national director of the Sanders-aligned group Our Revolution. In the case of Kurt Schrader and Henry Cuellar, the contrast is clear and I think theres more energy that will be generated as a result.

Turner and Brown are in a different spot. The two candidates, both Black women, last faced off in an August special election to fill Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia FudgeMarcia FudgeEquilibrium/Sustainability Robots to explore Greenland's glaciers HUD opens access to B in climate, disaster resilience grants Nina Turner launches new campaign for Congress, setting up likely rematch with Shontel Brown MOREs seat. The primary turned into a bitter fight between the partys establishment and progressive factions.

Top party figures like House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and progressive icons like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezOmar seeking third term in Congress Manchin hired security detail amid threats and protests Democratic rep tests positive for COVID-19 upon return from Ukraine trip MORE (D-N.Y.) traveled to the district to campaign with their respective candidates. Brown ultimately defeated Turner by roughly 5 points.

Now, Turner is throwing it all back into the rematch, proclaiming in a very on-brand launch video last week that our leaders cant settle for just enough.

The senior adviser helping shape Turners messaging strategy pointed to several factors that the campaign believes will work in the progressive firebrands favor, including a soon-to-be-announced new congressional map.

What we know for certain is that up to a third of the district will be brand new and that it will be greater Cleveland that will be the anchor of the district, the adviser said.

This is going to be a Cleveland district ... which is good for Nina.

More than 2,000 miles away from Cleveland, in the greater Portland area, McLeod-Skinner is challenging Schrader, with many of her supporters citing Schraders initial skepticism over Bidens social safety net plan.

The Working Families Party cited Schraders role in those negotiations in their endorsement of McLeod-Skinner last week.

But Democratic strategists maintain that the stalling of Bidens agenda is not the fault of Democrats in the House, but rather the partys moderates in the Senate.

The reality is the House is doing its work and theyre delivering results for the American people, Seawright, the Democratic strategist, said. Theres a clog in the wheel in the United States Senate.

Progressives brushed off this notion, citing what they said were the ties between moderates in both chambers.

They very actively worked against Build Back Better and I think those of us on the left have the receipts to show it, the Working Families Partys Salgado said.

See the original post here:
Progressive candidates seek comebacks after disappointing year | TheHill - The Hill

If you want to understand the massive political dysfunction in the Democratic Party, look no further than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs recent comments about Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.

This week, Ocasio-Cortez appeared on MSNBC and declared that supporting a potential primary challenge to Sinema would be the easiest decision I would ever have to make. She also personally scolded Sinema, saying, She is not an ally on civil rights, and accusing her of contributing to the threat that we have in stabilizing our democracy. The New York congresswoman further called the Arizona senator a profound ally of corporate interests.

Democratic infighting and disunity (an obvious problem since Bidens Build Back Better bill crumbled) aside, Im most interested in the timing of her remarks. Its not just what she said, its when she said it.

AOC made her comments Wednesday night, just hours after news broke that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was planning to retire. Let me put this in context. With a 50-50 Senate in which Democrats will need every vote to replace Breyer with an African American woman (as President Joe Biden has promised), AOC attacked one of the 50 Democrats who could scuttle the nomination.

Keep in mind that Democratic control over the Senate could not be any more precarious. In fact, Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe has previously argued that a vice president cant break a tie on a Supreme Court nomination. While it seems highly unlikely his constitutional argument will win the day, the only obstacles between Biden getting his first SCOTUS pick are a) the life and health of 50 Democratic senatorsmany of whom are in their golden yearsand b) the possible defection of Sens. Sinema or Joe Manchin.

When you realize that President Donald Trump won Manchins home state of West Virginia by almost 40 percentage points, you start to realize that Manchin might be better off switching parties. Likewise, Sinema has a higher approval rating among Arizona Republicans than Democrats (a party that just voted to censure her). Now, I dont actually think either will switch parties, although crazier things have happened. But that doesnt mean Sinema and Manchin couldnt vote against Bidens nomineeespecially if that nominee hits some bumps en route to confirmation.

But even then, unless progressives like AOC find a way to completely alienate them from the Democratic Party, it seems highly likely that Sinema and Manchin will both support the nomineeas will some Republicans.

As CNNs Manu Ragu notes, Manchin has long deferred to presidents nominees; Sinema tends to vote for Biden nominees. Amber Phillips of the Washington Post agrees, writing, Manchin and Sinema have both supported his lower court picks, including one that is high on Bidens short list for the high court: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. And Ben Jacobs at New York magazine says both senators look ready to help the president fulfill his promise from the 2020 presidential primary of putting the first Black woman on the Court.

It was ill-advised for AOC to attack Sinema (and Manchin) at the exact moment when they are poised to deliver a huge win for their party. Even if its unlikely theyll be angered enough by the attacks from the partys left-flank that theyd derail the nomination, Supreme Court confirmations are precious. Why chance blowing it?

Rather than seizing this opportunity to cast stones inside their own house, this moment should serve as a reminder to Democrats that they should be thankful for centrists like Sinema and Manchin whoeven if they sometimes fall short of the progressive purity teststill represent the party in states that are far from safe for Democratic incumbents.

Its entirely plausible that Sinema could be defeated by a Republican, a scenario made more likely by Democratic infighting. It also seems almost certain that a Republican would replace Manchin if he retires or loses reelection. Given those realities, Democrats should take what they can get (such as a lifetime justice on the high court!) and avoid making perfect the enemy of good.

Now, AOC may not have much appreciation for the political realities of living in a red (or purple) state, coming from a safe New York congressional district. But the rest of the country doesnt share the political sensibilities of her New York City district. Despite her relatively brief tenure in the lower house, AOC has a huge megaphone, commands media attention, and has a huge social media following. All this is to say, her ability to pressure (and alienate) moderate Democrats in the upper chamber exceeds her congressional seniority. This is a problem for the party.

If Democrats want to achieve grand progressive results (a la FDR and LBJ), they need grand majoritiessomething thats highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. Its unrealistic to think you can always count on having unanimous support from your caucus, so you need a little cushion. This is the cost of doing the business of politics.

They can build a cushion by winning more electionsnot by harshly disciplining their narrow majority, which will unintentionally lose seats. As James Carville told Vox, If we want to pass more liberal policies, we need to elect more Democrats. Period. End of story.

I couldnt have said it better myself. And to accomplish this task, Democrats need to get their most famous and important progressive star, AOC, on board.

Continued here:
Progressives Should Be Thankful for Sinema and Manchin - The Daily Beast

Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) leaders are urging the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass President BidenJoe BidenBriahna Joy Gray: Biden's Supreme Court promise 'bare minimum' gesture to Black voters House GOP leader says State of the Union attendance could be capped: report Record enrollment numbers send a clear message about health care affordability, access MOREs Build Back Better package byMarch 1, saying the timing would give him a much-needed opportunity to announce a major accomplishment during his State of the Union address.

In the months since negotiations around the Build Back Better Act stalled, the case for this legislation has only become more urgent, said Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalProgressive groups push Senate for action on spending, climate package Pelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better Left says they're not to blame for Biden's problems MORE (D-Wash.), who chairs the group of liberal lawmakers on Capitol Hill, wrote in the Thursday statement.

There is agreement among Senate Democrats on significant parts of this bill: climate action, the care economy, taking on Big Pharmas price gouging, and lowering health care costs. There is agreement on the need to reduce rising costs facing ordinary Americans and that is exactly what Build Back Better does, she wrote.

The CPC has been a leading force at the negotiating table during months of lapsed deadlines to pass the massive spending package.

Progressive officeholders have consistently urged two centrist holdouts in the upper chamber, Sens. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinLujn stroke jolts 50-50 Senate Tucker Carlson donates to Marjorie Taylor Greene's campaign Senate Democrats unveil proposal to reform Electoral Count Act MORE (D-W.Va.) and Krysten Sinema (D-Ariz.), to get on board with the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus and majority of House Democrats to pass the presidents signature first-term proposal to expand the social safety net and protect the environment.

In recent weeks, they have become more vocal in their desire to see results as further delays and a lack of movement has depressed parts of the party and general public.

Jayapal listed several issues that have escalated recently that are hurting Americans and explained how Biden has a chance to tell voters that he worked with congressional Democrats to fix some of what has been broken.

Public housing residents have endured devastating fires, the cost of insulin and other prescription drugs continue to crush working people, and parents are desperate for child care support, she wrote. This desperately needed relief cannot be delayed any longer.

Read the rest here:
Progressives urge Senate to pass Build Back Better by March 1 | TheHill - The Hill

The left or progressive wing of Californias Democratic Party has a dream and believes that the states political structure is primed to make it reality.

The oft-expressed dream is to transform California into something like Sweden, France or the Netherlands with an expansive array of cradle-to-the-grave services, a highly unionized green economy and, of course, the high taxes to pay for it.

With huge Democratic majorities in the Legislature and a governor lending verbal support, those on the left believe its a unique opportunity to advance the vision.

However the vision clashed with political reality this week as its centerpiece creating a single-payer health care system to replace the private-public, insurance-based model now in place stalled out in the Assembly because not enough Democrats would vote for it in an election year.

Those who had been pushing single-payer for years, hoping that a victory in California would galvanize a national system, were incensed that the author of the bill, Assemblyman Ash Kalra of San Jose, refused to take up the bill.

Assembly Bill 1400s chief sponsor, the California Nurses Association, turned on Kalra, saying, Nurses are especially outraged that Kalra chose to just give up on patients across the state. Nurses never give up on our patients, and we will keep fighting with our allies in the grassroots movement for CalCare until all people in California can get the care they need, regardless of ability to pay.

CalMatters reporter Alexei Koseff revealed that Kalra later told supporters on a Zoom call, I dont believe it would have served the cause of getting single payer done by having the vote and having it go down in flames and further alienating members, adding that he was short of the required 41 votes by double digits.

The issue created a two-way squeeze on Democratic legislators an open threat from progressives to deny party endorsements if they didnt back Kalras bill and an implied threat from opponents that a vote for it would be characterized as a support for a huge tax increase. With redistricting making election outcomes less certain, Kalra protected his colleagues by not forcing them to vote either way.

It was not the lefts only setback. Another priority bill, aimed at bolstering rent control, also died without a floor vote. The states Ellis Act now allows landlords to evict tenants from rent-controlled housing if they sell the property, and has long been a target of progressive activists.

Their measure, Assembly Bill 854, would have required new owners of rent-controlled housing to hold their properties for at least five years before invoking the Ellis Act. The fact that they couldnt even make their positions public on two major progressive priorities today, I consider that an insult to the public, honestly, said Shanti Singh, legislative director for Tenants Together.

The only good news for progressives Monday was passage albeit barely of another priority measure. Assembly Bill 257 would create a European-style governmental council to set wages and working conditions for the franchised fast food industry McDonalds, Burger King, etc.

The proposed Fast-Food Sector Council, dominated by employees and appointees of union-friendly politicians, would bypass the traditional union organization and collective bargaining process.

If enacted, AB 257 would be a precedent for other economic sectors resistant to unionization, such as agriculture. But its fate in the state Senate is far from certain as it faces very stiff opposition from the franchise industry and the larger business community.

California may eventually make the progressives social democracy dream a reality, but it wont happen anytime soon.

CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how Californias state Capitol works and why it matters. For more stories by Dan Walters, go to calmatters.org/commentary.

Read the original here:
Progressive agenda takes a beating in Capitol - Press-Enterprise

Last week, two progressive Democrats issued a statement chiding the Biden administration for preparing troop deploymentsto Europe and military aid to Ukraine that the lawmakers said could escalate the crisis. On Wednesday, the U.S. announced Biden was sending 3,000 troops to Eastern Europe in response to the Russian threat to Ukraine.

We have significant concerns that new troop deployments, sweeping and indiscriminate sanctions, and a flood of hundreds of millions of dollars in lethal weapons will only raise tensions and increase the chance of miscalculation, Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said. Russias strategy is to inflame tensions; the United States and NATO must not play into this strategy. Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the war in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In think tanks and academic institutions, meanwhile, a growing crop of restraint-oriented scholars are trying not to get drowned out by their more numerous hawkish colleagues. Some of these scholars had hoped that, in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, they could now focus on convincing Biden to pull American troops out of Iraq and Syria. Instead, they are dealing with what feels like a new trans-Atlantic Cold War, just as tensions between the United States and China are also rising in the Pacific.

This is not as easy as some of the other cases, where, for example, its much more clear that the United States shouldnt engage in any more regime change operations in the Middle East, acknowledged Will Ruger, who helped steer funding to restraint-focused scholars from the libertarian-leaning Koch network and now leads the American Institute for Economic Research.

The Ukraine crisis threatens to divert U.S. military and economic resources toward a potential land war that many restrainers believe simply isnt in Americas interest. But it is unusually complicated because it also involves NATO, long-standing American military commitments to European allies and Putin, a dictator bent on redrawing the world map, whom many restrainers loathe.

The crisis also has exposed how restrainers remain a relatively weak force in Washington, including in Congress, despite the voices of progressives skeptical of military intervention who had hoped for a more sympathetic ear from the Biden team.

Richard Fontaine, chief executive officer of the bipartisan Center for a New American Security, said the Biden administration is dealing with the world as it is.

Im sure no one would have preferred to have a crisis with Russia over Ukraine, said Fontaine, who previously advised the hawkish late GOP Sen. John McCain. But you could either do nothing or you could do something. And if youre going to do something, then its going to be a mixture of deterrence and possible accommodation to reasonable Russian concerns.

Restrainers are found on both left and right in Washington. They include conservatives, often but not all in the libertarian mold, as well as some vocal progressive Democrats. Their ranks and influence have grown, with new think tanks and funding aimed at spreading their philosophy.

The motivations of restrainers are not all the same. Some care more about not spilling blood, others about not wasting treasure. For many, it comes down to the particular conflict; some are deeply worried about how America will face an increasingly powerful China, for instance. But broadly speaking, the goal is to limit the use of what they believe often is counterproductive U.S. military force.

A recent Twitter exchange between Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin and Rep. Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat from California, captured some of the conflicting impulses facing restraint-oriented public figures thanks to the Ukraine crisis and the many countries and alliances it involves.

Ukraine has the moral high ground, Khanna tweeted at one point. We can impose sanctions & speak out clearly against Putin aggression. But our national security requires us not to get significantly entangled in a conflict that would weaken us vis a vis China.

When Rogin argued that letting Russia off the hook for Ukraine set a bad precedent for how restrainers would deal with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Khanna insisted that was a different situation because Taiwan was more tied to the U.S. economy.

Khanna was unavailable for comment. But his argument hints at the choices some restrainers believe the U.S. must make in deciding when to get involved in a foreign crisis. Those choices raise questions about restrainers willingness to ignore the causes of human rights and democracy when they believe it serves the U.S. national interest.

As they see the debate over Ukraine spiral into threats of a potentially long, bloody war, many restrainers are saying, I told you so.

The roots of the problem, these restrainers argue in op-eds and other forums, lie at decisions years ago by the United States and some of its allies to allow for the possibility of one day admitting Ukraine and Georgia as members of NATO.

The growth of the military alliance has long been a sore point for Putin, who has led Russia for more than two decades and sees NATO as a threat to his countrys influence over many of its neighbors. In remarks Tuesday, Putin alleged that U.S. officials are merely using Ukraine as a tool to hinder the development of Russia.

The Russian president has already carried out limited invasions of both Ukraine and Georgia; his build-up of 100,000 troops along Ukraines border this time, though, augurs grander plans.

Ukraine and Georgia are unlikely to join NATO anytime soon. Still, the U.S. should have taken their membership off the table completely in earlier talks with Putin in exchange for significant moves on his part, such as withdrawing forces he has in those countries, said Gavin Wilde, a former National Security Council official who dealt with Russia.

Wilde, who describes himself as a liberal internationalist-turned-restrainer, says it doesnt help that the United States and its allies have often conflated NATO a defensive military pact with ideas like democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

Now it seems like that particular opportunity to deescalate and get some concessions from Putin may have passed, said Wilde, who is now with Defense Priorities, a restraint-focused think tank.

Plenty of foreign policy practitioners disagree with Wildes diagnosis.

Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, said restrainers want to blame everything on NATO expansion when much of the problem really comes down to Putin.

Its a problem of Putin believing he will only be secure if he can control his neighborhood, Daalder said, adding that the Russian dictator in particular fears that democratic progress in places like Ukraine will embolden Russians to rise up against him.

Daalder and others also dismissed the notion that Bidens decision to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan had much to do with the doctrine of restraint.

Biden had long advocated for an end to the United States presence in Afghanistan, believing it was a fruitless fight that drained resources from more important standoffs, including with Russia and China, Daalder argued.

Still, plenty of restrainers are taking comfort in Bidens promise that U.S. troops will not play a direct fighting role in any battle for Ukraine, even though some may be sent to beef up the American presence in nearby NATO countries as a deterrent.

He continues to display a realist sensibility, said Stephen Wertheim, a restraint-supporting scholar who last year co-authored a Foreign Affairs essay titled Biden the Realist. The problem? Its competing with both the constraints of politics and a liberal internationalist streak, too.

Despite Bidens promises now, restrainers worry that the conflict will evolve in a way that drags the United States into a direct shooting war, especially if hawkish lawmakers pressure the White House and campaign politics require a tough on Russia stance.

You hear people talk about supporting an insurgency in Ukraine. What does that mean? Covert actors on the ground? What happens if they get killed? Ruger said. What happens if this gets escalated?

One of the trickiest parts of arguing for restraint in the case of Ukraine is the risk of being accused of supporting Putin, whose human rights record includes poisoning political opponents and eviscerating media freedoms.

Commentator Peter Beinart, who long ago came to regret his support of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, recently described accusations that restrainers are pro-Putin as a type of cancel culture. He noted that supporters of deposing tyrants like Iraqs Saddam Hussein often failed to calculate the longer-term risks.

In deposing Saddam, the U.S. launched a war that took roughly 200,000 Iraqi lives, strengthened Iran, and helped create ISIS, Beinart writes. In deposing Muammar Qaddafi, the U.S. helped turn Libya into a failed state, thus scattering weapons and fighters across West Africa, some of whom reportedly helped launch a coup in Burkina Faso last week. All of which makes it quite plausible that keeping NATO membership open to Ukraine will help provoke a Russian response that leaves that country less stable, less free, and less peaceful than it would be if the U.S. supported Ukrainian neutrality.

There are other factors in play as U.S. lawmakers and others weigh the implications of the Russian threats against Ukraine. Some people involved remember well the Cold War and are reflexively inclined toward a tough-on-Russia stance. Others came of age in the post-9/11 era and are skeptical of American use of force abroad. Many are almost reflexively anti-war: A coalition of such groups released a statement Tuesday calling on Biden to end the U.S. role in escalating the extremely dangerous tensions with Russia over Ukraine and blaming the crisis on NATO expansion.

Some of the sentiment is based in pure politics. To some liberals, opposing Russia and supporting Ukraine is equivalent to opposing former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly tried to curry favor with Putin and was accused of halting U.S. military aid to Ukraine in a bid to force the government in Kyiv to investigate Biden.

Its tough to predict sometimes who will land on what side, said Stephen Miles, president of Win Without War, a progressive organization. After all, one of the most powerful voices speaking out against U.S. support for Ukraine is conservative Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

The political signaling is all screwed up, Miles said.

For people like Wertheim, Ruger and others, simply the fact that there is a debate already is a victory for restrainers. Ten or 20 years ago, such voices were far more easily drowned out, they say. Now, even members of the Biden administration will at least listen.

The Biden administration at the very top has proved to be more amenable to restrainers way of thinking than expected, Wertheim said. When it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the president and his aides need to think of the long-term consequences, Wertheim added, including how a commitment to this conflict could impact their stated desires to focus U.S. foreign policy more on China.

The way things are going now, the likely outcome will be an increased U.S. commitment to Europe, and that really will be an unfortunate outcome, he said.

See more here:
The restraint crowd facepalms over Biden's Ukraine threats - POLITICO