JEERS ... to Congressman Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho.
Three times last week, Fulcher voted against the U.S. commitment to Ukraine in its war against Russian aggression.
He was among 70 House Republicans who backed Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz’s proposal to cut off all military aid to Ukraine.
Fulcher joined another 88 GOP members who supported Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s attempt to slice $300 million from the weapons package.
Along with 97 other Republicans and 49 Democrats, he endorsed Greene’s scheme to block plans to ship cluster munitions to Ukraine.
None of these amendments to the ultimately passed defense bill prevailed. But look at the company Fulcher keeps — Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz, Thomas Massie, R-Ky., Scott Perry, R-Pa., and Matt Rosendale, R-Mont.
Nor is this anything new. The Idaho Republican was not in office a month before he signaled his opposition to the NATO alliance four years ago.
Still, his timing could not be worse.
As the Washington Post’s David Ignatius noted this week, “Ukraine might not be winning this war yet, but Russia is losing — and its leaders know it.”
It wasn’t the NATO alliance that cracked under the strain. Instead, it has enjoyed a strategic windfall — with the addition of Sweden and Finland. Meanwhile Yevgeniy Prigozhin drove his Wagner Group to within 125 miles of Moscow, exposing fault lines in Vladimir Putin’s hold on power.
While the Ukrainian counter-offensive is proceeding more slowly than hoped, British MI6 Chief Richard Moore noted it has captured more ground in a month than the Russians secured in one year.
What is the one thing that could encourage Putin?
The idea that Republicans such as Fulcher and former President Donald Trump could win next year’s elections, cut off Ukraine from American aid and hand the Russian leader the victory he can not win on the battlefield.
Given their record of war crimes against the Ukrainian people, a Russian victory would lead to genocide.
America’s lack of resolve would embolden not only Putin, but other autocrats throughout the world — notably Chinese President Xi Jinping.
If the West does not give Ukraine what it needs to fight and win this war, where will we fight next — and with whose blood and whose treasure?
With so much at risk, why does Fulcher continue to give aid and comfort to the Kremlin?
CHEERS ... to Idaho and Washington Republicans who stand with Ukraine.
Start with Washington Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Dan Newhouse, as well as Idaho’s Mike Simpson.
All three voted against the Gaetz measure to cut off aid entirely as well as Greene’s attempt to stop the transfer of cluster munitions. While Simpson did not cast a vote on Greene’s $300 million spending cut, Newhouse and McMorris Rodgers opposed that measure as well.
Then there’s Idaho Sen. Jim Risch.
In a July 11 interview with the Spokesman-Review’s Orion Donovan Smith, the former chairperson and current ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made clear his support for NATO and Ukraine at a pivotal point. President Joe Biden was in Europe for a gathering of the alliance.
“NATO is important because the national security of the United States of America is the most important issue that the federal government exists for,” Risch said. “And there is nothing that gives us better security than the NATO organization.”
If anything, Risch doesn’t think the Biden administration has been quick enough to deliver weapons systems to the Ukrainians.
And Risch has this advice for people who talk and vote like Fulcher: “If we turn tail right now and run, the die is cast in China, I believe. I think Taiwan is in grave, grave danger.”
JEERS ... to Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador.
With the blizzard of litigation he’s taken on — whether it’s fighting his own Department of Health and Welfare, his own State Board of Education, taking on the open primary initiative backers or simply defending the Legislature’s notorious “abortion trafficking” law — you’d think Labrador’s plate is full.
But he now wants to substitute his retailing acumen for the judgment of people paid to manage Target stores.
Labrador joined six other attorneys general to protest Target’s pride-friendly clothing line.
As far as they’re concerned, rainbow logos could be obscene and expose children to “content that sexualizes them.”
Moreover, the promotion isn’t good for Target’s bottom line or its stock price, they say.
What? Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ war on Mickey Mouse wasn’t good enough?
To begin with, this not-too-subtle effort at headline grabbing comes seven weeks after Target yanked much of the product line in the face of “threats impacting our team members’ sense of safety and well-being while at work.”
But who’s forcing customers to purchase anything at Target or even shop there?
Where did Labrador acquire this concern for the value of Target stock? Certainly shareholders are free to make their own decisions.
Or is this just Labrador — along with Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and their colleagues from the Deep South — playing to their political base’s antipathy toward a marginalized minority?
For the Great Labrador, no issue is unworthy of his attention and no publicity is undeserving of his pursuit.
JEERS ... to Idaho Gov. Brad Little and state schools Superintendent Debbie Critchfield.
They’ve just allocated $3 million of federal COVID-19 relief money toward purchasing a history curriculum that comports with “our Idaho values of embracing patriotism and a sense of pride about the success of our great country.”
The source of that curriculum is suspect — former Education Secretary Bill Bennett, who when he wasn’t preoccupied blowing millions at gambling casinos was publishing his version of American virtues.
So is the process. The adoption of curriculum in Idaho schools normally is a detailed effort involving professional educators to guarantee a solid, thorough instruction.
You don’t want history driven by any politician’s values. You want it lining up with historical facts that accurately tell us who we are and where we’re going. If we remain ignorant of our mistakes, how do we correct them? — M.T.
