biden spoke with putin again this week, margaret. so how much could that situation impact biden s domestic priorities? i mean, they really are separate issues, but if vladimir putin were actually to decide to go for it and invade ukraine, it would force biden s hand and nato s hand and all the western allies hand to do what they ve been threatening to do which is really bring down the hammer on sanctions. that would on the one hand be a distraction from biden s domestic agenda on the other hand it could give the american president an opportunity to reassert leadership skills abroad if he responds decisively. coming out of afghanistan, again, there was this expectations setting flub where americans did not understand that this was going to be a very, very bumpy exit because the white house didn t prepare americans messagingwise.
fact is, emily horn, spokesperson for the nsc, has attempted to clarify this already via twitter. i believe we have this. she says, the president was referring to the difference between military and nonmilitary/paramilitary cyber action by the russians. such actions would be met by reciprocal response in coordination with allies and partners. so the white house realizes it s got to walk back that sense the president gave that a minor incursion would be okay, the u.s. and nato would settle with that. whereas a formal military invasion or full-scale invasion is the only outcome that would be met with a formidable response. so you have that tweet there and you should expect some further clarification from the white house in the next several minutes. i will say that what was notable was the contrast between that comment, that flub, and the message the president was trying to convey earlier, which was that russia faced massive consequences for further invading ukraine. and keep in mind, wol
the problem is the democratic senate, you still have a 50/50 body, which would require ten republican senators to get aboard with any piece of legislation unless you abolish the flub. that brings us back to square one. you have republicans almost eun very sally in opposition to that. you can get all the democrats on board you want, but that won t get you all the way to signing a bill into law. that s right. the white house will be onus on them that can actually show something here. politico s nicholas wu, we really appreciate it as always. stale head, we look back at the career and comedy history of bob saget.
inflation and that cars are responsible for a third of inflation, which i ve seen no evidence to support that. what do you think about this? if the economy was so good, wouldn t his numbers reflect that? they re anemic. number 1, his flub aside about calling conor lamb, conor lamb, that will cause controversy inside pennsylvania. but i thought, trace, the rest of his speech was good. this is the kind of thing that joe biden should be talking about. economics. basic kitchen table issues. if he were talking about this instead of the green new deal, instead of calling republicans jim crow and appease bernie sanders, if he spoke bread and butter economic issues, he would have been better off. the economy is not strong and covid is dragging him down. if he had been a president that
or putin will not just have to end his aggression to ukraine but he ll have to give back the territories that is taken. all of that should be on the table. i think the flub is very revealing of this is again going back to us telling russia but we won t be doing. paul: dan, when you make of the fox poll showing the american public generally would like the u.s. to do more in supporting ukraine. we hear so often from the left and the right that in fact americans are now isolationists and want to focus on home. yet here we are supporting more. is quite remarkable. a lot of the purpose of the speech was indeed directed at an american audience, the white house has to be extremely upset those numbers are just terrible. and so the president gave a very forceful speech describing all of the things we are doing. i agree with you it was a good speech. but the president is on a weak political ground.