Putin’s gripe with Trump, ‘purple’ nominee equals victory beyond ’28 and other commentary

Foreign desk: Putin’s Gripe With Trump

Vladimir Putin hoped a re-elected President Trump would play along with his drive to “put America in its place and give Russia the power to shape Europe’s destiny,” argues Hanna Notte at The New York Times, but: “One year later, those hopes have been dashed.” “Trump has scanted” Vlad’s “geopolitical aspirations” and “shown little care for Russian partners, allies or spheres of influence” from the Caucasus to Venezuela and Cuba. He “has imposed sanctions on Russian oil companies, seized a Russian-flagged tanker and pressed India to stop buying Russian crude.” Now the “cost” of Putin’s “calamitous war” on Ukraine, “in treasure and personnel, will climb ever higher. The United States, meanwhile, will continue to shake up the global order” while showing Russia nothing “much like respect.”

Liberal: ‘Purple’ Nominee = Victory Beyond ’28

Democrats have good reason “to anticipate a blue wave this November and perhaps even a favorable forecast in the 2028 Electoral College, regardless of who their presidential nominee is,” admits The Liberal Patriot’s Justin Vassallo. But they’d “have much better odds” in the long term if they nominate “someone who has a proven track record of winning over independents” and others “skeptical” of the party’s brand. One of their “rising stars from purple states” could “to mobilize first-time voters, irregular Democrats, and independents hungry for alternatives to the status quo” so that “victory in 2028” becomes “the first step toward building a durable majority coalition.” Otherwise, their troubles now “may long outlive Trump’s final exit from the stage.”

Conservative: Carlson Continues Cuckoo

President Trump has urged podcaster Tucker Carlson “to end his battle with prominent pro-Israel MAGA influencers,” observes Eli Lake at The Free Press, because “the split Carlson was creating in Trump’s coalition” could sink the GOP’s midterm hopes. Amid Carlson’s wild claims that “the Jewish state exercises a stranglehold on U.S. foreign policy,” his coziness with outright antisemites and his “pitched battle” with prominent pro-Israel conservatives, the prez asked him to “turn down the temperature.” Nope: In a hostile interview with US Ambassador Mike Huckabee, Carlson “claimed that Israel was responsible for gulling former president George W. Bush into launching the Iraq War” (when then-PM Ariel Sharon actually advised against it) among other canards. The podcaster is “steering the right over the cliff and into the darkness.”

Libertarian: Bernie vs. the Future

After Sen. Bernie Sanders and his allies “want to slow the pace of technological development in the U.S. because they think AI is bad, and they think people making money off AI is bad,” marvels The Hill’s Robby Soave. Bernie thinks “all the gains of increased technology are going to come at the expense of working people” — but that “Marxist socialist viewpoint” is “completely wrong.” Sure, “the tech CEOs are about to make a lot of money off AI. But we’re also going to get self-driving cars, cheaper electronic goods, renewable energy sources, more accurate medical diagnoses and advances in care, sustainable food sources, and on and on.” We all win “— unless we regulate ourselves so that we fall behind enemy nations like China, that would use tech to harm us.”

From the right: Telling Congress To Step Up

Congress should read “Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in the Supreme Court’s rejection of President Trump’s” justification for his tariffs, urges The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board: “The Justice has more confidence in Congress than the Members themselves.” His chief goal is “to encourage Congress to reclaim its proper authority” under the Constitution. He defends “the Court’s major questions doctrine, which says the executive must point to clear Congressional language to justify a regulation with significant consequences” — a “pro-Congress” principle that “protects against the usurpation of legislative power by Presidents.” At present, Congress has “ceded too much tariff power to a President who refuses to use it with restraint.” Limiting that power “would be a good start on reviving” Congress’ proper role.

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board