[Goose]

It's unrealistic to think Biden can convince Trump of the necessity of Ukrainian aid. Might as well wish Biden could turn the sky green.

Totally agree, unfortunately.

Maybe more gruesome Russian atrocities will move the needle for pro-aid Republican congressmen if there is good footage for the news. Maybe then a few will sign onto a discharge petition or the speaker will allow the bill the senate passed to get a vote. Right now many R's are talking about getting aid to Ukraine, enough that a petition would pass, but none has signed onto it.

And maybe if pro-aid Republican congressmen got a lot of letters from their constituents saying that said constituents are pro aid as well then a few more will sign onto a discharge petition or push the speaker to allow the bill the senate passed (or any similar bill) to get a vote. Undoubtedly there are some (too many) congressmen who are not pro-aid. There are also quite a few that are pro-aid but are afraid to say so. Constituent pressure, especially if it comes from donors, can provide backbone.

Biden and the rest of the administration can help with this constituent pressure. It may not succeed "globally" but it doesn't have to. It only has to move the needle "enough".

Otherwise I think the odds for further US aid are bleak through the election in November.

Agree. Unfortunately. That's why all that can be done must be done to make it not happen.

---

My point is that Biden talking about foreign aid (either Ukraine, Israel or other) isn't likely to build support for it.  Generally, every day Americans think those dollars should be spent at home...

While it may be true that trying to convince the public that any particular policy is "good" and "necessary" by talking about it may fail, not talking about it surely will. It would be reasonable to say that if a policy is not popular and the public cannot be convinced to go along with it different means needs to be adopted to accomplish the necessary goal. Unfortunately it is almost always true these "different means" have serious problems of their own. Iran contra comes to mind :-). They also seldom work. The "heavy lift" of changing public opinion is sometimes a necessary part of leadership.

Foreign aid has never been popular.  We do it because smart and well informed people on both sides of the aisle realize that it is way cheaper and more effective than the alternatives.  It is also small enough that the general public doesn't really care.

I think it is important to not conflate military assistance with foreign aid. IMO what you say above is correct. Many "people on the street" think foreign aid is a handout and is ineffective. However, historically many of those same people have supported both military assistance and eventual military intervention. Military assistance has historically been an easier sell and had a more "right wing" support. The opposition to  military assistance has traditionally from the left who wanted more foreign aid and less "lethal" aid. The opposition from the left regarding Ukraine is not the problem.

Biden doesn't need to give speeches on Ukraine.  He needs to convince some of the more responsible Rs that it is the right thing to do.
Better yet, convince Trump.  Speeches won't do that.

Convincing many of the"more responsible Rs" is indeed a goal. Speeches may do that, or at least will raise the issue. However, giving the "more responsible but less courageous" Rs a political reason to support military assistance to Ukraine is what is most needed. Constituent pressure can do that. Speeches can generate constituent pressure. I am all for the supporters of whatever party working "behind the scenes" to make it happen. I am also all for the same group working on center stage to make it happen. It is the result that matters.

[Goose]

It's unrealistic to think Biden can convince Trump of the necessity of Ukrainian aid. Might as well wish Biden could turn the sky green.

Totally agree, unfortunately.

Maybe more gruesome Russian atrocities will move the needle for pro-aid Republican congressmen if there is good footage for the news. Maybe then a few will sign onto a discharge petition or the speaker will allow the bill the senate passed to get a vote. Right now many R's are talking about getting aid to Ukraine, enough that a petition would pass, but none has signed onto it.

And maybe if pro-aid Republican congressmen got a lot of letters from their constituents saying that said constituents are pro aid as well then a few more will sign onto a discharge petition or push the speaker to allow the bill the senate passed (or any similar bill) to get a vote. Undoubtedly there are some (too many) congressmen who are not pro-aid. There are also quite a few that are pro-aid but are afraid to say so. Constituent pressure, especially if it comes from donors, can provide backbone.

Biden and the rest of the administration can help with this constituent pressure. It may not succeed "globally" but it doesn't have to. It only has to move the needle "enough".

Otherwise I think the odds for further US aid are bleak through the election in November.

Agree. Unfortunately. That's why all that can be done must be done to make it not happen.

---

My point is that Biden talking about foreign aid (either Ukraine, Israel or other) isn't likely to build support for it.  Generally, every day Americans think those dollars should be spent at home...

While it may be true that trying to convince the public that any particular policy is "good" and "necessary" by talking about it may fail, not talking about it surely will. It would be reasonable to say that if a policy is not popular and the public cannot be convinced to go along with it different means needs to be adopted to accomplish the necessary goal. Unfortunately it is almost always true these "different means" have serious problems of their own. Iran contra comes to mind :-). They also seldom work. The "heavy lift" of changing public opinion is sometimes a necessary part of leadership.

Foreign aid has never been popular.  We do it because smart and well informed people on both sides of the aisle realize that it is way cheaper and more effective than the alternatives.  It is also small enough that the general public doesn't really care.

I think it is important to not conflate military assistance with foreign aid. IMO what you say above is correct. Many "people on the street" think foreign aid is a handout and is ineffective. However, historically many of those same people have supported both military assistance and eventual military intervention. Military assistance has historically been an easier sell and had a more "right wing" support. The opposition to  military assistance has traditionally from the left who wanted more foreign aid and less "lethal" aid. The opposition from the left regarding Ukraine is not the problem.

Biden doesn't need to give speeches on Ukraine.  He needs to convince some of the more responsible Rs that it is the right thing to do.
Better yet, convince Trump.  Speeches won't do that.

Convincing many of the"more responsible Rs" is indeed a goal. Speeches may do that, or at least will raise the issue. However, giving the "more responsible but less courageous" Rs a political reason to support military assistance to Ukraine is what is most needed. Constituent pressure can do that. Speeches can generate constituent pressure. I am all for the supporters of whatever party working "behind the scenes" to make it happen. I am also all for the same group working on center stage to make it happen. It is the result that matters.