A Monday hello to you,

OK. The country is coming apart at the seams, the world is no better, and the National Football League is corrupt and distasteful in all the ways we know—but man, what a weekend of playoff games. The first three games were won by the visiting (and underdog) team with a field goal as time expired. Can’t get more dramatic than that, right? 

Oh, wait, you can! That fourth game, dear God … if that wasn’t the greatest game of all time, it’s hard to say what was. Twenty-five points in the last two minutes. But why didn’t Buffalo squib that kickoff with 0:13 left? Today in The Buffalo News, sportswriter Jay Skurski gives the coaching staff an “F” on his game report card and writes: “The coach and defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier need to explain just what the plan was for the final 13 seconds, because for the life of me, if there was one, I couldn’t determine what it was.” I’ll leave that to the sports pages and just conclude by noting that I sometimes think that when the day comes that I’m lying on my deathbed taking stock, I’ll be lamenting the amount of time I wasted watching sports. But it won’t apply to this weekend.

All right, back to the normal stuff. Saturday, Arizona Democrats voted to censure Kyrsten Sinema over her refusal to change the filibuster rules of the Senate. The symbolic but stinging move comes in the wake of a poll finding that Sinema’s approval rating among the state’s Democrats is, wait for it, 8 percent. Republicans, needless to say, approve of her (why wouldn’t they?), and independents do, as well, to a lesser extent, still leaving her in deep trouble overall—27 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable, the rest unsure. More and more eyes are turning toward Representative Ruben Gallego to challenge her in 2024. Watch my Zoomcast interview with him from last November: We discussed the possibility, and he definitely sounded like he was looking hard at it.

Ukraine: The Biden administration has ordered the families of personnel to leave the embassy in Kyiv, which is a sign maybe that intel is telling them something ominous. Biden is also considering deploying 5,000 troops to the region, though not to Ukraine itself—to Poland and the Baltics, most likely. No, 5,000 troops in neighboring countries does not mean that World War III is inevitable. But I’ll just say that we locked ourselves into this logic with the post-Cold War NATO expansion. I’m wrong about stuff often enough that I don’t mind humble-bragging, in this case, that I always thought NATO expansion was a dodgy idea for precisely this reason. 

But don’t take it from me. Take it from Fiona Hill, who used to sit in the Oval Office telling George W. Bush that NATO expansion was risky and explaining to him (to no avail) how Vladimir Putin sees the world. She has a must-read op-ed in the Times today. There are still diplomatic ways out here. Read this, for example, from Anatol Lieven, one of the leading experts on the region. Antony Blinken and Sergey Lavrov meet again this week.

Last little note: I hate to be the one to tell you this, but lots of news outlets began reporting over the weekend for the first time about a new omicron “subvariant” they’re calling BA.2. It was first identified in India and South Africa last December. One London-based virologist said: “I would be very surprised if BA.2 caused a second wave at this point. Even with slightly higher transmissibility this absolutely is not a Delta-Omicron change and instead is likely to be slower and more subtle.” Please be right, dude.

At NewRepublic.com today, Molly Osberg looks at what in the world is keeping Joe Biden from canceling student debt; Kate Aronoff explains that a climate-only reconciliation bill may be, like democracy to Churchill, the least worst of all available options; Tim Noah argues that, yes, the Republicans are dangerous, but their anti-democracy scheming is not remotely fated to prevail; and I lay out the case for House Democrats to put the squeeze on Clarence and Ginni Thomas in the wake of Jane Mayer’s great reporting last week.

Stay safe,

Every day, our journalists are exposing the right’s assaults on our democracy—and pushing the Democrats to go bold to preserve the republic. Here’s a special offer from The New Republic so you won’t miss their scoops and sharp analysis.

Friday’s political history question: We all know the story of Aaron Burr shooting Alexander Hamilton in a duel, but that’s not the only exciting political duel in American history. Who is the only person to have been killed in a duel while he was a sitting senator?

Answer: David Broderick of California was killed in a duel in 1859. Although he was a Democrat, Broderick was a power broker in the party’s anti-slavery wing. During the state elections of 1859, California Chief Justice David Terry slammed Broderick for following “the wrong Douglas,” insinuating that the senator had abandoned party leader Stephen Douglas in favor of Frederick Douglass. Broderick retorted that Terry was a dishonest judge and a “miserable wretch,” an insult for which Terry challenged Broderick to a duel. After Broderick’s pistol misfired prematurely, Terry “coolly aimed and fired into Broderick's chest,” according to the Senate website. Terry was acquitted of the crime and served in the Confederacy—shocker—but was himself gunned down in 1889 after attacking Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field on a train.

 

Today’s geopolitics question: There is one Baltic city that looms larger in U.S.-Russia tensions than any other, because there is a constant, low-simmering fear in the West that Putin may make a move on it. What is the city, in which country is it located, and what would be Putin’s justification for some sort of action?