Bad Scene in The Midwest

If it seems I'm obsessessed about the US Senate race in Michigan, it's only because I am. The twists and turns in this general election campaign would sprain anyone's ankle and at each step, I've been surprised by the response from the main actors. On Friday, Jewish Insider reported

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed on Friday rejected an appeal from Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) for him to publicly condemn an antisemitic ad in support of his campaign, which Stevens had made a condition of appearing at a joint event on Sunday.

Instead, El-Sayed attacked Stevens, his former Democratic primary opponent, days before the general election.

Stevens said in a statement Friday that she had been told that El-Sayed planned to condemn the Rebellion PAC ad, which blamed support of Israel on higher food prices. She also asked him to apologize for his own rhetoric on Israel and take down a campaign ad featuring Tucker Carlson, after having warned that he was alienating undecided Jewish and Black voters.

El-Sayed rejected those requests, and sounded a defiant note against the Democratic lawmaker, who endorsed him immediately after the primary and maintained as of Wednesday that she still planned to vote for him. 

“While Congresswoman Stevens seems intent on relitigating a primary that ended three months ago, let’s all focus on the task at hand: that’s beating Mike Rogers, holding Trump accountable, and getting money out of politics, putting money in pockets, and passing Medicare for All,” he said.

The campaign added that El-Sayed has “always been focused on addressing the most critical challenges Michiganders are facing” which is “why our people-powered campaign defeated a historic $70M in outside spending from big corporations and AIPAC on behalf of Congresswoman Stevens.”

The campaign statement echoes El-Sayed’s own responses throughout the week to Stevens, her fiancé and other voters Stevens said are concerned about his rhetoric, arguing that anyone not supporting him isn’t focused on the issues that matter.

Stevens should have made her demands simpler, clearer, and sufficiently realistic for el-Sayed to meet. The immediate controversy began with posting of the offensive ad by the Pac headed by Cenk Uygur, uncle of Hasan Piker. The Democratic congresswoman from Michigan's 11th congressional district could have merely asked the candidate who defeated her in the primaryto denounce the ad. (El-Sayed's campaign had distanced itself from, but not repudiated, it.)

That request would have been relatively easy to accomodate and had el-Sayed refused, it would have told us more about him than about his critic. Instead, Stevens imposed upon her former rival a high bar to surmount, and el-Sayed  well, gave her the middle finger. Had he agreed, he would have seemed to have capitulated.

Agreement by el-Sayed may have been Stevens' condition for appearing at a campaign rally at an African-American church in Detroit on Sunday. Whether or not it was, the nominee disinvited the congresswoman, noting it would have been a "distraction" (sort of like referring to Hurricane Katrina as a "weather event").  For Stevens, that's called "overplaying your hand".

Rather than taking the "L" for now, Stevens, whose fiancee already had announced that he was voting for Mike Rogers, endorsed the Republican, to no little anger from fellow Democrats  It also will be of no benefit to Stevens, who previously had avoided el-Sayed directly while 

We can't know for sure why Stevens challenged the Democratic nominee to this extent. However, Rogers is partially right in the tweet below. It's wrong to suggest, without evidence, that Stevens was doing her husband's bidding or that is mentally ill or even merely emotionally fragile. The concept of feminism evidently is quite malleable.

It is wildly insulting that Debbie Dingell and Mallory McMorrow are insinuating that Congresswoman Stevens is mentally ill and that Jason influences her decision making in an unhealthy way. Congresswoman Stevens should be commended for her courage to stand up to hate and put Michigan first. https://t.co/7I9528TEWO

— Mike Rogers (@MikeRogersForMI) November 2, 2026

It is weird, though.  Stevens reportedly had assured fellow Democrats as late as Saturday night that she was still behind el-Sayed, reportedly, allegedly, then abruptly changed course overnight and appeared at an African-American church with Rogers on Sunday moring. And her decision to back Rogers at a point in which all opinion polls indicate el-Sayed leading by more than the margin of error has the smell of the late, formerTexas governor, John Connally 

Connally was a Democrat who endorsed Richard Nixon for re-election as President in 1972, primarily because of policy differences with Democratic nominee George McGovern. In May, 1973 he left the Democratic Party to become a Republican, possibly because he anticipated the departure from the vice presidency of Spiro Agnew while not foreseeing the forced resignation of the disgraced President Nixon in August, 1974. He was passed up then, as he was on two other occasions, probably because his switch in party satisfied virtually no one. Bad, bad timing.

The present sordid affair in Michiganhas covered nobody in glory, not Stevens, el-Sayed, Senate President Schumer (who had helped persuade Stevens to launch her bid for the nomination), not even Representative Dingell nor Mallory McMorrow. However, at least the latter got it right when 

Stevens could have made a continuing argument that she is one Democrat, among a minority in the Party, which not only rejects hatred of Jews but also supports Israel as a democratic nation and Jewish state. She does argue "I'm not turning my back on Democrats. It is this one vote."  The flaw in that reasoning, as everyone realizes, is that that one Senate race may determine control of the upper chamber. If it does, Stevens position will have proven to have been more dangerous, and roughly as wrongheaded, as the critics irresponsibly attributing her stance to mental or emotional defect.

Share |

This Would Have Been Easier If Michigan Primary Voters Hadn't Taken Leave of Their Senses

The clash between Haley Stevens and Abdul el-Sayed is one big cluster- well, you know. However, the powers that be in the Democratic Party are not covering themselves with glory by their unwillingness to take a clear position. With a few modifications, this tweet from David Frum on Halloween would be spot-on.

It would be more reassuring if national Democrats could say

"Everybody in Democratic leadership will combine to curb the ugliest instincts of a Senator el-Sayed. We'll vote funds to protect Jewish institutions from the antisemitic violence that el-Sayed made excuses for. We'll assign him to healthcare committees and keep him far, far away from Homeland Security. We desperately need this seat to hold the Trump administration accountable, but we're not going to lie to you and pretend the guy is anything other than what he is. That would be disrespectful and dishonest. Trump is the main issue here. You have our promise that this nomination is a one-time aberration - and that the rest of us will continue to uphold Jewish safety at home and the US-Israel alliance overseas."

He starts out very strongly with

Everybody in Democratic leadershp will combine to curb the ugliest instincts of a Senator-el-Sayed. We'll vote funds to protect Jewish institutions from the antisemitic violence that el-Sayed made excuses for. We'll assign him to healthcare committees and keep him far, far away from Homeland Security. We desperately need this seat to hold the Trump administration accountable.

The goal must be to hold the Trump administration accountable- "accountability," at least in the abstract, always is popular.  No one ever says "I'm not accountable" or even "we shouldn't hold X person or instituion accountable".

The idea of keeping el-Sayed off the Senate Homeland Security committee is excellent, and one can only hope a lack of imagination is the only reason no Democrat has recommended it.  And assigning him specifically to health care committes would be a stroke of genius because el-Sayed is- at least rhetorically- supportive of Medicare for All.  Great!

Nonetheless, "we're not going to lie to you and pretend the guy is anything other than what he is" is unnecessarily contentious. :While Donald Trump is in fact "the main issue here", describing el-Sayed's primary victory as "a one-time aberration" would send voter flocking to his opponent- and would do nothing to improve the Democratic brand, long-term or short-term.

So to clean Frum's idea up a little, we would have

Everybody in Democratic leadership will combine to curb the ugliest instincts of anyone, including our own members. We'll vote funds to protect Jewish institutions from antisemitic violence encouraged by either Republicans or Democrats. We'll assign Senator el-Sayed to healthcare committees and keep him far, far away from Homeland Security. We desperately need this seat to hold the Administration accountable because corrupt President Trump, king of the deep state, is the main issue here and across the country.

The current cliche is "two things can be true at once", which was shortened from the more precise "two contradictory things can be true at once".  Ideally, the Democratic Party would have been wise to work hard in the twelve of the thirteen Senate races which the Cook Political Report has deemed "leans Democratic", "toss up", or "leans Republican", which would exclude the contest in Michigan.  But prominent Democrats, led by President Obama- who disliked Israel but never had the backbone to challenge Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu- decided that boosting an anti-Semitic candidate would be a swell idea.

Maybe it's only simple math. With a victory by el-Sayed, Democrats probably would end up with 50, 51, or 52 Senators (53 in a tsunami).  Fifty is insufficient. Fifty-one theoretically is sufficient, but the concessions then offered John Fetterman to match those he'd be offered by Republicans might be excruciating.  Sadly, 52 thus may be necessary. Not stumping for the candidate in Michigan would be a big gamble.

That may be why Barack Obama and other Democrats- Haley Stevens an obvious exception- don't want to be the last to grab a seat on the anti-Semite train. If it's more than that, the Party's problems are going to prove much greater than one disreputable candidate in one Midwestern state.

     

Share |

Hatred of Jews Rolls on

James Fishback recently ran for the GOP nomination for governor of Florida and came in third, trailing Florida's Lieutenant Governor and the winner, Byron Donalds. More notably, he has a very sketch past and made Donalds seem like, well, the Executive Director of the (B'nai B'rith) Anti-Defamation League.

Sincere or not, Fishback is continuing to prmote himself as a hero of the anti-Jewish right.

A young student at Liberty University asked me a question about "the chosen people" My response: "There are people out there by the way, who do blame everything on the Jews. That's low IQ anti-Semitism. It is wrong, it should be condemned. The reason why banana prices are high, a new ad is running in Michigan, is not because of the Jews." "Now it just so happens that the reason why diesel prices are high is because Benjamin Netanyahu lied us into another war. But that's Israel and so I think that good faith Americans on both sides should, and largely are, separating genuine substantive criticisms of the Israeli government" "With respect to the Old Testament whether it's in Jeremiah or commonly in Genesis 12 this covenant that says that those who bless will be blessed those who curse will be cursed. I would ask you to turn to what St. Paul wrote in Galatians 6 which is that neither Gentile nor Jew neither man or woman, we are all one in Christ. That new covenant is Jesus Christ full stop end of story."

— James Fishback (@jamesfishback) October 29, 2026

Fishback alleged "Now it just so happens that the reason why diesel prices are is because Benjamin Netanyahu lied us into another war. But that's Israel and so I think that good faith Americans on both sides should, and largely are, separating genuine substantive criticisms of the Israeli government."

Banana prices are not high because of "the Jews". Diesel prices are not high because of "the Jews". And Benjamin Netanyahu did not "lie us into another war".

We do not know whether Prime Minister Netanyahu lied to President Trump and neither does James Fishback. He certainly did not "lie to us, the American people, which is precisely an event Fishback wants us to believe took place.

The Saudi government and the Israeli government both encouraged President Trump to make war against Iran because they believed that was in the interest of their respective countries, and very likely though it was in the best interest of the United States of America. The Saudis are still at it.

Donald Trump is quite capable of making his own decisions and this is one he made on his own. And he did it despite repeatedly telling the American people over the past ten years that he was anti-war to his core.

On at least three occassions he explicitly promised to keep the USA out of any war. On March 4, 2023 he told the CPAC convention "No new wars. I finished some old wars." In the first week of August, 2024, he told Kick streamer Adin Ross "And we won't have wars again". And in his acceptance speech on November 6, 2024, he declared "He will start a war.  "I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars."

The Scriptural references are merely a cover story. Fishback had two points to make, neither of them remotely valid.  He was not even trying to make it appear that he was blaming Israel and not Jews generally. When he say says "Benjamin Netanyahu lied us into another war" (another war?) and "but that's Israel," he knows that a receptive audience realizes he is blaming Jews.

Less obviously, he is sending this message: don't blame President Trump. He didn't lie us into war. It was Benjamin Netanyahu, again, though we aren't told when the first time was. So this is another Republican running interference for Donald Trump, and doing so as an anti-Semite. There are too many of them.

Share |

Of Big Picture Stuff

Whomever tweets for the leftist "Pod Save America" must be fired immediately.

Lovett: I just want to be very clear: Jews in Michigan have a moral obligation to support Abdul. They should do it to protect themselves from antisemitism and rising hatred in America. https://t.co/URjLmifhqh

— Pod Save America (@PodSaveAmerica) October 27, 2026

Lovett: I just want to be very clear: Jews in Michigan have a moral obligation to support Abdul. They should do it to protect themselves from antisemitism and rising hatred in America. https://t.co/URjLmifhqh

— Pod Save America (@PodSaveAmerica) October 27, 2026

As comments to the tweet/video indicate, many tweeters are responding not to the entire video, but merely to the remark about the moral obligation of Jews to support Abdul.  Electing an anti-Semite is no way to protect any individual or group from anti-semitism or rising hatred. The other is that the video included a statement which did not appear in the tweet:

And we need to have a check on Donald Trump in a Democratic Senate. Maybe Abdul is not, is going to be a reliable vote against Israel. Fine. We can handle that. But we canot handle a continued slide to this hateful, authoritarian right. It will be dangerous for us.

A slide to a hateful, authoritarian right would be dangerous for Jews, as Jon Lovett is emphasizing, though dangerous for a whole lot of other Americans.  There is no reason to believe, however, that Mike Rogers is anti-Semitic or in any way dangerous, but merely a toady for Donald Trump.... or as a longtime Philadelphia talk show host turned podcaster often put it, "a zero trying to be a one". There are worse things, and people, in the Republican Party and electing a hater of Jews- albeit a Democrat- also would not be a healthful for Jews, other minorities, or diversity in America.

Lovett cites the GOP's "othering" of Muslims, immigrants, "trans people", and Haitians. He then legitimately argues "and anyone who has allowed their concerns,, their legitimate concerns, to cloud that ultimate, larger point is missing the larger point is missing the big picture," a kind of politics on the  

We can argue about the impact of electing a compadre of Hasan Piker and the latter's cousin, Cenk Uygur, to the United States Senate would have a palliative effect on hatred of religious, racial, and sexual/gender minorities. We could, and I would if I knew Lovett. 

The recent pro-el Hasan ad has proven very controversial, in which "controversial" brings to mind the loathsome ad for Vivek Ramaswamy featuring the loathsome birth mother of opponent Amy Acton. I should have realized it did not come from the campaign itself. Rather

The ad comes from Rebellion PAC, which is fronted by left-wing political commentator Cenk Uygur. It depicts a couple in a supermarket saying they cannot afford groceries because they have to set money aside “for killing Palestinians.” It concludes by stating that the Michigan Democrat’s GOP opponent “is for they/them,” referring to Israelis.

In a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an El-Sayed campaign representative said the ad “is not affiliated in any way” with his campaign and that it did not speak for him.

“Abdul is focused on pushing back against Trump’s agenda that is raising prices for Michiganders,” campaign spokesperson Roxie Richner said in the statement. “No one speaks for Abdul but himself and his campaign.”

The campaign did not address how El-Sayed viewed the messaging behind the ad, and did not respond to a follow-up from JTA about the ad’s content.

That's not enough. The campaign's spokesperson was merely stating a fact, that there had been no collaboration. Meanwhile, Rebellion PAC defiantly defends its ad while el-Sayed's people refuse actually to criticize it in any way.

The really big picture is the number: 51.  And unfortunately, the number may be 52 because if Republicans end up with 49 members in the new Senate, the inducements which would be offered Pennsylvania senator John Fetterman to change uniforms are beyond anyone's imagination.  That is enough to wish for Abdul el-Sayed's victory, and all that there is.

Share |

Repugnant

Please keep this is mind. And that it, too, was a final argument, played two years ago this month:

Viewers tuning into NFL and college football games in recent weeks have been bombarded with two Trump ads — running nationally and locally in swing states — that take issue with Vice President Kamala Harris’ past support for taxpayer-funded gender-affirming treatments. They’re running during baseball playoff games, too.

Both ads end with the same punchy tag line: “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.”

The thrust of the ad below is that Israel is to blame for the affordability crisis in the USA.  Assuming for the sake of simplicity that the two individuals are married to each other, the wife says to her husband "you're going to have to put those eggs back... We have to set that $7 aside for killing Palestinians." The husband responds "I mean, don't we give Israel four billion dollars a year, anyways?"

New low for normalized Jew-hate in the American Democratic Party. Very sad: Painting your political opponents as puppets of Jews, as this El-Sayed ad does, and as crazed baby-killers and money-grubbing villains who are the root cause of every bad thing not just in the world, but in your life—from wars to the price of eggs to the reason you can’t have free healthcare—is not just low-grade Jew-hate. It’s pure Third Reich stuff, translated directly from the original German. Do you remember when Jewish Democrats in Michigan explained that they would vote for El-Sayed despite his open disdain for Jews, since there are many other important issues they need him to fight for? That anything was worth it to “defeat MAGA”? Well, here’s El-Sayed’s answer to them: Don’t worry, all those issues we agree on, like healthcare, inflation, and climate change, I’m going to make them about Jews too! I will tell the public that the Jews are the reason they can’t have those things.

— Saul Sadka (@Saul_Sadka) October 25, 2026

Seven dollars? That is so 2025, when in February the average price of a dozen grade A large eggs, thanks to the Avian flu, rose to $5.90- still $1.10 less than alleged in the ad. Last month, they were $2.27.

The wife tells her husband "Yeah, and now we're giving them another 26 billion dollars. Do you know how much that is for every American taxpayer?.... Apparently, it's costing us a lot of money to drop bombs on Gaza."

Much of the increase in prices can be attributed to the war in Iran, as we justifiably have heard repeatedly. This is the first time a candidate has blamed Israel's attack upon Hamas in Gaza for the soaring cost of living- any candidate, that is, not named el-Sayed.

A secondary theme is jealousy of Israel- or perhaps indignation that Israelis receive health care. After his "wife" blames inflation on the Israel-Hamas war, her "husband" says "oh, that's terrible. Don't they get universal health care, too"?

Oh, the horror of it all! Residents of Israel are assured of health care. It is not single payer, but makes health care more available than it is in the USA. This is health care for every resident- Jews, Christians, and Muslims, including Palestinians, individuals of any religion.  A guess: this is not given to residents of Gaza under Hamas rule, and never was. This would hardly be of concern to el-Sayed, whose wife Sarah

Jukaku, who has a medical degree from Columbia University and a masters from the University of Oxford, worked as co-chief of psychiatry at University of Michigan Health—which does accept Medicare—before starting her own Ann Arbor, Mich.-based practice, Mind Work Psychiatry, in 2024. The following March, Jukaku opted out of Medicare, records show, meaning she cannot bill the program and requires Medicare patients to pay out of pocket. The same goes for patients with private insurance plans, though they can often submit bills to their providers and recoup some of the costs.

You might think that a Democratic candidate for the US Senate who advocates Medicare for All might suggest to his wife that she accept Medicare and some insurance plans, at least while he is running for office posing as a progressive. Having not done so, he remains a heartthrob of prominent progressives this autumn, which should concern individuals for whom universal health care is supposedly a priority.  But the health of Americans ravaged by a health care system controlled by insurance companies and for-profit hospitals no longer is the priority it once was. Case in point:

After learning the pro-Israel lobbying group plans to spend up to $9 million backing Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan's Senate race, (Senator Bernie) Sanders wired $1 million on Wednesday to Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and began calling allies for more, reports the New York Times. By day's end, he'd lined up an additional $300,000 in pledges from a dozen Democrats, including Sens. Martin Heinrich, Tina Smith, Chris Van Hollen, and Jeff Merkley.

Undermining Israel now is the main issue for the far-left, It certainly is not opposition to President Trump, for whom the candidate appears to have a soft spot. 

So el-Sayed now has an ad with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu depicted while "Mike Rogers for they/them And El-Sayed is for you" appears. The candidate is copying the 2025 GOP ad which blasted Kamala Harris' support for the LGBTQIA community with "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for us."  Only now the target is not transsexuals but Jews- uh, er, "Zionists".

Health care, an increase in the federal minimum wage, accessible daycare, and other issues once near and dear to the allegedly progressive camp are so 2024, evidently. concern for racial and sexual/gender minorities all take a back seat to animus for America's steadfast ally in the Middle East.

In the seventh chapter in Matthew's gospel, Jesus warns

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles. Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 

Support for el-Sayed is now the focal point for hatred of the Jewish state. On a positive note, he does not come to us in sheep's clothing. He is being quite obvious in his hatred and bigoty .

Share |

Image of Aggressiveness

This tweeter characteristically posts about the excesses of Islam and Islamists but as in this case, without including the pertinent date of the statement or activity. He also typically omits the location, though in the matter at hand the actual location is irrelevant and we know the date was September 25, 2026.

 

Abdul El-Sayed says he’d go on Bill Maher’s show despite the “terrible things he’s said about me.” Because “I wanna give people the image of watching him get his ass whooped on his own show by a guy who prays like I do.” Why is he always so aggressive?! https://t.co/6ZhDQiBXmp

— Dr. Maalouf ‏ (@realMaalouf) October 22, 2026

El-Sayed said (emphasis his)

I'd go on his show because I want to talk to his audience. You know the terrible things Bill Maher has said about people like me- terrible, awful things. Of course, he's still got his show on Comedy Central and everybody seems to be perfectly O.K. going on that show despite the fact that he's said some deply terrible things. 

But I'd go on the show. Do you know why I'd go on the show? A) I wanna give people the image of seeing his ass whooped on his own show by a guy who prays like I do and I'd also want to show because I'd want to convince the people who watch his show, right, that a lot of the things he says are just not viable. 

The New York Post reported

“It’s not people like you, I would love to have you on, sir, by the way,” Maher said. “And I hope we can make that happen. I talk about Islam. It’s never personal, and it’s never about race. It’s about ideas. Religion is an opinion. That’s all religion is: a group of thoughts that form an opinion of something. I have different views on what, you know, how women should be treated and things like that, that we will discuss. I hope you will accept our invitation.”

Maher is anti-Islam. He's also anti-Judaism, anti-Christianity, and anti- any religion which involves a god or gods.  He is a loud and proud atheist. 

For Maher, it is about ideas and never, ever about race but about ideas. He is more aggrieved by Islam than about Judaism and Christianity in part because of how religious Muslims treat women. As for radical Islamists, there is that terrorism thing. It's real.

El-Sayed might know that if he ever had watched Real Time. However, if he has been looking for it on Comedy Central, he would have missed it on the network, HBO, on which it actually has been running for 23+ seasons. CNN does repeat on Saturdays the episode- most of it, anyway- from the previous evening but it never has been on Comedy Central.  To be fair, however, the candidate is no less accurate about Maher's show than he is about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

(Maher's Politically Incorrect had been on Comedy Central, then on ABC, from which it was terminated over two decades ago after the host suggested that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards.  Now he is supposedly anti-Muslim.)

Nonetheless, I wouldn't worry about the "so aggressive" thing. This outward tendency to display machismo is a characteristic of many men, though a few women have adopted it in recent years.  Arm-wrestling, anybody? The NY Post noted

El-Sayed has frequently invoked aggressive language against his GOP rival Mike Rogers. Last month, El-Sayed challenged Rogers to a game of tackle football despite being more than 20 years younger than the Republican candidate.

“Since you’re too afraid to debate me, how about you ‘hold me accountable’ on a football field instead,” El-Sayed wrote on X. “Tackle, no pads like we used to play when we were kids. I’d be happy to show you [how] much I love football.”

The invocation of sports and of "whooping his ass" also is a means of attempting to portray oneself as a normal guy at the other end of the bar..  El-Sayed is trying to position himself as a regular ol' tough guy, a prototypical red-blood American male.  He seems to be suffering from "small man syndrome," sometimes referred to as "Napoleon complex".

There is little to fear, however. If elected, Abdul el-Sayed will neither invoke the name, nor try to imitate, Napoleon Bonaparte. After all, as a white European, the Frenchman was a member of a disfavored group in the eyes of el-Sayed's most fervent supporters.

Share |

Embracing Israel Derangement Syndrome

If you take Twitter seriously, you would think that the centrists, center-left, or liberals in the Democratic Party are willing to sacrifice a House or Senate majority in order to make sure that anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian Democrats aren't elected. One tweeter argues about the el-Sayed vs. Rogers race in Michigan: 

The only dignified choice is to leave the Senate race blank—an undervote representing a rejection of ideological absolutism. This makes me no less a Democrat. I refuse to be complicit in excusing or accepting extremism to beat extremism. The madness has to stop somewhere.

Unsurprisingly, there is virulent criticism of this position, as indicated by the tweeters who responded to him.

The rule is blue no matter who, not blue only if they are ideologically centrist enough for me.

You’ll then spend the next couple of years blaming the left wing of the party for losing and not being able to do anything. I thought it was vote blue no matter who?

"Blue no matter who, unless they're brown"

“I’d rather the republican won than Israel possibly face sanctions.”  "I value Israel more than my own country." That is you.

Islamophobia needs to stop.  Bigotry needs to stop.  Racism needs to stop.  Just admit it, you are not a Dem you are an Islamophobe who hates this one person for his faith.  Disgusting.

Two of the last three mistakenly believe that the Democrats who oppose el-Sayed's candidacy are motivated by race, an odd notion given that Muslim is not a race. The other believes that opposing a candidate with a burning hatred of Israel makes the critic unpatriotic. That is disgusting.

Nonetheless, the first two make a valid point.  To be clear: supporting an anti-Semite is preferable to the possibility of giving Donald Trump a Senate majority, which would allow him to make the most atrocious appointments imaginable not only to the Supreme Court, but to other federal courts.

But also to be clear: Abdul el-Sayed does not agree with those of us who are committed to a Democratic majority. In the video tweet below, the Michigan Democrat states in part

Allies are supposed to care about you implicitly- not just use you. The government of Israel has done nothing but use us. Allies are supposed to care about you. They use us for our tax dollars. They use us to run cover at the United Nations. They use us to run cover at the I.C.C. to cover up their war crimes. Now they use us to go and fightr a war we have no business fighting. We're paying more in gas. We're paying more for groceries.....

This clarity is so important. This akin to Zohran's 'no apartheid state has a right to exist' moment. It moves the goal posts & permanently changes the conversation. Good on AES. Stay the course. I also appreciate that he didn't fall for the 'Bibi's the real problem' misdirect.

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) October 20, 2026

Do you see what is happening here? We have a Democratic candidate who is not blaming President Trump for the troubles we're in. He's blaming Israel. (Gee, I wonder why.)  Donald Trump, the leader of the Free World and one of the three most powerful individuals on the planet has no agency. He is the puppet of Israel, which always uses us. Affordability? That's not caused by tariffs President Trump imposed or the war in Iran he started. Those damn Jews!

And it's not because of Israel that we, the USA, are fighting this war. Trump already had decided to attack Iran but decided on the timing because of Israel- and Saudi Arabia, Iran's mortal enemy.  Yet el-Sayed mentions nothing about Saudi Arabia which is, possibly though not probably, because the Kingdom is Muslim. (All sorts of leftists blame Israel for pushing Trump into the war.)

Abdul el-Sayed believes, or purports to believe, that Israel manipulates or intimidates the USA. However, a law professor at George Mason University asks "what does Israel do for us, I keep hearing people ask."  He answers

Without Israel, Lebanon falls to Hezbollah, Jordan falls to Islamists, the PA falls to Hamas, Hamas links up with the MB to threaten Egypt, Iran gears up to dominate Iraq, the Houthis take over Yemen and along with the new government in Jordan threaten Saudi Arabia, and so forth. 

Israel,in short,is a linchpin of US security interests in the Mideast, keeping Islamists from seizing power region-wide, and keeping out Russian and Chinese influence.

Three minutes. In this three minute clip, there were three minutes without the words "Donald Trump", "the President", or "Trump" escaping el-Sayed's lips. That's because notwithstanding his most sensible supporters realizing that defeating Donald Trump's agenda is the most important objective, Abdul el-Sayed disagrees. He believes that above all, it is Israel which must be defeated.

Share |