A wave of Republican attacks against two Muslim Democrats has ended with one of the most prominent right-wing commentators in the country endorsing Abdul El-Sayed for Senate.

Tucker Carlson wrote in his newsletter on Friday that El-Sayed’s opponent, Mike Rogers, was unfit for office and defended him over his past criticism of the war on terror.

The Michigan Democrat emerged from this past week after a wave of attacks were hurled at him and Zohran Mamdani, the first elected Muslim mayor of New York, around the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Both men were the subject of intense focus from media organizations on the right and even some mainstream outlets as the two faced differing but related accusations of anti-American sentiment impossible to separate from their Muslim faith.

  • kvasir476@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Exactly, all of the current “issues” have gone rotten for the republicans. Support for israel, the Iran war, the economy, and even ICE/immigration have all become losing issues for them. This is Carlsen trying to launder his image and move away from the “MAGA brand,” to either run in 2028 or so he can lend his support to Vance.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      ☝️ this.

      He’s going to pull a “no true Scotsman” America First thing. Whatever this administration did, that wasn’t America First™. Whatever it is Tucker is offering is real America First™, and mark it, as Ive instructed many a hater to do: Candice Owens will be his running mate.

      JD Vance is a political wet fart and everyone has known it for all of time. Fucking Jeb Bush has more motion than JD Vance does. Establishment Republicans see this as an opportunity to reassert control of the party, but that too will fail.

      • Triumph@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        In the 80s, it was called “family values”. In the 90s, they were against “political correctness”. In the 00s, “national security”. 10s, “Tea Party”. Now? Fucking everything. Now they’re throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

        Does this mean that most people aren’t falling for it anymore, or does it just mean that something will stick, lather rinse repeat?

        • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          There’s always something that will stick. Unfortunately, the things that seem to always stick are anti-LGBTQIA+ and anti-foreigner. The 80s were very anti-gay with the AIDS scare and (lack of) response, crackdowns, anti-sodomy laws, etc. The 90s continued that, and added on some extra anti-black since they were becoming quite prominent in sports and popular culture. The 00’s added on a nice thick layer of anti-muslim because I guess all brown people were responsible for 9/11 or something? Then the 10’s got some more anti-black with Obama and George Floyd, and the 20’s with queer/trans people.

          Going back we had more cycles like this:

          • 1900-1915: Irish people
          • 1915-1920: + German people
          • 1920-1930: + Jewish people
          • 1930-1945: + German and Asian people
          • 1945-1950: + Russian people
          • 1950-1970: + Asian (Korea/Vietnam) people
          • 1970-1980: + Black people
          • 1980-1990: + Gay people
          • 1990-2000: + Black people (again)
          • 2000-2010: + Arab people
          • 2010-2020: + Black people (again), queer people (again)
          • 2020-present: All of the above, and somehow also white people too?