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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 93 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (29 children)

If you've been following rightwing media watch for a minute, this should be obvious to you.

And to the three comments yeeting the baby, just stfu.

This move from Tucker is about Tucker. You may, and rightfully should, despise Tucker Carlson. But you should not underestimate Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson has always, and I do mean always (for practical purposes) has one of the best reads of the direction of travel in national politics. He was one of the first to get on the America First wagon, and saw the potential Trump represented in national politics in 2015. They understood this because they had the ability to read the room with regard to the latent frustration people had with both Republicans and Democrats in that time period.

Tucker sees where the motion is and anyone who isn't a totally ley read of politics has known that Mike Rodgers is an extremely poor opponent to be going up against El Sayed. Tucker doesn't want to be on the wrong side of a losing election. Simple as.

This gives Tucker access and to be on the side of motion. America First and MAGA are shifting. Myself and others have been making this point for a while. Hogs don't lead. Pay attention to the first movers. Trump's base will move on to where the first movers go. Owens, Carlson, Fuentes, pay attention to where these actors go and you'll know where things are heading.

This is Tucker setting up for a 2028 run. It has almost nothing to do with El Sayed other than not being tethered to a floundering brand. They're setting themselves up to be the savior of MAGA in 2028.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Good read on Carlson. He's politically very powerful just due to his political compass being so accurate about the current direction things are moving.

    He's fake as fuck and will go the direction the wind is blowing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Well maybe we could agree that the shit pigeon has improved his political compass substantially over time.

    I mean the guy used to wear a bowtie on live TV. But this goes to support your second statement:

    He’s fake as fuck and will go the direction the wind is blowing.

    Absolutely. But nothing about being a fake as fuck fraud stops them in their pursuit of power.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    ☝️ 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 month 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?
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Has their ever been a journalist elected president before? Seems like an odd career change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Is Tucker a journalist? I suppose he is. I guess I kinda forget that. I guess to me he's less of a journalist in my mind, and more of a political operative. Sure, they nominally do journalism, but ultimately they are and always have been a political agent. Their motives are rhetorical, not explicitly and certainly not solely to educate, but to convince.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (14 children)

    Tucker Carlson has a documented history of downplaying Russian aggression, echoing Kremlin talking points, and securing a high-profile interview with Vladimir Putin.

    Key Milestones

    • Dismissing the War: Shortly before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Carlson characterized the escalating conflict merely as a "border issue" and called Ukraine a "puppet of Washington".
    • The Moscow Interview: In February 2024, Carlson traveled to Moscow and became the first Western media figure to interview Vladimir Putin since the 2022 invasion.
    • The History Lecture: During the two-hour interview, Putin spent a lengthy portion delivering an unchallenged historical monologue regarding Russia's claims to Ukraine, which Carlson later stated left him "shocked" and "baffled".
    • The Aftermath and Reception: Critics, including former U.S. officials, labeled the interview a propaganda tool, while Russian state media heavily amplified Carlson's visit to combat narratives of international isolation.

    Everyone reading this should remember the account names promoting this candidate as they are likely Russian bots

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago* (12 children)

    If you read the comment as promoting Tucker Carlson, you lack the ability to read. Choosing to not understand your opponent leaves you vulnerable to them. You represent a vulnerability to our collective ability to stop fascism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    This logic is how Trump (the previous Kremlin choice) was elected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago* (10 children)

    This logic is how Trump (the previous Kremlin choice) was elected.

    I agree. By refusing to, and failing to understand Trump, and why what Trump was doing was working (or to even acknowledge it was working), Liberals, and Democrats more broadly, set us up for this era of fascism we're in. Its the fault of those who refused to understand their opponents that these easily beatable buffoons have become pillars of the modern political landscape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Trump won because of election interference from Russia.

    Key Evidence and Methods of Russian election interference:

    • Cyber Hacking: Russian military intelligence (the GRU) hacked the computer networks of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and key campaign officials like John Podesta, subsequently releasing stolen data via outlets like WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, and Guccifer 2.0. [1, 2]
    • Social Media Disinformation: The St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) used hundreds of fake social media personas, bot networks, and purchased advertisements to amplify divisive political and social issues, masquerading as U.S. citizens to sway public discourse. [1, 2]
    • Targeting Election Infrastructure: Russian cyber actors scanned and probed state voter registration databases and election systems across multiple states ahead of the 2016 election, though vote tallies were not altered. [1, 2]
    • Criminal Indictments: Federal grand juries indicted dozens of Russian nationals and military intelligence officers for computer hacking, identity theft, and conspiracy against the United States. [1, 2]

    Official Findings

    • Intelligence Community Assessments: Concluded that the Russian leadership developed a clear preference for Donald Trump and aimed to denigrate Hillary Clinton while undermining public faith in the American democratic process. [1, 2]
    • Bipartisan Senate Findings: Confirmed the extensive nature of these foreign cyber and influence operations, noting coordination between online Russian fronts and active distribution channels
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (8 children)

    AI sloppo.

    And also "Democrats can never be failures, they can only be failed".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 month ago* (8 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (7 children)

    Yes yes yes. Every one who doesn't agree with with you is a Russian op.

    We shouldn't try to understand our opponents or why their messages seem to resonate with audiences. No, we instead require "Trump bad" as the first test to ensure loyalty to the brand, then ensure the counter party is pure enough in their support for Israel and blue no matter who.

    Surely simply demanding loyalty to a brand which has been objectively disloyal to its voters won't, yet again blow up in Democrats faces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 month ago (7 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    I mean do you think you are actually convincing any one with these absurd accusations (other than maybe yourself, by shrinking and shrinking the circular nature of your own thinking).

    You basically have a toddler level analysis of 2016, and are accusing anyone who has a mature thought as being an "obvious russian bot". That only works on people who also are decrepit, toddler level thinkers.

    So if you've gotten down this far into this thread, dear reader, I ask you to consider who you think @UsernameHere@lemmy.world 's rhetoric to operate on. Like, who is it that we think this user is trying to convince with their words? Its obviously not us. And if they aren't arguing to convince us, who is it they are trying to operate on?

    One could say that they are looking to split off "liberals" from the rest of the left with this kind of rhetoric. In this sense, they act as a "wrecker" to any kind of populist, leftist movement. Scratch a "russian bad" liberal, and how deep will we have to go to find a zionist apologist, a blue MAGA't, someone promoting the least viable, most reprehensible instincts of the Democratic party?

    It does beg the question doesn't it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Seems like you’re implying that Lemvotes somehow disproves the existence of bots and brigading lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    you’re implying

    I'm implying that you are a toddler brained Liberal who's analysis is narrowly focused in a kind of maladaptive reactionary analysis that can't seem to get further than "Trump bad. Trump Russia. Peepee tape."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children)

    I've not offered an iota of conjecture about Tuckers role with Russia you oblivious illterate. Develop some reading comprehension.

    You don't have the mental faculties to comprehend that understanding someone, their motivations, the strategy doesn't mean you agree with them.

    That makes you illiterate to understanding what it takes to oppose people like Tucker. You are so baby brained you can't understand words or what they mean. Its something we excuse children for but not full grown adults.

    You have obligation to understand those you disagree with, because you can't offer a resistance to them if you don't understand them or how they operate. And this pervasive baby brained thinking on the part of liberals is half of why were in this mess. Your all so used to just being consumers, to having everything chewed up and spit into your brain by Rachel Maddow or Ezra Klein, your actual critical thinking skills are anemic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Tucker Carlson has always, and I do mean always (for practical purposes) has one of the best reads of the direction of travel in national politics. He was one of the first to get on the America First wagon, and saw the potential Trump represented in national politics in 2015. They understood this because they had the ability to read the room with regard to the latent frustration people had with **both** Republicans and Democrats in that time period.

    Tucker Carlson propagates Kremlin propaganda that has been used to shape American politics.

    I point out that the only reason he has “the best reads of the direction of travel in national politics” is because the Kremlin has actively been shaping national politics using propagandist like Tucker.

    The only thing Tucker is reading is Kremlin talking points and you are trying to claim otherwise.

    You are trying to claim Tucker’s Kremlin propaganda to is not Kremlin propaganda but instead it is “the best reads of the direction of travel in national politics” and to convince others in this thread that we should not be put off by the Kremlins support for this candidate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Are you like, actually intellectually disabled?

    Because I'll be nicer if you are. At least then your idiocy would make sense.

    I'm not making any claims about Tuckers relationship with anyone shit for brains. Use your fucking eye balls and rub them on the screen. Use them to take the lights emitted by the screen and convert them to letters and then words in your mind.

    Stop arguing with your imagination of what I'm saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • This is what a victim of propaganda looks like.

    This is exactly the response they were hoping you would have to this. You ate up the whole thing. All they had to do was say one stupid thing about how much they love this guy they hate and want to fail, now you are aggressively driven to throw out the baby and hold onto the bathwater. You see how that works entirely in their favor, right?

    Nobody is immune to propaganda.

  • source
  • parent