Politics
‘It betrays our values’: Progressives grapple with deadly shooting
Progressives are grappling with the killing of two people who worked at the Israeli embassy in Washington by a gunman who echoed a slogan that has become a rallying cry for many American liberals since the start of the war in Gaza.
After his arrest, the man suspected of killing the couple outside the Jewish Museum in Washington on Wednesday night exclaimed “free, free Palestine,” a phrase that has become ubiquitous at peaceful demonstrations and on social media over the past 18 months.
The attack brought renewed focus to a strain of violent radicalism on the left, even as progressives pointed out they share nothing with the gunman except his apparent support for Palestinian rights. What the attack did, they said, was hurt their cause.
“It betrays our values and hands more power to those already pushing authoritarian crackdowns,” said Layla Elabed, an organizer in Michigan and the leader of the Uncommitted National Movement, which arose in protest of U.S. support for Israel’s response to the Hamas attack launched on Oct. 7, 2023.
It’s also putting pressure on progressives to respond.
“Where’s our Martin Luther King today? I don’t know where that individual is. Who is that individual?” said a progressive strategist granted anonymity to speak freely. “We just don’t have big moral leaders in our society, period, let alone on the political front.”
A fringe, more radical wing of the pro-Palestinian movement has blinked in and out of national attention since the onset of the war in Gaza. Thousands of protesters have been arrested, including dozens who forcibly entered and occupied university buildings. And last year, POLITICO reported that an online network of pro-Palestinian activists in the U.S. included resources on how to “escalate” political actions beyond legal bounds, as well as pro-Hamas content.
Asked if members of the left are doing any soul searching, Kevin Rachlin — the Washington director of the Nexus Project, a left-leaning Jewish advocacy group — said, “I think they are.”
“This is more and more proof that we need to address antisemitism as a full society versus addressing [it] on the left or on the right,” Rachlin said.
Antisemitism historically and in recent years has more closely been associated with fringe groups on the alt-right, including most notably the 2017 “Unite the Right” neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, Virginia. President Donald Trump himself dined with white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes at his Mar-a-Lago resort in 2022.
Supporters of the pro-Palestinian movement, including liberal lawmakers, found themselves on the defensive after the shooting outside the Capital Jewish Museum in a way that conservatives have had to respond to far-right violence in recent years.
Now, some pro-Palestinian activists worry the shooting, which federal authorities called a targeted act of antisemitism, could set back any progress they’ve made in their policy goals amid an increasingly dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza and an expansion of Israel’s military operation in the decimated territory.
“We hope and caution against this vigilante violence being used to undermine the movement to end the genocide, a movement of hundreds of thousands of Americans calling for ceasefire and arms embargo,” said Sandra Tamari, executive director of the pro-Palestinian Adalah Justice Project.
Alex Pascal, a former Biden administration official who helped craft its strategy to combat antisemitism, said, “We cannot allow this violence to be weaponized by those who might exploit it to further degrade our democratic rights and freedoms.”
Trump and Republicans for years have cast the pro-Palestinian movement as a group of radical terrorist sympathizers. As the Trump administration has taken increasingly severe steps to suppress the movement and punish its leaders, Democrats and advocates have pushed back on that characterization, framing Republicans’ actions as an attack on free speech.
Pro-Palestinian lawmakers rushed Thursday to condemn the murders and call them acts of antisemitism. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he was “appalled” by the “heinous act.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) emphasized, “Absolutely nothing justifies the murder of innocents.”
Republicans were quick to paint the attacks as just part of broader extremism in the movement.
“The Palestinian cause is an evil one,” Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) said Thursday on “Fox & Friends.” “The only end of the conflict is total surrender by those who support Muslim terror.”
As details about the attack emerged late Wednesday night, the Trump administration jumped into offense. Attorney General Pam Bondi and D.C.’s newly tapped interim U.S. attorney, Jeanine Pirro, visited the scene. And on Truth Social just after midnight, Trump wrote: “These horrible D.C. killings, based obviously on antisemitism, must end, NOW! Hatred and Radicalism have no place in the USA.!”
The left has had to walk this line before. Earlier this year, when federal immigration agents detained and moved to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian green card holder and leader in last year’s pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, the Trump administration justified the arrest by claiming Khalil was a supporter of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.
Democrats have largely united around detained pro-Palestinian activists as victims of the Trump administration whose constitutionally protected political speech is under attack — but also hedged their statements by emphasizing they didn’t endorse Khalil’s opinions on the subject.
“I abhor many of the opinions and policies that Mahmoud Khalil holds and supports,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said at the time on X. But, he added: “If the administration cannot prove he has violated any criminal law to justify taking this severe action and is doing it for the opinions he has expressed, then that is wrong.”
Holly Otterbein contributed to this report.
Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee has a month to turn around primary challenger Helena Foulkes’ 20-point lead or become the first sitting U.S. governor to lose a primary in eight years.
The race represents another crest in the world’s post-pandemic anti-incumbent wave, which has transcended ideological lines as voters express broad frustration with high costs of living and governments they don’t feel are working for them. It’s a throughline from insurgent progressive victories to Kamala Harris’ 2024 loss to President Donald Trump’s growing unpopularity.
And it’s all down to a bridge.Signs outside Rhode Island’s partially closed Washington Bridge tell drivers: “Thank you for your patience.”
But voters who’ve lived through the resulting traffic crisis since emergency safety concerns emerged in 2023 keep telling Foulkes the messages make them feel the opposite. Despite some improvement, they’re fed up with commuting and economic troubles stemming from the bridge’s slowdown. One older woman told Foulkes she wanted to take out her BB gun and shoot the signs.
The contest is a rematch of the 2022 primary, when McKee (who’d been elevated to governor when Gina Raimondo became Commerce secretary) narrowly edged out Foulkes in a multi-candidate race. The primary doesn’t fall neatly along the ideological lines that have riven Democrats elsewhere. Foulkes and McKee, both baby boomers, have positioned themselves as relatively mainstream, center-left Dems.
“I’m running against people’s belief that the status quo is maybe just as good as we’re ever going to be,” Foulkes told Playbook. She’s proposed funding 20,000 new housing units with a millionaires tax. “It’s so important that people feel a sense of momentum and energy … because I think oftentimes government doesn’t feel urgent to people, and their lives are really hurting.”
Rhode Island is small enough — an hour’s drive from one corner to the other — that a single bridge symbolizes the trend. (The Washington Bridge is a key conduit between Providence and East Providence.) Almost everybody says the bridge is the No. 1 issue in the race and voters’ perception of McKee’s tenure. He and Foulkes have squabbled over the pace of rebuilding, the bidding process and the state Department of Transportation leadership. Residents are also struggling with some of the country’s highest electric rates and worst housing affordability metrics.
But McKee is mounting a vigorous defense of his time in office, saying he’s delivered for Rhode Islanders — despite Trump’s obstacles — on jobs, SNAP, wind energy, education, hospitals, housing and energy. The governor argues he’s prioritized safety on the bridge after previous leaders kicked the can down the road. One recent poll by McKee allies found a closer race, with Foulkes ahead by just 6 points.
“My record is going to really be the important factor,” McKee said in an interview. “My opponent’s record’s been in the corporate boardroom, really putting profits over people.”
That’s the heart of McKee’s message, which banks on another crucial Democratic 2026 narrative carrying the day: a working people’s populism taking on the elite business class. McKee has long had a base of union support. In Foulkes, he has an opponent who’s no democratic socialist. She was a longtime CVS executive and comes from a storied political lineage (her grandfather and uncle, Thomas and Chris Dodd, were both senators).
“It’s kind of a running bit here that her campaign is, in a very real way, being run from the deck of the Dunes Club in Narragansett,” said McKee campaign manager Drew Shannon, referring to the exclusive, members-only beach club.
And McKee has gone negative on the airwaves, accusing Foulkes of cutting people’s health care and turning a blind eye to opioid addiction during her time at CVS. “She’s a denier: someone who denies the progress we’re making,” McKee told Playbook. “Just like she denies the role she played in fueling an opioid crisis.” Both candidates got fiery in a radio debate this week. As of July 31, Foulkes had five times McKee’s cash on hand.
McKee has been rolling out a string of notable endorsements, many from labor, including teachers, firefighters, building trades and Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island PAC. If he can pull off a comeback, it’ll likely be on the strength of union support.
But his positioning as a labor champion from the working-class Blackstone Valley — the birthplace of the U.S.’ Industrial Revolution — has been partially undercut by high-profile defections in his base. The Rhode Island SEIU State Council backed Foulkes. The state Democratic Party and the state AFL-CIO voted not to endorse in the race, both of which were seen as big blows to McKee.
“The labor movement is going to be in both camps,” AFL-CIO President Patrick Crowley said.
And a number of Democratic city committees have sprung for Foulkes. Cumberland Mayor Jeff Cutter, who serves in the role McKee once held, is among those now supporting her. “There’s been some stances taken that I don’t think represent the same person who was a mentor of mine,” Cutter said of McKee, calling his endorsement a difficult personal choice.
“It’s one of those times,” Cutter added, “where the advantage of incumbency might not be an advantage at this point because there’s just so much kind of frustration.”
Like this content? Consider signing up for Blue Light News’s Playbook newsletter.
Michigan Democrats’ scramble to unify after a brutal primary continued Friday with a preplanned rally that brought together the statewide ticket.
It also brought out Pete Buttigieg, a former and potentially future presidential candidate, whose presence helped underscore the stakes not just in November, but for 2028.
Holding the Michigan Senate seat is key to Democrats’ hopes of winning back the upper chamber. It is also a major battleground state that has now voted for President Donald Trump in two of the last three presidential elections, even as it sends Democrats like Elissa Slotkin to the Senate. Michigan is now poised to become an early presidential nominating state, giving it outsized influence on the 2028 contest.
Buttigieg laid out, in explicit terms, the broader stakes of a fractured Democratic coalition heading into the general election: “The stakes are high, and people from around the country, people from around the world, are watching the state of Michigan right now to see if we have the capability to put together that coalition to win.”
“We’re going to win because we know what it means to focus on what’s at stake, to lock arms as allies after a spirited primary, to pull together in common cause,” said Buttigieg, who stayed neutral in the state’s Senate primary, at the Michigan Democratic Party’s general election kickoff rally.
Abdul El-Sayed on Tuesday defeated Rep. Haley Stevens after a bruising primary that exposed ideological and demographic divisions within the party. He now faces Republican Rep. Mike Rogers in the general election, and he has to figure out how to pull moderate and establishment Democrats back into the fold to hold the seat.
Republicans, seeing an opening with Black and Jewish voters who broke more for Stevens, are already trying to peel away parts of the Democratic coalition. They view Michigan as one of their best pickup opportunities this cycle.
Buttigieg, who represents the party’s more moderate flank, used his remarks Friday to explicitly appeal to Democrats across the spectrum — and even some Republicans.
“Wherever you sit, in this big tent of ours, and it is a big tent, but whatever corner of that tent you think of as home, there is a set of things, and I mean big, big things, where we agree with each other, we agree with most Michiganders, and Washington and Lansing Republicans disagree with us,” he said. “That’s what’s at stake right now, and it’s not all about left, right, and center, Democrat and Republican.”
Buttigieg’s remarks — and the early unification around El-Sayed in one of the nation’s most important battlegrounds — underscores the delicate balancing act party leaders have to contend with. After a string of progressive victories through the spring, establishment Democrats in particular are trying to rally behind their new nominees without necessarily embracing every part of the politics that carried them across the finish line.
That dance showed up subtly throughout the speeches on Friday night.
Buttigieg at one point framed El-Sayed’s position as wanting “to expand affordable health care and keep more money in your pocket,” whereas Rogers “voted against the Affordable Care Act.” Buttigieg notably did not use the phrase “Medicare for All” to address one of El-Sayed’s signature progressive positions.
El-Sayed, for his part, also made an explicit effort to turn the page.
“In the spirit of unity, in the spirit of the work, in the spirit of coming together, I want to thank both of my colleagues who ran, Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, for an incredible race,” he said. “Their incredible public service in the state of Michigan, and I cannot wait to see what both of them will do next.”
But he signaled that the progressive policy positions that powered his campaign would remain central to his general election stump. He reiterated his support for Medicare for All and railed against “the system of super PACs” and the millions of outside money flooding into politics.
And he sharply criticized Rogers, who, along with his fellow Republicans, have dramatically increased their attacks against El-Sayed since he won the primary, offering an early glimpse of what is likely to be a combative and divisive general election.
“They don’t know who we fight for,” El-Sayed said. “We fight for the families barely able to put their groceries in the cart and check out, we fight for the mom who’s worried about the child care she needs to be able to work a job that barely pays enough, we fight for the folks who are afraid about what happens if they get sick. We fight for each other, and we don’t back down.”
Tennessee GOP Rep. Andy Ogles was ousted by a Republican challenger on Thursday, a blow to President Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson who tried to boost his campaign in the final days.
Former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher won the GOP primary for the 5th District after outraising Ogles, receiving a late endorsement from GOP Gov. Bill Lee and seeing a flood of outside money on his behalf from a renewable energy super PAC.
Ultimately, that spending, coupled with a newly redrawn district that forced Ogles to reach new voters, helped end his reelection bid. Ogles has also faced a number of controversies since he was first elected in 2022.
He deleted a homophobic social media post that was denounced by members of his own party in June, and he drew severe backlash for another post in which he said “Muslims don’t belong in American society.” In 2024, the FBI searched Ogles’ phone during an investigation into campaign finance records, which came after a watchdog group filed an ethics complaint into his use of campaign funds. And in 2023, he faced scrutiny for false claims about his resume.
Ogles’ loss makes him the second Trump-endorsed candidate to lose a primary this week, after a Michigan House candidate who had the president’s backing fell to a challenger who had already dropped out.
Hatcher will face the Democratic mayor of Columbia, Tennessee, Chaz Molder, in November. Molder has posted strong fundraising hauls, while Hatcher will basically be starting from scratch.
But Republicans redrew the seat to favor Trump by 23 points after the Supreme Court severely limited the Voting Rights Act earlier this year, leaving Hatcher as the front-runner.
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words