Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed distanced his campaign from a Rebellion PAC ad promoted by Cenk Uygur, but critics say he never directly condemned its message.

Democratic Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing backlash after a Rebellion PAC ad promoted by his prominent supporter Cenk Uygur blamed Israel for American price pressures and attacked Senate candidate Mike Rogers. Critics called the video antisemitic, but El-Sayed’s campaign responded by distancing itself rather than directly condemning it.

Uygur, a co-creator of The Young Turks and an outspoken El-Sayed supporter, posted the ad after it was released by Rebellion PAC. The video opens with a couple shopping for groceries. When the bill becomes a problem, the woman says, “You’re going to have to put those eggs back!” She then says, “We have to set $7 aside for killing Palestinians.”

The spot presents American support for Israel as a burden on taxpayers and a reason grocery prices are higher. It also links that support to Israel’s ability to maintain social programs, including universal healthcare. A voiceover asks, “Why does Mike Rogers care so much about what Israelis want and so little about what you want?” The ending echoes a political contrast associated with President Trump’s 2024 campaign against Kamala Harris, redirecting it toward Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli politicians: “Mike Rogers is for they/them, Abdul El Sayed is for you.”

In the post accompanying the video, Uygur said Americans were being made to suffer at home so Israel could pursue its wars. He also accused Rogers of promising to serve Israel “unconditionally,” while not making the same promise to American voters.

El-Sayed’s response stopped short of a condemnation. The campaign said, “This ad is not affiliated in any way with the Abdul for Senate campaign.” It added that Abdul was focused on opposing Trump’s agenda, which it said was raising prices for Michiganders, and concluded, “No one speaks for Abdul but himself and his campaign.” The statement did not call for the ad to be removed or say that the campaign rejected its message.

That distinction quickly drew attention because critics were not only asking who made the ad. They wanted to know whether El-Sayed rejected its claims and its language. Avi Mayer highlighted the campaign’s failure to condemn the spot, while other critics argued that a disclaimer about affiliation did not amount to a disavowal.

Joel M. Petlin made a similar argument, saying the video echoed a campaign talking point about Michiganders lacking quality education because the United States funds Iron Dome.

Michael A. Cohen added that El-Sayed had made the same argument during his primary campaign against Rep. Haley Stevens.

Why It Matters

At stake is more than whether a campaign technically produced a political advertisement. The dispute tests whether a candidate can separate himself from a message that benefits his candidacy while avoiding a direct judgment on that message. For voters, the issue reaches beyond grocery prices because the ad combines household costs, foreign policy, and the safety of a religious community in one appeal. A disclaimer can identify who made a video, but it does not necessarily tell the public whether the candidate rejects the language, the premise, or the people targeted by it.

That leaves accountability at the center of the controversy. If a prominent supporter uses a campaign-adjacent message to attack an opponent, voters may judge the candidate by both the content and the response. El-Sayed’s critics see the lack of an explicit condemnation as meaningful, especially because they point to similar rhetoric in his contest with Haley Stevens. His defenders can point to the formal statement distancing the campaign. The open question is whether that distinction will satisfy Michigan voters, Jewish Democrats, and others who want a clear position on the ad’s treatment of Israel and Jewish safety.

Marc Rod later reported that Goldman was aware of the campaign’s distancing statement and considered it “wholly lacking.” That reaction underscored the gap at the heart of the dispute: the campaign answered who made the ad, while critics wanted to hear whether El-Sayed rejected it.

Source: The Gateway Pundit