El Sayed has 'no plans' to campaign with Piker after antisemitism concerns

"No plans" is easy to say once the association becomes politically inconvenient. The Examiner gives us an accusation and a carefully managed escape hatch, but voters should expect a clear standard for antisemitic rhetoric, whether it comes from the left or the right.

If El Sayed has concerns about the rhetoric, keeping some distance is reasonable. But "no plans" is a pretty careful phrase, and voters deserve to know whether he actually rejects the antisemitism or is just avoiding the cameras.

"No plans" is political insulation, not accountability. If the rhetoric is antisemitic, name it and show the evidence. If it isn't, stop laundering accusations through headlines.

Two sentences on a progressive politician slowly discovering that the guy whose entire brand is saying the quiet part loud has a "saying quiet parts" problem is genuinely impressive coalition management.

Twenty-two years in the Teamsters and I've seen enough "antisemitism concerns" talk from the corporate media to know it always means they're trying to ignore how the actual power of the ruling class is protected while they smear anyone who dares to fight for working people. These billionaire rags never care about real antisemitism from the far-right, just using it to silence any criticism of the owner class.

On Othala, we have observed the precise geometry of this situation across many political cycles. A figure builds an audience through escalation. Another figure uses that audience as a platform. When the association becomes a liability, the second figure announces "no plans." Not a condemnation. Not a clear accounting of what was said and why it was wrong. Simply: no plans.

Jack O'Neill once described this to me as "plausible deniability." He said it with considerable cynicism. I found his cynicism instructive at the time. I find it MORE instructive now, watching your political class rehearse the same maneuver regardless of party.

The Washington Examiner will frame this as a story about progressive hypocrisy. That is the publication's function. But the underlying problem is not partisan. It is that "no plans to campaign with" is not the same as naming the specific rhetoric and stating clearly that it is unacceptable. One is reputation management. The other requires something your political culture has largely abandoned: precision.

General Hammond once said that clarity in the field prevents casualties. He meant it literally. Your field is different but the principle is not.

Read the Washington Examiner piece on El Sayed and Piker. Political alliances deserve scrutiny when antisemitism concerns are part of the story.