Why Pfeiffer and Lovett Call Mike Rogers’s El-Sayed Ad Extreme

Which ad and target are they discussing?

Dan Pfeiffer and John Lovett discuss an ad from Mike Rogers in Michigan attacking Abdul El-Sayed. In the ad, Rogers says El-Sayed is funded by people who finance Hamas, has family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and publicly supported terrorists.

(evidenceIndex 0; 04:48)

What examples make the portrayal seem extreme?

One host calls the ad dishonest, despicable, and extreme, contrasting it with biography-focused ads in which El-Sayed appeared with his grandparents, described as “as wholesome and white as it gets.” (evidenceIndex 1; 08:24) The hosts also say Michigan voters had already seen El-Sayed campaign, respond to the allegations, and present his own message, rather than encountering the attack in isolation. (evidenceIndex 2; 08:53)

What does El-Sayed say about the allegations?

The hosts say El-Sayed explained that the alleged activity involved his mother long before he was born and had nothing to do with him. They also say he publicly presents himself as loving America and respecting the Constitution.

(evidenceIndex 3; 09:23)

What criterion do they use for calling it racist?

One host says that people who are not inherently anti-Muslim or racist would find it difficult to reconcile the person seen in El-Sayed’s ads and on the campaign trail with the person portrayed in the Rogers ad. (evidenceIndex 4; 09:52)