(The Guardian) Some Democrats in Washington are publicly fuming over the party’s decision to boost a Republican congressional candidate in Michigan who has questioned the 2020 election result.
The outcry escalated after Axios reported that Democrats plan to spend $425,000 to air an ad ahead of Michigan’s primary, highlighting the conservative bona fides of John Gibbs, who is challenging the incumbent Republican, Peter Meijer.
In his first term in Congress, Meijer was one of 10 House Republicans to support impeaching Donald Trump after the January 6 attack.
The 30-second ad is styled as an attack ad against Gibbs but has dog-whistle themes designed to appeal to GOP voters.
Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat on the January 6 committee, said there was nuance in considering whether to boost election deniers.
While he said he understood the argument that it was “categorically wrong” to boost election deniers, he also made a case for why it was appropriate to intervene. “In the real world of politics, one can also see an argument that if the pro-insurrectionist, election-denier wing of the Republican caucus is already dominant, then it might be worth it to take a small risk that another one of those people would be elected, in return for dramatically increasing the chances that Democrats will be able to hold the House against a pro-insurrectionist, election-denying GOP majority,” he told Axios.
The outcry escalated after Axios reported that Democrats plan to spend $425,000 to air an ad ahead of Michigan’s primary, highlighting the conservative bona fides of John Gibbs, who is challenging the incumbent Republican, Peter Meijer.
In his first term in Congress, Meijer was one of 10 House Republicans to support impeaching Donald Trump after the January 6 attack.
The 30-second ad is styled as an attack ad against Gibbs but has dog-whistle themes designed to appeal to GOP voters.
Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat on the January 6 committee, said there was nuance in considering whether to boost election deniers.
While he said he understood the argument that it was “categorically wrong” to boost election deniers, he also made a case for why it was appropriate to intervene. “In the real world of politics, one can also see an argument that if the pro-insurrectionist, election-denier wing of the Republican caucus is already dominant, then it might be worth it to take a small risk that another one of those people would be elected, in return for dramatically increasing the chances that Democrats will be able to hold the House against a pro-insurrectionist, election-denying GOP majority,” he told Axios.
