Democrats fume about “f***ed up” GOP measure denouncing Boulder attack

Key Takeaways:

• Democrats are upset over a GOP resolution due to controversial provisions.
• The measure labels “Free Palestine” as an antisemitic slogan and praises ICE.
• Some Democrats perceive the resolution as a GOP tactic to force a difficult vote.
• Pro-Israel Democrats may support the measure despite objections.
• A bipartisan alternative resolution exists but is not being advanced.

Introduction

What would typically be an uncontroversial congressional vote to denounce the Boulder attack has devolved into a partisan feud. A Republican-introduced resolution containing contentious language has sparked fury among Democrats, escalating tensions within the House.

The Controversial Resolution

Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), alongside fellow Colorado Republicans, introduced a three-page resolution condemning the recent attack in Boulder, Colorado. The measure, set for a vote next week, includes clauses that have become flashpoints for Democratic opposition.

The resolution notably labels “Free Palestine” as an “antisemitic slogan that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and the Jewish people.” Additionally, it expresses “gratitude” to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for “protecting the homeland.”

Democratic Response

Democrats view these inclusions as a strategic maneuver by the GOP to force them into a politically precarious position. “It’s sheer politics,” said one senior House Democrat anonymously, offering candid thoughts on the sensitive vote. Another senior Democrat remarked, “It’s very f***ed up,” expressing deep frustration over the resolution’s wording.

A third House Democrat vented, “Nice little catch to put Democrats on the board,” suggesting that Republicans are using the resolution to create internal divisions within the Democratic caucus.

Internal Divisions

The language in the resolution has sown discord among Democrats, particularly those with pro-Palestinian leanings. A senior House progressive acknowledged that members are grappling with the decision. “Yes,” they responded when asked if the language posed a problem for some colleagues.

Senior aides to several progressive Democrats indicated that their representatives were still deliberating. The situation presents a dilemma: oppose the resolution and appear unsupportive of condemning the attack, or support it and endorse language they find objectionable.

Despite reservations, some pro-Israel Democrats intend to back the measure. “If there’s a resolution condemning Boulder, I’m going to vote for that,” stated a second senior House Democrat. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) commented, “‘Free Palestine’ should mean liberating Palestinians from the oppression of Hamas. Instead, it has come to signify something far more sinister: the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.” Echoing this sentiment, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a Jewish progressive, noted, “‘Free Palestine’ certainly isn’t good Shabbos.”

Alternative Measures

Democrats argue that a bipartisan resolution introduced by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), co-sponsored by Reps. Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) and Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), should be brought to a vote instead. This alternative lacks the contentious language and could unite members across the aisle. However, the GOP-led measure remains the focus.

Broader Implications

The dispute reflects longstanding divisions within the Democratic Party over issues related to Israel and antisemitism. Previous votes, such as the Antisemitism Awareness Act, have similarly split the caucus. Additionally, tensions with ICE have been heightened due to its role in enforcing the Trump administration’s deportation policies.

Conclusion

As the scheduled vote approaches, Democratic leaders face the challenge of navigating internal disagreements while addressing external political pressures. The inclusion of controversial language in the resolution has transformed a moment for potential unity into a source of division, highlighting the complexities of contemporary legislative politics.