Owens’ Jew-hatred is in Der Sturmer territtory, But several others are not far behind.

I don’t see your point. Of course NeverTrumpers jumped on it; they hate Trump as much or more than most Democrats do. Why would they defend him? They’re not a large or influential bunch in the GOP, however, although they were a tad more numerous in 2017 when Charlottesville happened. There were some GOP members who defended him; see this, for example.

There is absolutely a stopping point, as well, in deciding whom to condemn. I have zero problem finding a stopping point, and it should be clear to every politician as well what his or her stopping point would be. It wouldn’t be the same stopping point for everyone, of course. But saying it’s all or nothing – if you condemn one there’s no stopping point and you somehow must condemn all – makes zero sense to me.

Did you listen to Shapiro’s actual speech? If not, I suggest you do. It was not about being against anti-Semitism; that was a mere subset of what needs condemning about Owens et al. His speech pointed out some much more general problems than that, having nothing to do with Israel or Jews.

The strawman in that sentence I wrote about was this: “Let me add that it’s a strawman to pretend that the issue at hand is the demand that Vance or any other politician condemn people for disagreeing with Israeli policy or the current Israeli government.” In other words, the strawman is that that is what people are asking Vance to do. But it’s not what people are asking him to do.

Plus, on the issue you wrote about – as I said in the post, of course the left will make demand after demand for condemnation and never be satisfied. But here we’re actually talking about demands from the right, and so far they’re not endless. Nor is Tucker Carlson some fringe person hardly anyone has heard of, nor are the things he’s been saying lately consistent with the Trump administration. Carlson’s been a huge figure on the right in the past, and has spoken at conventions and the like (for example, here is his speech on the last night of the Republican Convention in 2024, and it’s a very different Tucker speaking than the Tucker we see now).

Taking them on as if they’re a relevant enemy who has to be addressed/opposed with every move they make is doing them a favor.

I’m not sure if this is exactly what you mean, but I took Vance’s as saying that he’s not going to go down the slippery slope of acceding to every demand that he condemn every nut who supposedly represents “the right.” Democrats never seem to face the same demands. Is Gavin Newsome challenged to condemn Mamdani or Ilhan Omar, or any of the crazies on the left? It’s a trap, and a game the media and Democrats play in an effort to tar Republicans with whackos like Fuentes and Carlson. It’s akin to the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” sort of question.

I think the Trump administration in both their rhetoric and actions are clearly supportive of Israel and are not influenced in any way by whatever Tucker, Candace, et al are spewing. I also think JD was quite correct in saying he didn’t bring a list of people to denounce, and I think Shapiro is wrong in making his opposition to anti-Semitism into a crusade against specific people. Making the argument about what specific people say or do also enables the Left to hid their similar beliefs under the claim that they are not anti-Semitic but are anti-Zionist.

“Let me be clear: anyone who attacks my wife, whether their name is Jen Psaki or Nick Fuentes, can eat shit. That’s my official policy as vice president of the United States.”

Vance may be incredibly smart, but there seems to still be a hillbilly deep inside.

Fuentes later doubled down sarcastically on his own platform, mocking the remark by pretending it was an invitation to a “traditional Indian dinner” with the Vance family, further escalating the feud with more racially charged commentary. – Grok

Fuentes response was cunning and demonstrates he should not be taken lightly.