Nobody serves up a hot take quite like Matt Yglesias. And today, once again, he did not disappoint.

Not that anyone asked him for his thoughts, but Yglesias weighed in on the furor over Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s most recent anti-Semitic remarks. Apparently the fact that even some congressional Democrats are calling Omar out is evidence that Omar was actually kinda right about those wealthy Jews and their influence:

Congressional leaders of both parties really did a good job today of debunking the notion that pro-Israel groups wield disproportionate influence on Capitol Hill. — Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 11, 2019

Welp.

That Yglesias tweet. Good lord. — Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) February 11, 2019

And Ralph Wiggum joins the party pic.twitter.com/wBXJPV9rnP — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 11, 2019

This… Is not a good take today — Jason Bauman (@EclecticHonesty) February 11, 2019

You can always count on Matt to have the worst take. The man is a machine. https://t.co/gnvSxSq4Ly — prop op (@ProperOpinion) February 11, 2019

“ACKSHUALLY the condemnation of an anti-Semitic trope is proof that the anti-Semitic trope is true” is a scorching hot take. pic.twitter.com/YcDv2MaJ8v — Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) February 11, 2019

Excuse me, mister, you dropped your Pepe pin pic.twitter.com/pSIbMccPJ3 — Currently between fraudulent suspensions (@jtLOL) February 11, 2019

I get that you are going for a punchline, but this is serious stuff that plays into a very bad historical dynamic for Jews: https://t.co/ZpqxWkWyoo — (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) February 11, 2019

For my non-flippant views on this subject you should read my article. — Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 11, 2019

Which article? You mean this one?

I would say Israel politics is mostly *not* about the Benjamins (try religious and ethnic identity) but the pro-Israel money clearly does matter more than polite company likes to admit. https://t.co/OmAHjnPXgN — Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 11, 2019

Ilhan Omar Was Right, Explained — Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) February 11, 2019

This should be good:

The specifics of the controversy of the moment (“Omar ignites new anti-Semitism controversy with comments on AIPAC,” according to Politico) relate to some moderately ill-advised tweets Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) fired off Sunday night. But the tweets themselves only arose in the larger context of what was already a push from Republican leaders to label Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) as anti-Semitic over their view on Israel policy. That’s not a novel tactic to anyone familiar with the discourse around this subject, but it’s taken on a new urgency in the current Congress for two parallel reasons.

Just some “moderately ill-advised tweets,” you guys.

More:

That said, while it’s true that to suggest a cabal of Jewish moneymen control Congress from behind the scenes via their perfidious financial influence certainly does traffic in anti-Semitic stereotypes, it’s also clearly true that pro-Israel forces’ financial clout makes a difference in American politics. Don’t take my word for it — ask AIPAC, which says that “the United States Congress has provided Israel with the strongest support of any institution in the world” and tells its members that “involvement in the political process is a tangible way of showing friends of Israel that you care about who serves in Congress.” It also specifically defines this in terms of being sufficiently generous with your campaign contributions to qualify as a member of AIPAC’s Congressional Club.

Yeah, let’s ask AIPAC:

Just out of curiosity, I searched open records for how much AIPAC spends per year to lobby for pro-Israel interests. A measly $3.5M in a good year. It barely even cracks the top 50, is dwarfed by the *beer wholesalers.* In contrast, Planned Parenthood’s PAC spent $20M in 2016. — Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) February 11, 2019

Actually, it's MORE accurate to say "Planned Parenthood is buying Congress." Their PAC spends primarily on races and candidates. AIPAC is limited largely to lobbying efforts. They don't give directly to candidates at all. https://t.co/kJW6xEoT3H — Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) February 11, 2019

Oh. Well, at least Matt got that attention he was after, so it wasn’t a total loss, right?