I love this Substack, but second year in a row I couldn’t agree less. I think Kristol should be way higher (and to your point about his former Republicanism, also couldn’t disagree more. As a Bulwark diehard of diehards I love them all, but I think besides Tim and JVL no one has more contempt for the current GOP while also being willing on some core things to admit maybe it was always rotten) and Van Jones as an A? I used to love him and thought he was super insightful, but anyone who even tries to do the whole “Donald Trump is a changed man” thing nine years into his obvious cruelty and viciousness political career and 50 years into his public display of functional illiteracy, racial animus/resentment, and lack of any impulse control…
Finally, Scott Jennings deserves an F of Fs. He is ALWAYS a shill, and a smug one at that. If Trump gets up on the debate stage and poops on the floor then asks for his mommy’s milk Scott will immediately pivot to one ill advised statements Harris made five years ago about childcare costs without acknowledging what occurred five minutes before all while wearing a sanctimonious shit eating grin. He’s a slightly more serious Hugh Hewitt.
I think it's important to note that I'm not necessarily grading their opinions, I'm grading how they deliver them. With Jennings, I had him higher last year because he actually did a decent job of delivering a GOP position without being intolerable. I agree he's venturing into intolerable territory from time to time. As for Kristol, I loved the Sykes newsletter "Morning Shots" last year Kristol took over and it's become pretty flat and drab. Thanks for bringing up Hewitt too who is part of my blanket F for most Fox personalities.
No I get it. It’s hard to put myself in that neutral mental space, but I’m trying. Speaking of Bulwark though, as JVL brings up every once in a while, it’s very hard to find a Trump supporter to come into mainstream media and acts in good faith. I think Jennings proves that. He’s incapable of giving an objective view of events. Sure, David Axelrod has a bias and point of view but he’s willing to say “Dem X just did a stupid thing” or “I’m worried that position Y is off putting to swing voters and too many members of my party are indulgent of it”.
Jennings is constitutionally unable to be willing to do the same, instead ignoring unflattering items of discourse and instead becomes an automaton of Cocaine Mitch’s office talking pointings.
I am tending to agree. Jennings was a bit more objective a year or two ago, willing to at least assent when the GOP shot themselves in the foot but at least since the start of the year has been a bit of a shill.perhaps I was too kind with the grade but what I wrote I still stand by.
Glad you got to F on Cilizza, he is impossible to read, and plays the both sides, and neutral observer card too readily. I actually ended my paid subscription to his 'Stack 6 months early, abandoning my remaining term because of his shit takes post-debate.
I think you have a past bias on George Will. He really should be given his gold watch and invited back solely to opine about baseball.
I think you are too soft on The Bulwark. Your take on JVL shows your personal bias (he agrees with your framing) and while he's about as snarky and dark as me, he's not a B+ on your sliding scale, if you are grading Rubin as a D.
Also, I would put Ruy Texiera in the D- category, and lump him together with James Carville.
I love this Substack, but second year in a row I couldn’t agree less. I think Kristol should be way higher (and to your point about his former Republicanism, also couldn’t disagree more. As a Bulwark diehard of diehards I love them all, but I think besides Tim and JVL no one has more contempt for the current GOP while also being willing on some core things to admit maybe it was always rotten) and Van Jones as an A? I used to love him and thought he was super insightful, but anyone who even tries to do the whole “Donald Trump is a changed man” thing nine years into his obvious cruelty and viciousness political career and 50 years into his public display of functional illiteracy, racial animus/resentment, and lack of any impulse control…
Finally, Scott Jennings deserves an F of Fs. He is ALWAYS a shill, and a smug one at that. If Trump gets up on the debate stage and poops on the floor then asks for his mommy’s milk Scott will immediately pivot to one ill advised statements Harris made five years ago about childcare costs without acknowledging what occurred five minutes before all while wearing a sanctimonious shit eating grin. He’s a slightly more serious Hugh Hewitt.
I think it's important to note that I'm not necessarily grading their opinions, I'm grading how they deliver them. With Jennings, I had him higher last year because he actually did a decent job of delivering a GOP position without being intolerable. I agree he's venturing into intolerable territory from time to time. As for Kristol, I loved the Sykes newsletter "Morning Shots" last year Kristol took over and it's become pretty flat and drab. Thanks for bringing up Hewitt too who is part of my blanket F for most Fox personalities.
No I get it. It’s hard to put myself in that neutral mental space, but I’m trying. Speaking of Bulwark though, as JVL brings up every once in a while, it’s very hard to find a Trump supporter to come into mainstream media and acts in good faith. I think Jennings proves that. He’s incapable of giving an objective view of events. Sure, David Axelrod has a bias and point of view but he’s willing to say “Dem X just did a stupid thing” or “I’m worried that position Y is off putting to swing voters and too many members of my party are indulgent of it”.
Jennings is constitutionally unable to be willing to do the same, instead ignoring unflattering items of discourse and instead becomes an automaton of Cocaine Mitch’s office talking pointings.
I am tending to agree. Jennings was a bit more objective a year or two ago, willing to at least assent when the GOP shot themselves in the foot but at least since the start of the year has been a bit of a shill.perhaps I was too kind with the grade but what I wrote I still stand by.
Glad you got to F on Cilizza, he is impossible to read, and plays the both sides, and neutral observer card too readily. I actually ended my paid subscription to his 'Stack 6 months early, abandoning my remaining term because of his shit takes post-debate.
I think you have a past bias on George Will. He really should be given his gold watch and invited back solely to opine about baseball.
I think you are too soft on The Bulwark. Your take on JVL shows your personal bias (he agrees with your framing) and while he's about as snarky and dark as me, he's not a B+ on your sliding scale, if you are grading Rubin as a D.
Also, I would put Ruy Texiera in the D- category, and lump him together with James Carville.
If all George did was talk baseball, I'd rate him higher.
Forgot about French but agree.
Thanks for the feedback! I'm trying. Keep contributing to the community and spread the word about PurpleAmerica!