Read time: 2 minutes

George Will's Amazingly Stupid Question: 'When Did We Elect A President Defined By Anger?'

The conservative pundit seems not to be able to help himself be obtuse about Trump's evil. Stephanie Ruhle set him straight.

For some reason I cannot fathom, MSNBC brings George Will on to be the token scolding conservative on some of its shows. I used to really like listening to him in high school and college. Either my taste has improved, or his commentary has become more surly, judgmental, and condescending. In any case, he appeared on Stephanie Ruhle's show today to discuss tonight's debate, and she asked him what he'd like to hear in tonight's debate.

WILL: I'd like to hear, first of all, that some people understand you can be at 1% in the polls at this point in the race and surge very fast. George McGovern was at 3% in the polls in January 1972 and was the nominee six months later. Tonight I think we'll be watching the demeanor of Mr. Biden. He wants to punch back but he doesn't want to seem angry. I've been trying to think, when is the last time America elected an angry president, a president defined by anger? I think it's Andrew Jackson.

RUHLE: Two years ago?

(laughter on the panel)

WILL: I don't think so. Someone who is defined by a constant, unrelieved, florid disapproval. You might be right, that 2016 was the first time since Andrew Jackson, but that was a long interval between angry people.

Where has Will been since 2015? Does he suffer from selective amnesia? Selective obtuseness? He's not a stupid man, I know this. Is he trying here to frame the Democrats as potentially angrier than TRUMP was in 2016? It is confounding to me, astonishing that he would be asking this.

Either he cannot remember the campaign Trump ran in 2016, in which case he doesn't belong on TV as a serious pundit.

Or, he remembers it just fine, but wouldn't categorize Trump or the campaign he ran as "angry" — the campaign that called Mexicans rapists, brushed off sexual assault as "locker-room talk" and stalked his much tinier opponent across the debate stage. And in THAT case, he also doesn't belong on TV as a serious pundit, either.

He belongs on Fox News.

Like I said. Not a serious pundit.

This is part of our continuing coverage of the 2020 elections.

View more

Can you help us out?

For 17 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.

More C&L Coverage

Discussion

New Commenting System

Our comments are now powered by Insticator. In order to comment you will need to create an Insticator account. The process is quick and simple. Please note that the ability to comment with a C&L site account is no longer available.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.

Please Do Not Use the Login Link at the Top of the Site.

In order to comment you must use an Insticator account. To register an account, enter your comment and click the post button. A dialog will then appear allowing you create your account.

We will be retiring our Crooks and Liars user account system in January, 2021.

Thank you.
C&L Team