Home Media Chris Cillizza Hits Another New Low, Represents Everything Vapid, Brain-Dead, Wrong About...

Chris Cillizza Hits Another New Low, Represents Everything Vapid, Brain-Dead, Wrong About Beltway Political Media


There’s some decent analysis of last night’s GOP freak show (er, “debate”) out there, but you certainly won’t find it in the Washington (Com)Post’s “The Fix” column. Here’s yet more evidence that mindless, inside-the-Beltway, “very serious person” conventional-wisdom-spewer Chris Cillizza is the epitome of everything wrong with corporate media political coverage today.

All style, zero substance. Fawning over Marco Rubio supposedly having “the best debate performance by any candidate in any debate so far in the 2016 election.” WTF?!?!?!?!!?! No analysis of how almost every word out of Republicans’ mouths last night was: a) false; b) crazy; c) extreme; d) all of the above. No mention of how not one of these candidates is even remotely suitable to be an elected official in the US, let alone president of our country. Utterly vapid, mindless drivel from one of the most widely-read political “analysts” in the American media. And we wonder why we’re in deep trouble?!?

Let’s go to the top-rated comments on Cillizza’s drvel for something intelligent (unlike Cillizza, who has the IQ of a rotting eggplant):

Top-rated comment: “The winner of tonight’s debate was clearly . . . Hillary Clinton.”
#2-rated comment: “It was impossible to watch this debate and not feel embarrassed as an American.”
#3-rated comment: “Also on the Losers list: our country. One of these clowns will get the nomination of one of the only two parties that can produce our next President. God help us.”
#4-rated comment: “All Losers. Not a single one of them offered any hope for the poor and middle class in America.”
#5-rated comment: “Trump Rubio and Cruz all tried to make the point that the others were not suited to be president- well they all had a good point there.”
#6-rated comment: “The Fix is going downhill and tonight is a perfect example. How anyone could describe Rubio’s hyperactive grinning and jabbering as”the best debate performance o f the campaign” is utterly beyond me. My take is: Winner- Kasich Losers- all the other candidates, the Republican Party, and the American people. And Wolf Blitzer.”

Note: every one of those comments is infinitely more insightful, intelligent, value-added than pretty much anything Cillizza has written this entire election cycle. I’d fire Cillizza and replace him with any of the aforementioned commenters; they couldn’t possibly do a worse job, and almost certainly would do a far better one, probably for a lot less money too.

P.S. In fairness to Cillizza, he’s no worse than the likes of Wolf Blitzer. Point is, Cillizza’s abysmal, but there are lots more dregs where he came from.

  • Di Read

    Couldn’t agree more about the utter uselessness of Cilliza, lowkell. I long ago gave up reading him when I realized he had nothing worthwhile to say. In fact, the whole WaPo is pretty much like that, except for Eugene Robinson, occasionally, and Petula Dvorak, usually.

    • Agreed that Petula Dvorak is excellent most of the time. I’m also a Eugene Robinson fan and usually Dana Milbank. As for Will, Krauthammer, Cohen, Thiessen…fire them all and let god sort ’em out? LOL

  • Glen Bayless

    Spot on..My journalist dad cannot be resting easily with the state of what passes for “journalism” today

  • Quizzical

    Rubio is my choice for the most likely to succeed as a television talk show host. I’m not sure why anyone thinks he should be President, other than that he can get votes because he looks and sounds good on TV.

    What I don’t understand is why are most of these debates being broadcast behind paywalls? Plus they are airing commercials during the debate like it is a sports event. It’s not as if there are no alternatives. Why not just have the debate, without any interruptions or commercials, on CSPAN TV with video streaming on the Internet’ and on all the regional public TV stations? When was it decided that these key political events must be money-making operations for the broadcasters?

    Even infomercials on TV don’t allow that many interruptions of their presentation.

    Obviously this was a decision made by Republican Party, but why?

    It seems obvious now that if they “dumb down” the format so that it is little more than an occasion for sound bites, quips and insults, with the candidates trying to talk over each other, with time running out quickly on each topic, the result is going to be a front runner who is best in that sort of forum. Trump.

    But what does that have to do with choosing a President? I mean, are those the skills that a President needs to have? I don’t think so.

    Is the Democratic Party going to go along with this, if Trump is the nominee?