JD Vance’s real political cause: JD Vance - Blogs 97%

By Andrea Widburg88%

7/19/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 41 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Burden of Proof, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 64.7% saturation with 657 hits. Analysis detected 4,194 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,016 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 94.2% and a BS Rank of 97% (788 of 21,173 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.30% of the article peer group.

Lee Smith, who is, I believe, one of conservativism’s more informed and brilliant political analysts, has a very interesting take on JD Vance’s political trajectory: Vance is invested more in self-advancement than he is in political principles. 
What this means is that when Vance sustains an ego attack—in this case, with his failed Memorandum of Understanding—he will deflect blame on those whom he dislikes: In this case, Jews and, to a lesser extent, Trump, whom he may feel let him down. 
Smith’s essay,  JD Vance’s Big Crashout ,” focuses on Vance’s bizarre appearance on the Joe Rogan show. 
There, Vance articulated Tucker Carlson-esque anti-Israel conspiracy theories and managed to suggest that Trump might indeed have been embroiled in Jeffrey Epstein’s sordid world. 
With this springboard, Smith examines Vance’s rise and predicts that the seeds of his fall may already be planted. 
As a predicate to Vance’s appearance on Rogan, Smith notes that, because Trump is only a four-year president, any Republican who wants career advancement in the Trump administration isn’t going to be cozying up to Trump. 
Vance is the presumptive future leader of the party, and D.C. operatives will circle the wagons to protect him, including denying that the Rogan appearance was anything other than normal. 
In fact, it was a bizarre event: 
Instead of advancing the administration’s agenda on Capitol Hill , the vice president went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to promote his new memoir. 
Like Barack Obama, Vance sees his personal story as a springboard to the White House. 
And like Obama, he has already written two memoirs by the age of 45 without a single legislative or practical political accomplishment of any kind aside from being elected to public office. 
During his grievance-fueled performance on Rogan’s podcast, Vance lashed out once again at the Jews, alleging, among other things, that there’s an Israeli-funded plot to undermine his negotiations with Iran; some Israelis want war indefinitely for the sake of endless war; and the U.S. government has probably destroyed evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad operative. 
Regarding the Epstein matter, Smith notes Vance’s careful phrasing: 
And “by the way,” he wanted to make clear, “I’ve never seen a single piece of credible evidence that the president of the United States engaged in wrongdoing with minors.” 
That’s odd wording for a man who is considered a master of the English language, insofar as it clearly leaves open the possibility that Trump did behave wrongly. 
That’s not accidental, writes Smith: 
Why did the vice president tailor his wording to suggest that maybe his boss engaged in wrongdoing with minors? 
For the same reason that he attacked Jews and spread baseless rumors, for which he admits to having zero evidence, about some kind of dark plot involving Jeffrey Epstein. 
Now that the Iran deal that Vance favored has blown up and he’s taking heat for it, he’s showing that no one puts baby in a corner. 
So, he resurrects Epsteingate, predictably inspiring the dumbest people in America, and around the world, to flood social media with details from an information operation targeting Trump. 
It’s Russiagate 2.0...a way to deflect attention from his own failed foray in the world of international diplomacy. 
Moreover, it manages to tie together sex, anti-Trumpism, Israel, and antisemitism: 
The idea the Jewish financier pimped out underage American girls to compromise liberal elites for the purpose of advancing Israeli interests was most ardently promoted by Vance’s political patron, Tucker Carlson. 
And here’s a little interesting tidbit, complete from a leftist-authored book about President Trump’s first year in term two: 
According to Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan’s recent book, Regime Change , chronicling the first year of the second Trump term, Vance had originally volunteered to appear on Rogan’s podcast to put down the speculation that Trump was protecting Epstein after the narrative threatened to derail Trump 47. 
But now he’s mad at Trump, so the second-highest elected official in the country, described by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles as a conspiracy theorist, chummed the part of the American electorate that believes a key role of the U.S. government is to disclose the nature of the laser technology gifted to us by aliens and publish Elvis’ current coordinates in the jungles of the Amazon. 
Moreover, Vance knows whose fault it is that his misbegotten deal failed: The Jews. 
His evidence? 
A Time Magazine article. 
When attacked for antisemitism, Vance naturally goes on the offensive, saying that no one can prove it. 
Smith dismisses this: 
But claiming that Israelis want war for the sake of war, indefinitely, toward no specific objective, is a pretty good place to start. 
Vance’s denials are part of the act: I didn’t say something recognizably antisemitic; it’s on you to prove that the classic antisemitic conceit I used is antisemitic, you paranoid freak. 
My point is clearly just that Israelis simply kill people for no reason or purpose because they enjoy spilling blood, and they will continue doing so forever, to satisfy their perverted, inhuman lusts. 
Smith has a few other choice words for Vance, whom he sees as someone willing to blow everything up to protect his own ego. 
But at the end of the day, this isn’t about Vance. 
It’s about whether Trump can salvage America in the short time he has left: 
If he can’t get the job done, which includes disciplining his number two, odds are ever increasing that in two and a half years, millions of illegal aliens will be gathered at our southern border, waiting for the next far-left Democrat to be sworn in. 
Unfortunately, his Vice President isn’t helping Trump but, instead, seems determined to undermine him every step of the way. 
As for me, I’ve always liked Ron DeSantis, and I’m now adding Marco Rubio to my top presidential contenders list. 
I’d love to see an All Florida ticket in 2028. 
Reminder: We now have a podcast corner . 
Please visit! 
I’ve been contributing short, original videos (10-12 minutes) and highlighting interesting videos from others. 
Image created using AI. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.8%Andrea Widburg: 14.2%American Thinker: 10.4%Confirmation Bias16.8%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Andrea Widburg: 3.3%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 5.0%Andrea Widburg: 2.1%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 5.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.4%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 2.1%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Andrea Widburg: 6.7%American Thinker: 7.2%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.8%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias1.0%This article: 5.8%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias5.8%This article: 64.7%Andrea Widburg: 17.2%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias64.7%This article: 9.4%Andrea Widburg: 1.7%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias9.4%This article: 10.3%Andrea Widburg: 4.4%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error10.3%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Andrea Widburg: 3.7%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias3.1%This article: 3.2%Andrea Widburg: 5.8%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.2%This article: 6.4%Andrea Widburg: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.7%Halo Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.2%Andrea Widburg: 2.1%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias9.2%This article: 1.9%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 1.1%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.1%This article: 13.8%Andrea Widburg: 9.5%American Thinker: 5.7%Ad Hominem13.8%This article: 2.4%Andrea Widburg: 3.7%American Thinker: 4.1%Straw Man2.4%This article: 17.3%Andrea Widburg: 6.4%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority17.3%This article: 18.9%Andrea Widburg: 5.0%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma18.9%This article: 6.3%Andrea Widburg: 3.1%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope6.3%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.6%Andrea Widburg: 18.2%American Thinker: 16.9%Hasty Generalization15.6%This article: 1.1%Andrea Widburg: 1.3%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring1.1%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.0%Andrea Widburg: 9.1%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion13.0%This article: 0.9%Andrea Widburg: 3.6%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question0.9%This article: 11.4%Andrea Widburg: 4.0%American Thinker: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.4%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.8%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.9%Andrea Widburg: 5.0%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof20.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.6%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.9%Andrea Widburg: 1.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division5.9%This article: 2.9%Andrea Widburg: 3.0%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal2.9%This article: 3.2%Andrea Widburg: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman3.2%This article: 8.7%Andrea Widburg: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.7%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.8%Andrea Widburg: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity2.8%This article: 5.8%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading5.8%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.8%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.9%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote5.9%This article: 4.7%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.7%This article: 56.2%Andrea Widburg: 31.0%American Thinker: 23.0%Biased Writer Voice56.2%This article: 9.0%Andrea Widburg: 5.3%American Thinker: 5.8%Indoctrination9.0%This article: 1.9%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias1.9%This article: 20.4%Andrea Widburg: 14.4%American Thinker: 14.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias20.4%This article: 9.1%Andrea Widburg: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.1%

1016 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers12%attributed speech895writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageVance • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageLee Smith • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 68 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageLee Smith • 23 words • 0.0% coverageLee Smith • 30 words • 100.0% coverageLee Smith • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lee Smith

100%flagged-word coverage
91 attributed words75% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice+18.5 ptsWriter: 56.2%Lee Smith: 74.7%74.7%Indoctrination+29.8 ptsWriter: 6.5%Lee Smith: 36.3%36.3%Unattributed Quote+33.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lee Smith: 33.0%33.0%Politically Right Leaning -23.1 ptsWriter: 23.1%Lee Smith: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Lee Smith: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Lee Smith: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Lee Smith: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.