This past weekend Vice President JD Vance led the U.S. delegation that sat across the table from Iranian representatives in Pakistan, in an effort to reach a peace deal to end the war with Iran, an effort that failed after our enemy refused to accept many of our demands. As a result, Vance as come under the spotlight of the liberal media, many of whom are looking to blame him for the failed talks, and seem to be hoping that this might upset his chances to run for President in 2028.
Monday on MS NOW's Katy Tur Reports, the host seemed to be trying to do both during her segment on Vance, and directed her first question to former G.W. Bush Advisor Mark McKinnon.
TUR: JD Vance went out to Islamabad to negotiate a peace deal with Iran on a war that he did not support. How did it go? How does this go for him politically?
McKINNON: His biggest assignment and the worst assignment. Trump likes to talk about having all the cards. Well, JD Vance went into that negotiation with no cards.... So the problem for Vance is that people who are opposed to this conflict in the MAGA coalition will say, even though he was quietly opposed, will say he didn't do enough and that people are for it say he did too much.
Tur then asked Marc Short of Advancing American Freedom if this will hurt Vance in the future and didn't get the answer she was most likely looking for.
SHORT: I actually think it probably helps him not to have struck a deal. I think striking a bad deal with Iran would have reinforced the notion that that he is purely captive of the Tucker Carlson anti-Ukraine isolationist side of the party.... There have been people even more skeptical if he'd struck a deal with the Mullahs that allowed him to continue to enrich uranium or allow them to continue to have rights over the Straits of Hormuz. So I think in the end, just from not necessarily from a pure political point of view, which is your question, I think it probably benefits him not to have struck a deal.
Tur continued her fishing expedition turning to Short once again. She had to "yeah, but" it.
TUR: Yeah, but what about the position he's in, he was somebody who said no foreign wars, no forever wars, America First, no draft, even though the White House is now saying they're not going to rule that out.... It seems like Vance is being forced to embrace things that he promised he would not embrace, or that he would push aside in his political career. Does that discomfort at best, hypocrisy at worst? Does that hurt him in the long run?
SHORT: I think it hurts him more if he shows distance with the President.... I think that some of the most successful vice presidents have been the ones that have shared their counsel with the President in private but have been very careful to make sure from a press perspective, that they're lockstep with the President.
That approach wasn't working, so Tur turned her attention to attacking the Vice President for his "entire career as Vice President."
TUR: What is the success that he can point to so far in his career as Vice President? I mean, he's going to Iran so far, nothing. I guess no deal is better than a bad deal, but he went out and campaigned for Viktor Orban. Orban lost in a in a crazy, crazy landslide. I mean he doesn't have a lot to show for his term so far. The biggest thing that I can remember from JD Vance is him sitting in the Oval Office and yelling at Zelensky, you haven't even thanked us once.
McKinnon then dispelled Tur's analysis.
McKINNON: I think over the you know, the course of the this next term, if Vance runs for president, he's going to be judged on the overall success of the administration, not whether or not he, you know, led this particular effort or that particular effort. He's tied to President Trump, forever, for better or for worse.
Strange that Tur would be harshly judging the accomplishments of Vance, who has been in office for 15 months, yet seemed to be all in for an all female ticket of Kamala Harris/ Gretchen Whitmer back in 2024. What exactly were Harris's accomplishments again?
