The commentary in the wake of the State of the Union and Robert Hur testimony has been disappointing. So disappointing, in fact, that I’ve wondered if moving forward I should focus more on linking to straight news articles. But the truth is, we need analysis. No article anyone has time for can provide all the relevant information required. We need experts who can break that information down to shine a light on the core facts, and we need commentators who can give those facts context. 

Unfortunately, our most prominent commentators are too interested in providing context for their emotions. Foremost among those emotions — the ironclad conviction, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they are never wrong. “I told you Joe Biden would demolish his naysayers at State of the Union.” (His performance was mixed to fine.) “Like I keep saying, Trump’s classified documents case is the same as Biden’s.” (They’re different.) I don’t know how much these commentators actually believe what they’re saying, but I do know they’re doing themselves and their viewers a disservice saying it. By abandoning factual context for emotions, they’re giving the other side the excuse it’s looking for to dismiss them.

Today’s columnist returns factual context to the center of our discussion. His piece was written before Hur’s testimony and while that might seem an odd choice, it only highlights how right the author’s recommendations were. The hearings actually bolstered the author’s credibility. How many other pundits can say that? Not many.