I read it a while back - first half or so was pretty good as a story, but then he got preachy and his facts didn't line up. Also worships the corps a little to much for my taste.

As a retired jarhead, this just makes me want to read it more, to reinforce my already over inflated opinion of myself...

What do we call a man who turns on everything he once claimed to believe? For a practitioner of petty and self-serving duplicity, we use “sellout” or “backstabber.” (Sometimes we impugn the animal kingdom and call him a rat, a skunk, or a weasel.) For grand betrayals of weightier loyalties—country and faith—we invoke the more solemn terms of “traitor” or “apostate.”

But what should we call J. D. Vance, the self-described hillbilly turned Marine turned Ivy League law-school graduate turned venture capitalist turned Senate candidate? Words fail. His perfidy to his own people in Ohio is too big to allow him to escape with the label of “opportunist,” and yet the shabbiness and absurdity of his Senate campaign is too small to brand him a defector or a heretic.
...
Instead of a truth-teller in his own community, Vance as a candidate has become a contemptible and cringe-inducing clown. His attempts at authenticity are so grating because they are so blatantly artificial. His recent tweets, for example, attempting to ingratiate himself with rural Ohioans by slagging New York City were embarrassingly amateurish;
...
Instead of a candidate who’s willing to speak hard truths to his people, Ohioans now have a native son who has returned to weaponize their resentment and cultural dysfunctions. His ambition is fueled by the money of others who would never deign to live in the Midwest. And like other populist charlatans, he has convinced himself that he should be anointed to lead the rubes out of their misery.
Vance would no doubt welcome terms such as populist, savior, native son. But when thinking of a plastic fraud trying to harvest their votes, poor and working-class voters might come up with a different word.

I've not seen much content from Vance the candidate, but I have seen quite a bit of criticism from the twitterverse and media. What is he doing or saying that's getting people riled up, what is it you disagree with him on?

jmh wrote:

Brownie28 wrote:

I've not seen much content from Vance the candidate, but I have seen quite a bit of criticism from the twitterverse and media. What is he doing or saying that's getting people riled up, what is it you disagree with him on?

He has adopted the elections strategy of no platform and no policy agenda, just sow hate and division to get elected.
He thinks being an "asshole" is his brand. (Nichols tries not to call him that in the article, and fails.)

I'm pretty tired of all of that.

I've not seen much content from Vance the candidate, but I have seen quite a bit of criticism from the twitterverse and media. What is he doing or saying that's getting people riled up, what is it you disagree with him on?

I read the book back when I had zero contempt for the guy personally and like a lot of guilty liberals was trying to figure out WTF was going on. I was open to it being a profound and important read. I was disappointed. I didn't find it particularly insightful or even well written.