TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2026
Who is Jeffrey Rosen? Inevitably, the initial segment on The Five began with the Communist / Commies rant.
The Fourth of July had come and gone. Yesterday, Dana Perino started the show by playing the relevant clips from the president's rain-drenched address:
PERINO (7/6/26): Hello, everyone. It's 5 o'clock in New York City and this is The Five.
President Trump, bringing the fight against Communism to America's 250th birthday celebrations...
PRESIDENT TRUMP (videotape): We don't want Communists in our country.
PRESIDENT TRUMP (videotape): Communism is a loser and it always will be. The Communist system is the opposite of the American system and the Communist system has never worked. Our warriors did not fight Communism on battlefields across the world only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America. We're not going to let it happen.
So said the president on July 4, in a rainy-day address. Now, it fell to the stars of The Five to move the agitprop along.
This being a summer holiday week, several of the program's top stars are off in the south of France. For that reason, a slightly second-string lineup was messaging the public this day:
The Five: Monday, July 6, 2026
Kennedy: former MTV VJ
Jessica Tarlov: resident punching bag
Joey Johnny Jones: co-host, The Big Weekend Show
Dana Perino: co-host, The Five
Tom Shillue: comedian
That was yesterday's lineup. After Perino played videotape of the president's statement, something designed to resemble a discussion ensued.
Before long, Perino threw to Shillue. Inevitably, he took the cake:
SHILLUE (7/6/26): If you look at the Trump speech, he uses the "Communism" thing a lot, but he goes on several levels.
So he says, "Oh, the Commies are coming. We beat them. We went to war against the Commies, and we would do it again, but we don't have to."
And then he would say, "Never worked, never will." See, that's the message that young people need to hear...
It's great the way he— You know, when he gives a speech, you can see the speech, and then you see the boldface [points]...then he has his asides. So he said his bit about Communism, then he said, "It never worked, it never will," and then he said, "Communism is for losers, we don't want it."
So it's like working on many different levels.
We don't understand that either. So many different levels!
Let's be fair. As best we can tell, no one but Shilluw stooped to talking about "the Commies" this day. But the messaging continued through the program's first half hour, with The MAGA Four all issuing C-bombs and with Tarlov being interrupted, as is the norm on this show.
This is no country for intelligent discourse! Or at least, that's the impression we may get when we watch this top-rated "cable news" TV program.
The viewership for The Five dwarfs that of corresponding programs on CNN and MS NOW. In our view, this helps explain the salience of Jeffrey Rosen's month-old essay for The Atlantic.
Rosen's essay appears beneath this dual headline. Who the heck is Jeffrey Rosen, and why is he saying these things?
IDEAS
American Democracy Wasn’t Designed for This
Can our 18th-century institutions survive 21st-century technology?
Can our institutions survive? Who the heck is Jeffrey Rosen, and why is he asking a question like that?
For today, we'll limit ourselves to your initial question. The leading authority starts its profile as shown:
Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)
Jeffrey Rosen (born February 13, 1964) is an American legal scholar, journalist, and author.
Rosen is a law professor at The George Washington University, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the author of nine books, including New York Times bestsellers. He served as the President and CEO of the National Constitution Center from 2013 to 2026, where he is now CEO Emeritus. Rosen is a contributing writer for The Atlantic. He was a longtime legal affairs editor of The New Republic and was a staff writer for The New Yorker. He was also a writer for The New York Times Magazine and many other outlets.
[...]
Rosen attended the Dalton School, a private college preparatory school on New York City's Upper East Side, and graduated in 1982 as valedictorian. He then studied English literature and government at Harvard University, graduating in 1986 with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude. He was subsequently a Marshall Scholar at Balliol College, Oxford, in philosophy, politics, and economics, from which he received a second bachelor's degree in 1988. He then attended the Yale Law School, where he served as a senior editor of the Yale Law Journal and graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1991.
He started as one of those "good grades" types, then seemed to mature from there. In our own experience—Attention, C-Span Viewers!—he's presented many worthwhile legal forums during his years at the National Constitution Center.
And now, this month-old essay appears.
As we noted yesterday, President Lincoln wanted to know if a nation like ours could hope to "long endure." In his essay for the Atlantic, Rosen seems to be saying this:
Maybe not!
Also, can our institutions survive? As you can guess from his the Atllantic's dual headline, Rosen seems to say the answer might be no.
Why in the world is he saying such things? And in what way might an agitprop pig-pile like The Five be part of the ongoing story?
We think the gentleman's aim is true. Tomorrow, we'll start to explain.
Tomorrow: Rosen lays out his key points
Somerby is largely unkind to Jessica Tarlov. Today he says this:
ReplyDelete"Jessica Tarlov: resident punching bag "
I asked AI whether Tarlov deserves respect and it said that it depends on your point of view. It divided the critics into one category and the perspectives favorable to Tarlov into another. Those favorable said:
"Many viewers respect her for taking on the challenging role of serving as a consistent liberal/Democratic voice on a predominantly conservative panel.
Supporters often praise her for her articulate nature, quick wit, and commitment to using data and facts to challenge her co-hosts.
She is frequently seen as a model for engaging in civil discourse and bridging the gap between opposing ideological viewpoints.
Those critical were conservatives who disagreed with her political positions and/or were frustrated by her criticism of the right.
What are we to make of Somerby, who is critical but insists he is liberal? There is no category for that found by AI. If Somerby is liberal, why does he constantly demean her, as he does today by calling her a punching bag. When Somerby implies that everyone gets a shot at her, he evokes ugly terms such as town bicycle. It is a slyly nasty designation. Why? I think she does a difficult job with dignity and does a service by exposing right to views that may be unfamiliar to them. It isn't a contest, so there is nothing to win or lose. Why is Somerby so frequently putting her down?
This is yet another reason why I do not believe Somerby's claims that he is liberal and not another Trump excuser and right wing advocate. It is the right that believes humans do not deserve democratic government and need to be told what to do by assholes with nazi tattoos and trenchcoats.
He doesn't demean her. He describes her function in the Fox agitprop ecosphere.
Delete"Supporters often praise her for her articulate nature, quick wit, and commitment to using data and facts to challenge her co-hosts."
DeleteShe's certainly a much better spokesperson for the liberal side than anybody else in the mainstream media.
At least she has the ability to engage in a debate on the merits rather than being dumber than a box of rocks who can only screech "racist" or "fascist" at anyone who disagrees.
"I asked AI whether Tarlov deserves respect"
DeleteWhy? Were you having trouble coming up with your own answer?
What is an articulate nature?
DeleteThere are no spokespeople for the liberal side in the mainstream media.
DeleteLiberals have nothing to say.
DeleteQuaker, I don't watch the Five or anything on Fox. No decent person does.
DeleteAn articulate nature might be someone who is generally articulate across many times and situations, discussing a variety of topics. Isn't that obvious? I wouldn't call it "bred in the bone" as Somerby does such things.
DG, it is absolutely demeaning to call a human being a punching bag. It is worse applied to a woman. Think about how many women die each year due to domestic violence and stranger assault and then think about whether it is in good taste to apply that term under those circumstances, the result of systemic misogyny in our society. Only an asshole like Somerby would find it clever or amusing to call her that, or someone clueless (like yourself, or is this just another knee-jerk defense of our resident asshole?).
Leave the calling of Right-wingers "racists" and fascists" to the weirdos who pay attention to their words and actions.
DeleteThank you for your attention to this matter.
Both those terms have definitions that can be evaluated against the behavior of specific indviduals.
DeleteIsn’t Harold Ford also on The Five? Is he also a punching bag?
DeleteYes.
DeleteHas Somerby ever called him that?
Delete4:19 - I see. Calling someone a "punching bag" is unacceptably demeaning, but calling them "asshole" isn't. Got it.
DeleteHow about "dumb ass"? Is that acceptable?
Other people aren't wrong just because you say something clueless.
DeleteDG, I explained why that term is offensive to women in general, not Tarlov specifically or to men. If that doesn't ring a bell for you, you need some remedial education in why men and women have different experiences in our society and why women are understandably concerned about things like Somerby hinting that women should be hit by men for speaking up about their views, even figuratively.
DeleteNor are you right just because you call me "clueless."
DeleteOne academic study about why women become the victims of domestic violence suggests that some men have poor verbal skills and are not good at expressing themselves using words, so when women are better at arguing than they are, they resort to physical violence to make women shut up and win the argument. This is captured by a bunch of names women get called, from termagant, to nag and scold to the images the right has been using about women being childless barren cat ladies who do nothing but chide men over trivial things. JD Vance uses that one. The verbal advantage women often have over men is portrayed as a legitimate reason for hitting women who won't be quiet, and for telling women to sit down and shut up, when they are making points in a discussion. Many women are sensitive to that.
DeleteIt is no accident that Fox's sole liberal is female and that she gets interrupted and verbally mistreated on the show. It is giving men vicariously the victory they want over women who may be more articulate and better educated than they are. That doesn't mean she is a punching bag, because shouting someone down doesn't constitute a victory but a forfeit for anyone with any intelligence. But calling her a punching bag, as Somerby does, reduces her to the level of being beaten up, no matter what she has said, which is what Fox viewers are seeing with their dislike of verbally adept women.
So, Somerby, with the term punching bag, is representing the conservative viewpoint, not the liberal one, and certainly not what women see when they watch Tarlov.
DG, it may not be your fault that you are an idiot, but it is your fault if you remain undereducated about facts of life. Right wing men complain that women don't want to date them. If they are as ignorant as you, why would anyone want to be with them?
Men can be dangerous, as Platner's behavior demonstrates. Women try to protect themselves by avoiding dangerous men. Tarlov is performing a public service by putting herself in a situation where conservative men will dislike her. I wouldn't do it, but she has more courage than I do.
As a compromise, why don’t we say she’s a speed bag?
DeleteSomerby never suggested that Tarlov or any woman SHOULD be hit, either physically or figuratively. He simply described her function as a liberal who IS punched, figuratively and repeatedly, on the show.
DeleteSomerby keeps repeating that story about Brabender, implying that when people stop arguing they start to hit. Some men may do that, with women too, but it isn't the way discussions should go. Men need to be taught that violence is not justified, especially not on TV shows. But calling Tarlov a punching bag conveys the opposite message. As does Somerby's misuse of that quote, which means something entirely different in context in the book Ball Four. Why does Somerby keep using violent language to talk about discussion? I think he picked it up from right wingers who admire and emulate violence, such as Hegseth, Patel, Trump himself (with his UFC worship), Noem (who shoots puppies), Bongino, and so many others in his administration. The right likes to portray the left as pussies because the left is anti-war, non-violent and defends women and minorities by opposing violence.
DeleteSomerby's affinity for the right's violence leaks through occasionally, even when he is trying to pretend to be left wing. His worship of the Greeks on the beach and their subjugation of women while defeating Troy is just more of this right wing misunderstanding that character makes a man, not hitting.
Since you persist in calling me a clueless idiot, I guess I'm the punching bag.
DeleteNo, you are the person demonstrating ignorance by insisting that punching bag doesn't mean what it means. For example, Jessica Tarlov does not call other people names. Yet she is being called a punching bag by Somerby.
DeleteDG, you are the person who lacks verbal skills and education and thus feels frustrated in arguments with others frequently and thus wants to hit (so you attack other commenters by calling them names). You want others to be the punching bag so that you can hit them without repercussions. If you hit real life people, they hit back or they use their power to stop you from hitting them (whatever that might be). Women have better verbal skills and do better in school, that is one of the ways women defend themselves.
DeleteIf you continue to misunderstand what is being said, I am going to stop discussing things with you. I think you may be dissembling in order to get sympathy, but no one likes you much here already, so that may not be a good tactic.
"I am going to stop discussing things with you."
DeleteGee, I'll miss being called a clueless idiot who lacks verbal skills and education and needs remedial education in gender experiences.
At least no one calls you slabby.
DeleteCause he's flabby.
Delete"[Somerby's] worship of the Greeks . . . and their subjugation of women"
DeleteI think you're seriously misreading Somerby. He does not "worship" the fact that Greeks plundered cities and divvied up the captured women as sexual slaves. And if that's how you read him, I'd suggest you are the one in need of some remedial education.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVitamin B-12 is an essential nutrient.
DeleteSomerby continues to say confusing things. Somerby says:
ReplyDelete"Rosen's essay appears beneath this dual headline. Who the heck is Jeffrey Rosen, and why is he saying these things?"
But Rosen's article in The Atlantic actually appears beneath this dual headline:
"IDEAS
American Democracy Wasn’t Designed for This
Can our 18th-century institutions survive 21st-century technology?"
Somerby is, of course, referring first to his own pseudo-headline (his tease from yesterday), not to any headline that exists anywhere. Only the second quoted sentences are the headline Rosen's article actually bears.
Why is it necessary to confuse his readers like this? Somerby didn't write any headline that refers to Rosen, but he implies he did (by calling his words a headline). Never mind that he doesn't fully answer his own questions either.
He misleadingly leaves out the biographical info that Rosen served as a member of Trump's first administration. That makes him a conservative, no matter what other words are applied to his education and prior employment. No serious constitutional scholar serves Trump. No one serious has anything to do with Trump. Trump has dementia and is a lost soul who is doing perhaps irreparable damage to our nation, and no one apologizing or excusing that deserves to be touted, here or in The Atlantic or anywhere ethical people gather. And Somerby hides that info. While he doesn't hide Rosen's affiliation with FIRE, he also doesn't mention the conservative funding and beneficiaries of FIRE's efforts -- it has defended the rights of right wingers banned on college campuses, under the guise of protecting free speech.
Wikipedia says: "FIRE has received funding from groups which primarily support conservative and libertarian causes, including the Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Charles Koch Institute..." It also says: "According to New York Times journalist Cecilia Capuzzi Simon, "There are other groups that fight for First Amendment rights on campus, but none as vocal—or pushy—as FIRE." The Times also referred to FIRE as a "familiar irritant to college administrators," and said FIRE "bristles at the right-wing tag often applied to them."[20] New York magazine has reported that the label may result from FIRE’s historic defense of conservative and heterodox professors and students on college campuses where progressives dominate..."
While it appears to be representing itself as bipartisan, defending pro-Palestinian free speech, for example, its legacy is conservative, its staffing and its funding is mostly from the right. Not coincidentally, so is Rosen's message in the essay Somerby is touting.
This is how dishonest Somerby is these days. As dishonest as the asshole in the White House, who is too ill to serve another day and yet no one will remove.
Rosen is providing a philosophical scaffold to excuse the removal of freedoms that Rosen pretends to be defending.
The Jeffrey Rosen who worked in the Trump administration was born April 2, 1958. The Jeffrey Rosen whom Bob is discussing was born February 13, 1964.
DeleteSomerby might have saved his readers some effort and confusion by making that distinction himself. The Jeffrey A. Rosen is the one who was the Deputy AG. It is more confusing because they are both lawyers. The other Rosen apparently doesn't have a middle name. That this seems deliberate arises because Somerby keeps asking who Jeffrey Rosen is. Why not just tell us?
DeleteOr you could have done your own research.
DeleteI tried, and got it wrong after a bit of effort. Somerby could have been clearer. The essay in this month's Atlantic is this one:
DeleteThe American Experiment Is Worth Believing In, by David Frum
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/2026/07/david-frum-show-jeffrey-goldberg-america-250/687754/
If we read more than Somerby's favorite viewpoint, we might be able to have a more interesting discussion. A propagandist (like Somerby) presents one view. An intellectual presents multiple viewpoints to compare and contrast.
"Also, can our institutions survive? As you can guess from his the Atllantic's dual headline, Rosen seems to say the answer might be no.
ReplyDeleteWhy in the world is he saying such things? And in what way might an agitprop pig-pile like The Five be part of the ongoing story?
We think the gentleman's aim is true. Tomorrow, we'll start to explain."
Rosen's editor at The Atlantic has attached a scare headline that is intended to motivate people to read the article. Rosen does not seem to be saying yes or no, simply by posing the question. If he has suggested "no survival" in his article, he may also provide a discussion of changes we might make to preserve our institutions. A lot of people have been doing that lately, without saying that everything is going up in flames and our country is shit, as Somerby does with his speculation that Rosen says our nation cannot survive.
Assuming Somerby has read the article already (it is behind a paywall), why would he speculate using a word like "seems" instead of just telling us what Rosen actually said? Because he is dishonest and wants us to believe he and Rosen are on the same page about the viability of democracy. That is dirty pool for Somerby.
I don't want to buy an article in order to fact-check Somerby, but no honest broker writes the way Somerby is doing. That applies to Rosen too, if he is being this evasive in his own article.
I never go behind paywalls.
DeleteSomerby has his own pig-pile going here.
DeleteThis comment section is a pig pile. Oink.
DeleteWho is Jeffrey Rosen? Here is what PBS said about his participation in the DOJ when Trump tried to overthrow the 2020 election:
ReplyDelete"Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen testified June 23 at the fifth public hearing of the Jan. 6 committee about the pressure President Donald Trump put on him and others to overturn the results of the 2020 election, saying he was concerned that Trump's efforts would have put the Justice Department in a position where its actions "were not consistent with the truth."
Rosen was acting attorney general under Trump during the final days of his presidency, replacing Attorney General William Barr when Barr resigned in December 2020.
Rosen has testified in closed-door meetings with the committee and also cooperated with the Senate Judiciary investigation. He testified June 23 with his former deputy, Richard Donoghue, and Steven Engel, a former assistant attorney general.
After Trump lost the election, he pressured Department of Justice officials, including Rosen, to help him overturn the results. That included telling them, "just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen," according to a Senate Judiciary report."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/who-is-jeffrey-rosen-and-why-is-he-testifying-in-the-jan-6-hearings
Rosen also said that he himself did not resign because Trump wanted to appoint a more amenable acting Attorney General who would carry out his wishes.
It is hard to believe that someone placed in Rosen's position would now be saying that we are incapable of defending our institutions. He is the embodiment of someone who drew the line by opposing tyranny when Trump tried to stay in office after losing the 2020 election. Quite a few Republicans did the same, including Mike Pence.
It is problematic that Republicans could display courage in 2020 but cannot do it now, when the violations of law and custom are so much more egregious. I hope Rosen will discuss what happened between then and now to make Republicans so spineless.
Somerby, of course, does not see things that way. He was against impeaching Trump and didn't believe in prosecuting anyone for their crimes after 1/6 failed coup. In a way, his view is self-fulfilling, because how can we defend our institutions if Somerby believes the mechanisms for doing so in court and Congress should not be used.
Why is Somerby completely mum about Rosen's historic participation in the 1/6 debacle, as a defender of the validity of our presidential election?
This also contradicts Somerby’s oft stated assertion that Trump “really believed” he had won the election and thus can’t be called a liar about it.
DeleteThat’s a different Jeffrey Rosen, born in 1958. The Jeffrey Rosen who wrote the Atlantic article was born in 1964.
Delete"Somerby’s oft stated assertion that Trump 'really believed' he had won"
DeleteTo the best of my recollection, Somerby has never said Trump believes that he won. Instead, Somerby has said that it might be possible that Trump is so mentally ill that he might -- might -- actually believe that he had won. I feel certain that you can understand the difference between "might think" and "does think," right?
I’m not a native speaker of English.
Delete“Afterwards we'd listened to Trump for an hour, he had us believing that he really did believe his crazy claims. There's no way to be sure, of course—but that's how it sounded to us.”
DeleteCOMFORT FOOD IS US: What might a pro-Trump juror think...
https://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2023/08/comfort-food-is-us-what-might-pro-trump.html?m=1
You were saying, DG?
Somerby said that we couldn't conclude that Trump is a liar as long as there is the possibility that he really believes his own lies. We in comments pointed out that Trump had been repeatedly told the truth, yet he kept repeating the lies, and that Trump had also made several statements to others indicating that he knew the truth but was lying anyway. Trump has acknowledged that he lost 2020, for example.
DeleteSo, yes, there is a way to be sure about whether Trump is lying or not. Just compare what he has said at different times and places. For example read Jeffrey A. Rosen's testimony about it.
Thaht's exactly what I was saying. You can read, right? Somerby says he doesn't know, one way or the other, but he thinks Trump might be so delusional that he believes his crazy claim.
DeleteI was replying to 5:19, and let me say that I sincerely appreciate that you provided a quote and cite.
DeleteSomerby doesn't want to know. It doesn't fit his theory that Trump is mentally ill, not crazy like a fox.
DeleteI supported Graham Platner because of his Nazi tattoo and his statement that he would forcefully sodomize a home intruder, but not in a gay way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the latest allegations against Platner are troubling and deeply serious
I am rescinding my endorsement.
The death’s head also suggests piracy or toxicity.
DeletePlatner himself said it is a Nazi symbol and that he knew that. He had it removed.
DeleteBut he said he didn’t think so when he got it
DeleteSomerby says:
ReplyDelete"As we noted yesterday, President Lincoln wanted to know if a nation like ours could hope to "long endure."
As I noted yesterday, Lincoln was talking about the civil war, not the kinds of things Rosen may discuss (if we ever get to hear when he said). We are not having a civil war, or anything like it. We have an incompetent president and that is not the situation Lincoln encountered, being an excellent president himself, neither evil nor demented.
I do not understand why Somerby persists in grabbing such remarks out of context and misapplying them to situations that bear no resemblance to Lincoln's challenges.
Somerby is being lazy and evoking Lincoln's name solely to give himself some pseudo-plausibility, when he is just saying he agrees with a guy who works at a semi-conservative organization (funded by the Kochs) and may be expressing right wing views.
For some reason, Somerby doesn't want to tell us what Rosen wrote. He just wants us to know if was spiffy, before he will trust us with even a single quote from the piece. That is a ridiculous way to start a discussion, but the way a propagandist would do things. Just tell people what you want them to think.
Sometimes other people's opinions and the way they present them can be frustrating.
Delete