In a lively exchange on CNN Wednesday night, Republican strategist Scott Jennings found himself in the hot seat after attempting to criticize the Democratic National Convention’s messaging. Jennings, reacting to a wave of enthusiasm over Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s closing speech, argued that the Democrats were relying on vague concepts like “joy” rather than offering concrete policies.
But his critique was quickly dismantled by CNN host Anderson Cooper, who didn’t hold back in pointing out the irony of Jennings’ argument. The discussion kicked off when Van Jones, a former aide to Barack Obama and fellow CNN panelist, expressed his excitement over Walz’s speech as he accepted the vice presidential nomination. Jones was clearly moved by the positive energy and hopeful tone of the evening, but Jennings wasn’t buying it.
“Nobody said anything, nobody tonight said a damn thing,” Jennings declared, his frustration evident. As a seasoned GOP strategist, Jennings argued that the Democrats were asking voters to make decisions based on feelings rather than solid policy proposals. “They want you to vote on the ticket based on no concrete idea of what they would do once they got into office. … Tonight you heard people say, we may not agree with him on everything, but it will be joyful.”
Jennings continued, “I think the idea that you can run an entire presidential campaign based on the idea of ‘vote for me to find out what is in it’…” That’s when Anderson Cooper, who had been listening with a smirk, couldn’t hold back any longer. Cutting in with a laugh, Cooper challenged Jennings head-on. “Wait a minute!” Cooper interjected. “Your candidate has done that his entire political career. He doesn’t talk about any policy issue.
He will lower inflation on day one and he will take away Obamacare on day one, and he will be tougher on immigration.” Cooper’s rebuttal highlighted the contradiction in Jennings’ argument, pointing out that the very candidate Jennings supports—Donald Trump—has often relied on broad promises without detailed plans to back them up.
“I do understand your argument,” Cooper acknowledged, “but given the candidate that you are backing, it rings a little hollow because there isn’t any flesh on the bone.” The exchange was a stark reminder of the ongoing battle over messaging in American politics, where both parties often accuse the other of lacking substance.
But in this instance, Jennings’ critique of the Democrats’ messaging seemed to backfire, as Cooper deftly turned the tables, leaving the audience to consider whether the criticism truly held weight. The moment captured the tension and theatrics of an election season where words and perceptions are as powerful as policies themselves.