National Review Online columnist Peter Brimer was an early backer of Donald Trump and has a good track record of criticizing the president.
But as his brand has deteriorated, his relationship with his readers has deteriorated as well.
He published an article in January that called the president’s attacks on media “the most offensive thing I’ve ever heard him say in my life.”
He continued: “He has made a mockery of the rule of law.
He has demonstrated a contempt for the rule-of-law.
And the only way he can keep his job is by being a pariah to the American people.”
He concluded by calling the president a “moron.”
In a tweet he wrote in April, he wrote: “If Trump doesn’t care about the American public, he should stop lying to the public.
And if he doesn’t like it, he shouldn’t be president.”
He wrote on May 8 that he was “stunned and horrified” by the attack on the press, and on May 10 wrote: I’ve had enough.
The president’s attack on his own journalists has become so vicious that I’m afraid that, as soon as he gets a little better, he’ll start to pull the same stunts as when he was a kid.
The latest: I’m stunned and horrified by the attacks on the media.
It’s the most offensive and outrageous thing I have ever heard from a president, and it’s not going to go away.
Brimer’s critics aren’t convinced that he’s doing anything wrong.
They believe that his criticism of the president has made him a target of bullying, and that he has had a hard time in the past with editors, many of whom have distanced themselves from him.
“It’s a little bit weird that Peter Brimbels attacks people he knows,” said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer.
“I’m sure he’s not a perfect person, but I think he has done his homework and is a professional.”
Painter said he thinks Brimer is a “great journalist,” and that his criticisms of Trump are justified.
Painter added that Brimer has a “strong moral compass” and that it’s unfortunate that he doesn the president because of what he wrote.
But Brimer said that he understands the criticisms that have been leveled at him.
He wrote: It was always my job to get the facts right, to look at the data and make my case in a balanced way.
I’m proud of the work that I’ve done and I’ll continue to do that.
But I also recognize that the tone of the commentary has been a little too harsh, and some of it is unfair.
Brimetelow’s critics, who include National Review publisher Michael Goldfarb, say that Brimerman’s criticism of Trump has been too harsh.
In a statement published in the National Review, GoldfarB wrote that he “can’t imagine any other profession of higher quality or integrity more critical of the Trump administration’s policies, than journalism.”
He added that his colleague, who wrote the article, “has no choice but to respond in the way he does.”
Brimelinow’s detractors say that he should take a more constructive approach to the situation and that their criticism is just that: criticisms.
“He’s been critical of everything the Trump regime has done, from the Iran deal to the border wall to Trump’s firing of James Comey,” Painter said.
“And it’s his job to respond to that criticism and to keep the public informed.”
Painter agreed that there was a “tough road ahead” for Brimer.
But he said that the article was a reminder of what the president was doing to his own media, and he would not begrudge someone who took that road.
“There’s no way to get a sense of how far we’ve come and how far Trump is going to get from what he’s been doing,” Painter added.