By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Jimmy Kimmel’s return to late-night television after a brief suspension, Vice President J.D. Vance criticized the monologue for failing to apologize to Charlie Kirk’s family for Kimmel’s previous comments. Kimmel’s initial remarks, which linked the murder of Kirk to the “MAGA gang,” drew significant backlash and led to the show’s temporary removal from the air. While Kimmel addressed the controversy on his return, emphasizing his intent was not to make light of the murder or blame any specific group, Vance and Nexstar Media Group, a parent company, have continued to evaluate the situation. Despite Kimmel’s expressions of understanding for those upset and his admiration for Kirk’s widow’s forgiveness, Nexstar continues to preempt the show on its ABC-affiliated local stations.
Read the original article here
JD Vance reacts to Kimmel’s returning monologue: ‘He didn’t actually say sorry’ captures a central point of contention and launches a cascade of critiques. The initial response frames this as a demand that Kimmel should apologize to Vance, which the article quickly and emphatically dismisses. The underlying sentiment expressed is one of defiance, suggesting Kimmel owes no apology and highlighting what is perceived as Vance’s own moral grandstanding. The implication is that Vance, in attempting to police Kimmel’s words, is engaging in performative outrage.
The comments then pivot, calling out Vance’s own actions. They accuse him of spreading disinformation and taking part in the kind of behavior he is now criticizing. This is contrasted with Kimmel, who, according to the comments, did nothing wrong and therefore has nothing to apologize for. The narrative further establishes that Vance, by not saying “thank you”, or any equivalent, is exhibiting a lack of gratitude. The comments then go on to state that Vance’s actions feel familiar to dealing with narcissists.
The focus sharpens, challenging Vance’s right to demand apologies when he is perceived to have done nothing to deserve any. A deeper dive into Vance’s motivations emerges, highlighting his pattern of refusing to apologize for statements that have caused real harm. A specific example is provided, referring to Vance’s lack of apology in many other instances. The contrast is sharpest with his apology to Trump, described as a politically motivated move rather than a genuine expression of remorse.
Continuing, the article makes it clear that the commenters believe that the administration Vance is a part of are the main source of disinformation. Furthermore, they suggest that Kimmel did nothing wrong in the first place. The critiques underscore a feeling that Vance is not only wrong, but also hypocritical in his demand for an apology. The comments show that they are very frustrated with the entire scenario.
A recurring theme emerges: Vance’s lack of contrition is a core issue. The comments repeatedly ask why Kimmel should apologize and emphasizes the perceived absurdity of Vance’s demands. The comments echo a sense of disgust and anger towards Vance’s actions.
Finally, the comments seem to be almost begging Vance to show contrition and to say, “sorry.” The response to the situation is one of scorn towards Vance, his actions, and the general situation that has transpired. The comments view this entire situation as a manifestation of the right’s supposed hypersensitivity, mocking their outrage and dismissing the need for Kimmel to apologize. The comments state that it is JD Vance who owes an apology.