The tenor and cordiality demonstrated during the Vice Presidential debate last night were exactly what Americans are entitled to and seriously need. It was good for America and a shining example of civil discourse on the multitude of implacable issues confronting our country.
Though Vice Presidential debates historically have not and do not change the outcome of a presidential election, this debate did not alter that truism.
The primary reason to watch a Vice Presidential debate is to learn more about the character and personality of the running mate selected by the presidential candidate. It also tells us something about the presidential candidate because it is their first major test: Did they select someone who can step in on a moment’s notice and serve as president if needed?
In that regard, Americans who watched were able to see for themselves the character and presidential timber of both men. Their cordiality towards each other was evident from the very beginning and that was certainly refreshing, especially in these tense and divisive times, and the two previous presidential debates.
Walz, I read somewhere recently, was coined as a “Newsome in a flannel shirt,” and he came across as a likable liberal, a nice uncle who has been around for a while. Vance, on the other hand, came across exactly the opposite of what I expected – the attack dog that all vice presidential candidates are supposed to be and the profile that the MSM had tried to cultivate about him. Instead, he was nice, pleasant, and professional, and his occasional “cut-away eye look” at the camera when Walz spoke was unexpected, different, and effective.
The fact that sometimes both candidates agreed with the other candidate on a given issue at the thirty-thousand-foot level held promise that these two men could indeed work together to resolve issues. I was encouraged to watch this debate and wish that more political debates in the future would be this collegial.
Importantly, though they were each critical of comments made by the other candidate and their presidential running mates, they demonstrated respect for each other, and that is what all of us want in our political leaders and how our elected leaders behaved in the not-too-distant past.
For a moment last night, I felt like if these two candidates were actually at the top of the ticket instead of playing second fiddle, that both could sit down and, over time and a lot of discussion, resolve our challenges.
Americans intuitively know that there is a great divide on just about every issue, but we have always expected our elected leaders, especially when we send them to Washington, DC, to do the business of running our country—simply put, to make something happen.
Quit posturing for the cameras, quit refusing to consider the other side’s concerns, and get our country going in the right direction. Though compromise has unfortunately become a dirty word for both political parties, our forefathers purposely and carefully fashioned our country to force compromise because of the checks and balances laid out in our governing documents.
Once the debate began, CBS, a pillar of the Main Stream Media, did exactly what they said they would not do, which was to check the candidates, and of course, they only did that repeatedly to Sen. J. D. Vance, not to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. To Sen. Vance’s credit, when it happened the first time, he called them out on it, and when the two haughty moderators tried to shut Vance down, he refused to relent, and he continued to make his point. Unfortunately, it did not stop the pair of moderators from continuing their poor professional behavior.
This immediately showed me that Vance was a solid choice by Trump, not my first or second choice, but a selection that indicated that Vance could think on his feet in real time and that he had the guts to call the moderators out for their misbehavior.
It is disappointing that the MSM believes that the rules that they established and even specifically reviewed at the top of the debate were there to be broken at their behest. This simply compounds America’s increasing mistrust of a conniving, slanted, dishonest, and complicit media that no longer is content to just report the news objectively but works to ensure that their subjective perspective always prevails.
Gov. Walz started nervously and appeared taken by the national platform and exposure, but over the course of the debate, he calmed down and seemed to get in a groove.
Both got caught on an issue. For Vance, it was whether he thought the election was stolen in 2020, as consistently articulated by former President Donald Trump. Vance’s non-answer was, “Let us not talk about the past; let us talk about the future.” Then, with the mic open, Walz challenged him mid-sentence. Score one for Walz.
Walz got caught about his contention that he was in China during the Tiananmen Square demonstration. The telltale indicator of a liar is that the more they have to explain an answer, the more it appears to others that you are being evasive and contrived. Walz began answering the straightforward question of were you in China during the demonstration, and he responded by stating that he was from a small town in Nebraska, and all of a sudden, I thought, “Oh, boy.” Here we go with Kamala’s word-salad answers. Pressed again by the moderator, he alluded to the fact that he is sometimes confused and makes mistakes, and eventually, he stated that “I misspoke.” So much for honesty. Score one for the moderators.
At the very beginning, the moderators mentioned three specific issues that would be discussed: The pre-emptive strike by Israel, Hurricane Helene, and the Port Strike. But their subsequent questioning on these issues about Israel was only one question with no follow-up, and Helene was turned into the Democratic mantra that science proves that hurricanes are getting worse because of Climate Change, and they never queried about the Port Strike. So much for telling us what the debate will be about!
Fourteen issues were asked in order about Israel, climate change, Immigration/Splitting Families, Immigrant Deportation, How to pay for new Economic Policies, Americans trust Trump on the economy, Personal Qualifications for the vice presidency, Reproduction Rights, Parents being charged for gun crimes their child commits, Housing shortage, Healthcare costs, National Pay Leave Policy, Child Care costs, and Threats to Democracy through election denial.
Not a single question was asked about the growing threat from Putin, China, North Korea, or Ukraine, all pressing foreign policy crises that a vice president may need to address in consultation with their president; and energy was never addressed, a key domestic issue that has a broad impact on the cost of living for all of us.
Regarding their closing statements, by a previous flip of the coin, Vance got to go last.
Walz stuck to the Harris theme of building a “coalition” (of what?), “optimism,” he actually used the word “Joy,” and that the Harris administration represents a “new way forward.” These general platitudes sound great and they certainly invoke kumbaya feelings, and he said that that he and Harris want everyone to thrive. This empathy is nice, but it does not educate or inform Americans about what specifically Harris-Walz is going to do to help them thrive. And the more crucial point, that the reason Harris-Walz keep talking about a better future is because an overwhelming majority of Americans for over a year have not thrived and the economy has sucked for them.
Vance, having the last word, doubled down to share that as he has traveled around the country, he has been taken by the warmth of Americans, and he spoke about America being the greatest country with incredible people. He recounted that Americans have been challenged with affording groceries, gas, a home, choosing between heat and other expenses, and he sealed the debate by pressing again that Harris on Day 1 should have been working on all of our problems but 1,400 days later nothing has improved.
Polling over the next few days will tell us who won the debate, but it was crystal clear that Vance prosecuted his case against the Harris-Biden administration effectively and repeatedly, while defending Trump when needed.
Democrats will feel that Walz did a respectable job, and they will dismiss the consequence of a vice presidential debate in the whole scheme of things. They will continue to promote joy, happiness, and the promise of a bright future, but I believe that Americans will see through this thin façade because they do not really know whether they can trust Harris to do what she has promised versus what she has always believed in.
Author
