If you tuned in to last night’s vice-presidential debate hoping for a thrilling showdown of barbs between JD Vance and Tim Walz, you were in for a letdown. Rather unexpectedly, it was a cordial debate about Trump and Kamala. Vance pointed to Kamala as being responsible for all of the ills of society and Walz did his best to rehash every anti-Trump talking point in the book.
I didn’t watch the spectacle live because I had more exciting things to do (doesn’t everybody?!) Instead, I listened to it on my iPhone around 3 am when I couldn’t sleep. That way, I was able to really “listen” without all of the visual spoilers in the background (frowns, laughter, note taking, etc.) If you want to watch a video of the debate on CSPAN, it’s here [1].
It was a Trump vs. Kamala debate, not Vance vs. Walz.
Vance and Walz kept things surprisingly civil, avoiding personal jabs throughout their exchange. They even acknowledged agreeing on several issues – though their ideas on how to reach those goals differ greatly. During their allotted 90-minutes, Vance mostly talked about “Kamala” and Walz mostly talked about “Trump.”
While on the CBS stage, Vance managed to come across as likable, far from the wild and crazy caricature that Democrats often paint him to be. His effort to appear “normal” seemed to work, as CNN wasn’t at all pleased with the outcome. Post-debate, they claimed Vance had two personalities, with contributor Van Jones accusing him [2] of trying to “sane-wash the crazy.”
Van Jones also said something very interesting about going to the same school as Vance and what they are taught there. He said, “I think what you saw tonight was the kitchen table vs. the Ivy League. I went to the same law school as JD Vance and that’s how they teach us to do it. Slick, slick, slick…”
Other media outlets like the Guardian [3] said that Walz was “underwhelming” and that Vance was able to “nimbly reset his public image” and was “slick as a CEO’s lawyer, emitting almost snake-oil salesman energy.”
The Guardian’s Ben Davis said that “Vance made extremist Trumpism sound moderate and reasonable.”
The Democrats’ attempt to paint Vance as “crazy” has been revealed for what it is: lies and gaslighting, just like the rest of their antics. After Vance’s strong performance in the debate, the Left predictably downplayed the impact, with most of them parroting the line that it was “90 minutes that won’t move the needle.” CNN even chimed in, calling it “unlikely to change the trajectory of the presidential race.” Or so they hope.
Dems live in an alternate reality.
For the past 3-1/2 years under the Biden-Harris administration, Americans have faced global instability (from the Middle East to China, Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond), rising crime, an illegal immigration surge fueling a fentanyl crisis, crippling inflation, censorship, and relentless legal attacks on Trump and other Republicans. But if you ask Walz, Kamala, and the Democrats, none of it’s their fault. In fact, they often act like it’s not even happening at all.
Instead, Walz, in a stunning display of spin, touted Kamala’s record of inaction and incompetence as a selling point for her promotion to president. This from a man who’s repeatedly lied about his own past – whether it’s exaggerating his service record or claiming to have been in China during the Tiananmen Square massacre. At least the biased moderators called him out [4] on that one, even though it was just a convenient lead-in to grill Vance about his past criticisms of Trump.
3-on-1 debate again.
The moderators silenced Vance’s mic just as he was exposing how Democrats, under Kamala Harris, have been secretly flying illegal aliens into the country. But that was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to the election interference of the two pro-Kamala chicks who were “moderating” (fact-checking) the debate.
Nearly every question – except for the one calling out Walz’s false claim about being in Tiananmen Square during the massacre – was designed to paint Trump in a negative light. Whether it was about climate change, January 6th, or abortion, the questioning quickly turned into a 3-on-1 ambush just like the Trump-Kamala debate, the kind of game the left-leaning media loves to play.
Many important issues ignored by the Kamala-lovin’ moderators.
The moderators brushed past several current events and key issues that Americans actually care about, such as the flooding in the South (which they twisted into a climate change question), the ongoing port strike, and Ukraine. As for the Iran/Israel/Gaza conflict, it barely got a mention, other than a question right at the beginning of the debate about whether they’d support a pre-emptive strike by Israel against Iran.
Neither candidate handled that question well. Vance awkwardly started by introducing himself, since they weren’t allowed opening statements, and Walz claimed it “all started” on October 7th – ignoring centuries of history – and then he launched into an anti-Trump tirade.
Final takeaway.
In the end, this so-called debate was less about Vance vs. Walz and more about reinforcing the already deeply entrenched Kamala and Trump narratives on both sides. Vance came out looking more polished than the media would like to admit, while Walz stumbled through his lines like a guy who forgot to read the debate prep notes.