J.D. Vance Won the Debate
Trump's running mate exceeds expectations, surprising most of us.
I thought I knew who J.D. Vance was and how he would do in the vice presidential debate on October 1. I predicted Walz would prevail. Oops!
Earlier this morning, I admitted my mistake in an editorial on my Medium page, Dean’s List.
Here is that editorial:
J.D. Vance Won the Debate
Who expected Vance to be civil and disciplined?
Yesterday, I wrote an editorial titled, “Can Walz Tackle J.D. Vance in the VP Debate?” I got my answer last night — no.
The Tim Walz I expected to show up last night, an unflappable, smiling, approachable leader, was nowhere to be found. I don’t recall seeing a smile last night. Instead, I saw a nervous, hesitant man reluctant to challenge Vance, even on the easiest issues.
I would say that Walz fumbled. But a better summary may be that the Vance that showed up was not the one we saw awkwardly attempt conversation at a donut shop. Nor did the reckless, arrogant, snug right-winger Vance show up.
Instead, we got a disciplined, remarkably articulate Vance. The Ohio Senator left the cat ladies home and never mentioned pet eating. He was civil. At the end of the debate, he introduced his wife to the Walzs. Wow. I didn’t see that happening.
Vance did not “win” the debate alone. CBS moderator Margaret Brennan confronted Walz with the governor’s claim that he was at the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Walz appeared surprised by the question. He should have admitted the misstatement. Instead, he blew smoke, reviewing his life story. Walz looked panicked because he was.
In my embarrassing editorial of yesterday, I offered advice to Governor Walz. Let’s take a look at it:
I said, “Walz needs to reiterate those characteristics and present himself as an experienced executive who can be more than “the spare” to President Harris.” He failed miserably. He looked and sounded like an amateur who would not be helpful in the White House Situation Room.
I wrote, “Walz also needs to make Trump’s characterization of him as a “communist” sound ridiculous.” Vance never called him, or Harris, “a communist.” Vance did not allow Walz to address Trump’s insults because he never repeated them.
I boldly predicted that “Mr. Vance will likely borrow pages from Trump’s playbook during the debate. We will hear about “migrant crime” and the “13,000 convicted murderers” that Walz’s running mate ushered into America.” Vance stowed the inflammatory rhetoric, much to Walz’s detriment.
I also wrote, “Walz’s mission includes speaking calmly about the Harris agenda, especially her proposal to expand housing opportunities, protect women’s reproductive rights, and support Ukraine.” Walz came through on this one, especially on reproductive rights, but never raised Ukraine. On most of Harris’ agenda, Walz sounded imprecise. He tried to sound civil, but few viewers unfamiliar with Harris’ proposals learned much.
Earlier today, I wrote that Vance won the debate in my weekly Spy editorial. Here is why Vance won:
He was disciplined and seemed sane, a welcome contrast to Trump.
Vance aggressively avoided the difficult questions. Walz did best on reproductive rights and the issues associated with the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Vance’s worst moment of the debate was his inability to admit that Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance seemed remarkably also disingenuously claimed that Trump supported the peaceful transfer of power by leaving the White House voluntarily on January 20, 2021. (When Vance said that, I laughed).
It is risky to predict the outcome of political debates. I took that risk yesterday — and lost.
The civility of his performance did not change my view of J.D. Vance as a dangerous, slick demagogue. Vance is still the man who condemned “miserable cat ladies” and alerted us to the dietary habits of Haitians living in Springfield, Ohio.
We have not seen the last of the reckless, super-slick J.D. Vance, the same guy who once called Trump “America’s Hitler.” He will be back this week, as will his running mate, the ex-president whose mental decline is accelerating.
And why didn’t the moderators ask questions about a 78-year-old indicted criminal running for president?
© 2024 John Dean, all rights reserved.