The vice presidential debate rarely makes a dent in the election outcome, but the Walz-Vance contest did provide Americans a refreshingly civil contrast in the candidates’ stances on the economy, immigration, abortion, and more.
No one was expecting fireworks or fisticuffs in the VP debate pitting Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and GOP Ohio Sen. JD Vance.
However, the contest was refreshingly civil and reminiscent of the sober-minded, fact-based debates we used to take for granted before the age of Trump. Ideas were exchanged, points were made, and not one outlandish, racist conspiracy theory was proffered as fact.
Walz more than held his own against Vance, relying on his “Dad Energy” and a surprisingly strong series of prepared statements and retorts on topics from the border, energy production, abortion, and more.
The Minnesota Democrat started off a little shaky while answering the opening question about the violence in the Middle East and Iran’s role in state-sponsored terrorism but then pivoted to take Trump to task for tanking the Iran Nuclear Deal during his presidency and his overall lack of seriousness.
“A nearly 80-year-old Donald Trump talking about crowd sizes” is not helpful,” said Walz.
JD Vance sidestepped the question at first to introduce himself to the American people, emphasizing his Appalachian upbringing and military service before circling back to the question and giving his boss a much-demanded shoutout in the first few minutes.
“If we get Donald Trump back in the White House, the American Dream will be attainable again,” Vance asserted.
When asked about the threat climate change posed following the devastation wrought by Helene, Vance tried skirting the issue, thought would later have to answer for Trump’s “climate hoax” remarks.
Walz was caught with his pants down when asked to explain how he once claimed to have witnessed the Tiananmen Square protests during a 1989 visit to China, which was not true, though Walz was in the country at the time.
“Sometimes I’m just a knucklehead,” said Walz, adding that he misspoke at the time.
Vance, too, was painted into an uncomfortable corner when asked to answer for his “cat-eating” remarks demonizing Haitians in Springfield, Ohio.
On healthcare, Walz took Trump and Vance to task for Trump’s assertion that he has a “concept” for replacing the Affordable Care Act “with something better,” a promise the former president made for years without ever offering an alternative to the ACA that tens of millions of Americans currently use.
When it comes to the border, Walz pointed out Trump’s tanking of the conservative border bill spearheaded by an Oklahoma Republican senator and ready for Biden’s signature “because it gives him a campaign issue.”
As for abortion, Vance was forced to answer for his previously professed support for a national abortion ban, which he sought to deny, while Walz stuck by his pro-choice “mind your own business” stance that’s proven popular with most voters.
The only time the debate became remotely contentious was when the candidates were asked about Jan. 6 and Trump's continuing election denialism. Vance and Walz sparred briefly over Trump’s remarks and the dangers they pose, but really nary a spark flew.
Bottom Line: Will the VP debate change any minds heading into the Nov. 5 election? I doubt it. But the fact that there was a civilized exchange of ideas in front of a national audience over important issues affecting us all is somewhat encouraging.
