The Morning After Hangover

Hey, did you know that “JD Vance” was raised by his grandmother?  Yes, it’s true!  That’s what he told us – over and over and over and over and over.

I don’t have a lot to say in specifics about the vice-presidential debate, because honestly I found it so annoying, for several reasons, that I don't even have it in me to proofread this.  (So, good luck to us all!)  In fact, for the last 20 minutes I mooted “JD Vance” because I just couldn’t take him anymore.  Not that he was worse than Trump at his debate – he wasn’t, Trump was overwhelmingly worse, but so obviously worse that you couldn’t miss it with klieg lights shining.  And you knew there was a career prosecutor waiting anxiously to respond.  And so, “Vance” spent the evening speaking smoothly, but generally ignoring most questions and deflecting reality into an alternate universe where wall-to-wall lies, revisionist history, and a pseudo-caring "JD Vance" exist.

And Tim Walz is a former schoolteacher and high school football coach, not a career prosecutor.  He was also right in saying beforehand he was not a good debater.  I also think he was nervous (which he said he would be), mostly in the first half) and didn’t let his charm come through nearly as much as ideal.  This isn’t to say he did poorly – he didn’t, he had his facts down.  Nor to say he lost – he didn’t, though didn’t necessarily win.  He did a solid job, supported his running mate well, criticized their top opponent well, and if  you cared about facts, did come out ahead.  If you cared about style, didn’t know much going in, and weren’t listening closely, “JD Vance” probably did better.  That’s a pretty low standard, though.

Mainly, I started muting “Vance” because I’d figured out at that point that the debate, not surprisingly, was not going to affect the race much, if at all.  In fact, a snap CBS poll showed that 42% of those questioned said “JD Vance” won the debate, and 41% said Tim Walz won, with 17% saying it was a tie.

A couple things stood out as bugging me.  And both are related to Tim Walz being “Minnesota nice.”  So, at a couple points, he talked about how cordial the debate was and that he and “JD Vance” were in agreement on many things.  Yeah, maybe, but they really weren’t in agreement on almost everything.  And the other was when he noted that he and “Vance” likely agreed on how they could misspeak – which “Vance,” of course agreed to with a smile.  Well..sure, he smiled.  Because they both did not misspeak.  Tim Walz has misspoken a few times during the campaign.  “JD Vance” has not – he did not “misspeak” about his criticism of Trump and calling him “America’s Hitler” and that he was a “Never Trumper,” didn’t like Trump, and that his administration was a failure – repeatedly.  That was not misspeaking, that was what he believed and said specifically and at length for years.  Same thing about his relentlessly-expressed views on abortion and women.

On the other hand, Tim Walz being “Minnesota Nice” is one of his strengths.  So, if someone is going to do their worst at being too nice, that’s probably the best thing to do your worst on when trying to convince people to vote for you.

Still, I was sorry that “JD Vance” was able to get away with too many things that were galling.

When he said, “I’ve been in politics long enough to…” at which point he criticized Kamala Harris.  My immediate reaction was, “Long enough??  You’ve been in politics for two years!  Not just in the Senate for two years, that’s the entirety of his political career.”

When “Vance” referred to Kamala Harris as ‘the Border Czar’ – she wasn’t.  And I’d love to have heard that refuted.  Not just because it’s a lie, though, but because what her actual job was – coordinating efforts to improve conditions in specific countries so there would be less emigration to the U.S. – was actually very effective.  And showed how strongly she was working on the border and immigration issues.

I thought “Vance” got away with much too much on abortion.  To be clear, Tim Walz did a good job in responding, explaining the terrible problems of Trump’s responsibility for ending Roe v. Wade and sending the issue to the states, where a woman’s health care depends on where you live.  And the health risks to women, including those who’ve lost their lives and almost did.  But this is such a hugely-losing issue for the Trump campaign, that the best response wasn’t just stating the problems of ending Roe, it was also explaining “Vance’s” on-the-record position which he got away lying about -- saying he never supported a national ban, which there’s a recording of him saying exactly that.  And “Vance” got away without mention of his on-the-record outrageously horrific comments on single cat-ladies and post-menopausal women for how such views impact how the Trump-“Vance” ticket deal with women.

Gov. Walz also did a respectable job on the Affordable Care Act, including noting that Trump came into office saying specifically he wanted to kill it.  And explaining why Trump’s “concepts” on health care are unworkable, especially going into impactful detail on Trump wanting to end pre-existing conditions.  But because “Vance” nonetheless said and even repeated the ludicrous point that Trump supposedly saved the ACA, it required a pointed, blunt, shut-down, along the lines of “Please don’t try to gaslight the American public.  They know Trump hated the ACA and kept trying to end it.”  But that’s not “Minnesota Nice.”  But still, a missed opportunity.

I thought it was good that Tim Walz brought up Springfield, Ohio, and the threats of violence that now exist because of the lie “Vance” and Trump knowingly made.  What was less good is that he let “Vance” get away what the insane lie actually was – that immigrants were supposedly stealing pet dogs and cats and eating them!  How do you leave that out?  I suspect that was strategy, because it’s too noteworthy to leave out.  What I don’t know why that was the strategy.

Tim Walz also had a very good comment about Trump ending our involvement in the defense coalition against Iran, as well as ending our diplomatic deal with Iran, which gave Iran greater access to nukes.  What I was sorry about was that after “Vance” made a terrible rebuttal -- saying that Iran is more dangerous today because its growth in nuclear technology occurred during Biden/Harris Administration, a comment that sound great on the surface but totally ignores what Walz had just said, that Iran is closer to having nukes precisely because Trump took off the safeguard (!!) – I wish that Walz had had a chance to respond and say that.  And even though he didn’t, I still wish he’d called it out anyway.  But…well, “Minnesota Nice.”

And again, too be clear, I think Tim Walz did a respectable, solid job with the debate.  He made many excellent points, had a few winning responses, and he came across well.  He just didn’t come across like he does on the campaign trail, as “America’s dad” and his nerves showed.  But so did his politeness, which is no small thing.

Still, I wish the debate prep for Democrats had been to let Tim Walz be Tim Walz.  Not just polite, but endearing, engaging and nurturing.

In the end, Tim Walz saved his best, impactful exchange for the end – in fact, the very end.  Whether most viewers made it that far, I don’t know.  But if they did, ending on your high note, the last thing you see and remember, is impactful.  And that’s when a question about the threat to democracy was asked, and “JD Vance” tried to claim that it was the Democrats were the greater threat.  And at that point, Walz put aside “Minnesota Nice” and said this is one issue they  totally disagree with.  And not only did he raise the issue of the violence on January 6, but happily brought up Trump’s former vice-president Mike Pence who refused MAGOP calls not to certify the election – clearly pointing to why Pence is not the vice-presidential candidate again, while “Vance, who has said he wouldn’t certify the election, is the nominee.  And even more importantly, Tim Walz then turned to “JD Vance” and asked pointedly who won the 2020 election.  And “Vance” actually and blatantly and obvious to everyone watching…cowardly and reprehensibly refused to answer, and instead deflect elsewhere.  To which Tim Walz gave probably his best, most blunt response, pointing out how damning that “non-answer” was.

And ultimately, after all that – it was a tie.  Which is fine, because the race is actually between Kamala Harris and the convicted felon, adjudicated rapist who says he wants to be a dictator and has signs of dementia.

Unless you most care that “JD Vance” was raised by his grandmother.