Timothy Birdnow

Here are some thoughts on the Vice Presidential debate between Walzing with Timbo and J.D. Clampett, er, Vance.

First, the media was entirely in the tank for Walz and did not make much of an effort to hide the fact.
It was a truly disgraceful display! Walz had the final word every single time, and when Vance tried to rebut him they cut him off.

But in the end it was Vance's people who agreed to many of the debate terms and this is what happens. Our side has to stop being suckered by these people. Even Trump - the great negotiator - got swindled by ABC.

I was underwhelmed with Vance in that debate. To me his answsers were too stock and canned. Not that Walz was good but Walz at least was quick to jump on things Vance said. Vance missed multiple golden opportunities to really smite Walz. Case in point; Walz blamed Trump for killing the economy during Covid and Vance let it slide rather than pointing out it was Democrat governors like Walz who shut the economy down and not Mr. Trump and that Trump showed himself respectful of the rule of law by not forcing them to reopen (thus showing who the true danger to democracy really is).

Vance was far too soft with Walz. He also was quick to move on from past fights (such as the vote fraud business) making it look like he thought Trump was lying. He could have pivoted but first said something like "Trump's cases were never ruled on over merit but over procedural issues" after the hack moderators said Trump lost all his court cases and left it at that. But he didn't bother. And he made a total fool of himself over the abortion issue, condemning the GOP rather than pointing out America had the most radical abortion laws in the whole world (other countries all have some restrictions - just as the public wants in this country). He also let Walz get away with lying about his record in Minnesota over abortion (he did in fact sign legislation allowing abortion up to birth.) I just don't think Vance has the right stuff.

Also there was no mention of Walz letting BLM burn Minneapolis down. Walz mentioned the working class at one point and claimed he would better serve them and Vance could have said "I don't doubt you'll help the employment of firefighters as so many are needed to put out the fires you let BLM start in your state" but he didn't want to appear nasty.

He never once mentioned Walz commanding officer in the National Guard calling him a coward.

I do not buy this idea of playing nice to win votes. In my opinion that suggests to voters you lack a core of conviction, that you are just a politician whoring for election. Much is misremembered about Ronald Reagan and he is now used as the standard of how to win, but Reagan was not just likable and soft. Reagan went after the Left, sometimes quite brutally. That aspect of Reagan has been forgotten. Also, Reagan was from a different era where there was still some civility. That era is gone. Now you either fight or go under from the attacks. I doubt Reagan could be elected today. But try to tell that to the GOP strategists, who are still stuck in 1980! Not everyone needs to be a Trump, but everyone needs to be angry at what they have done to America and are trying to do to America and some righteous indignation is in order. Vance may as well have been running for dog catcher for all the passion he displayed.

And that constant talk about his background got really annoying. O.K. - we get it! You were raised by a drug addict in Appalachia.I certainly don't care and I doubt many others do either. Save that for your campaign speeches! A debate is supposed to be about facts, and Vance had plenty to use against Walz.

I read Vance did little prep. It showed. Walz obviously did a lot of prep. And he took notes during the debate, something Vance didn't do. That's why Vance missed so many hanging slow-balls; he forgot what had been said in Walz' two minutes.

VAnce came across as likable but not as someone you want at the helm. To use the old phrase from the 2000 election, he lacks gravitas. Walz, scheming commie that he is, at least seemed to have that quality.

Vance didn't hurt himself but I doubt he helped himself either. I haven't seen poll results yet but I think most people will call it a draw, or a Walz win. I scored that debate for Walz myself.

We need to do better. That starts with negotiating these debates. Why did they agree to CBS doing a Veep debate at all? And why not let Vance loose to tear into the old hippie?

I was very disappointed.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:28 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 841 words, total size 5 kb.