WSJ: “Vance makes a better case for Trump than Trump”

UPDATE: The NY Times seems to agree with me – Who Won the Debate? A Crisp Vance Fends Off Walz

For the first time in at least 20 years I actually watched (most of) a presidential debate – in this case the VP debate, JD Vance v. Tim Walz. I watched because I took a strong liking to Vance after he was named by Trump & I then read his book Hillbilly Elegy & he's only 40, so will be around awhile. And unsurprisingly he was very good – composed, calm, made many good points. He was better than Walz, who looked nervous and constantly looking at his notes. And Walz is only 60 years old, but looks much older. Below the WSJ excerpt I've posted the closing statements of both the men. 

Hard to compare with the Trump-Harris debate, since I only saw some excerpts on youtube. I thought they were both mediocre, with Trump more mediocre. Governor Sunnunu of New Hampshire, speaking on CNBC yesterday, said he thought both the VP's were better than the presidential candidates.

Mr. Vance in particular helped the ticket and himself. The sarcastic candidate of “childless cat ladies” fame was nowhere in sight. The Ohio Senator was respectful, well prepared, articulate, and relentless in reminding voters about the flaws of what he called “the Kamala Harris Administration.” This is a case Donald Trump was unable to make in his debate, or for that matter anywhere in the weeks since President Biden left the race.

Mr. Walz was likable and avuncular, though he sometimes seemed frenetic and overstuffed with too many facts and prepared attack lines. On presence and command, Mr. Vance won the debate going away.

The Senator was especially effective in sanding down the sharper edges of GOP policies that Democrats and the press portray as cruel. He addressed abortion policy by conceding that the voters of Ohio had chosen to pass a policy he opposed, but in a democracy that is what you have to accept. He also conceded that Republicans had to do more to win back the trust of Americans on the issue.

Mr. Walz offered the restoration of Roe v. Wade in a national law as the only possible answer. And he seems not to understand what the Minnesota law he signed actually says about what doctors can do with a late-term fetus who survives an abortion attempt. The law allows abortion at any stage in pregnancy if a doctor approves.

************************

Neither candidate was all that good on the economy, as both men seem to think that tariffs and domestic manufacturing are the key to prosperity. Mr. Vance suggested that this was crucial to the success of the Trump economy, but his policy history is wrong. The reason for the burst of growth and rising incomes was the 2017 tax reform and deregulation. The tariffs that began in 2018 detracted from growth, as economic studies have shown.

As for Mr. Walz, he’s a government man. When he speaks of “investment,” he always means more spending. And it’s too bad Mr. Vance didn’t nail the Biden-Harris spending as the main cause of inflation.

The debate was hosted by a pair of CBS anchors, and their choice of topics predictably focused on the priorities of Democrats: child care, healthcare, abortion, gun control, climate change, democracy and Jan. 6. They did ask about immigration, but not about energy or the electric-vehicle mandate that is emerging as a sleeper issue in Michigan.

Just once in an election debate before we die, we’d like to hear moderators ask a question that showed they read something outside their mainstream media bubble.

***

It was especially disappointing that they asked only a single question on foreign policy given that the men could become Commander-in-Chief. Nothing on China, nothing on the Ukraine war, or the decline of America’s military deterrent.