We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

By Newt Gingrich

When I got up on Wednesday morning, virtually all the commentaries validated the sense that the VP debate was something extraordinary

The vice presidential debate on Tuesday night was staggeringly one-sided.

Sen. JD Vance was poised, calm, friendly, likable, and in control of the facts and himself.

By contrast, Gov. Tim Walz began the debate so nervous it was painful to watch. Then he made a series of mistakes which were cumulatively disqualifying. It was hard to believe he is on a national ticket.

Callista and I went to bed on Tuesday night convinced that Sen. Vance had won a substantial triumph. In that victory, he also vindicated President Donald J. Trump’s gamble in selecting a running mate so early in his career. At 40, with only two years in the U.S. Senate, Vance is only a few months older than Richard Nixon when President Dwight Eisenhower picked him to be the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1952. Nixon would remain a major part of the political scene for 42 years. That would give Sen. Vance a potential role in American government and politics until 2066.

When I got up on Wednesday morning, virtually all the commentaries validated the sense that the debate was something extraordinary.

This new reality was best summarized by Mark Halperin in the Wide World of News newsletter:

“1. One can pretend, as most of the Dominant Media does, that Tim Walz was not ‘clobbered’ by JD Vance, but, as honest Joe Klein (fully credentialed as second-to-none in contempt for Donald Trump and Vance) told the world, Walz was indeed clobbered, so badly that it ‘wasn’t as bad as Biden’s debilitated performance in June, but it was close.’ Remember: Biden’s perf[romance] was so bad it ended his candidacy and career.”

Pollster Frank Luntz tweeted that his focus group voted 12 to 2 that Vance had won.

Glenn Greenwald posted on X: “The most bizarre part of that debate was how Tim Walz repeatedly and flagrantly undercut Dems’ core attack on Trump/Vance: that they’re “weird,” freakish dangers wildly out of the mainstream.

“Everything Walz said treated Vance as a totally normal, reasonable, likable colleague.”

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat posted: “I would rate that the most successful Republican debate performance of this century, eclipsing Romney in the first debate with Obama in 2012.”

Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume had no regard for the performances of moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, saying they were “obnoxious” and made the debate a three-on-one proposition against Vance.

Full op-ed over at Fox News: