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

Don’t debate me over closing the tabs …

The clash with Mr. Vance, after a day of buildup over an inaccurate anecdote he has told often about being in Hong Kong when Chinese troops crushed pro-democracy dissidents in Tiananmen Square 35 years ago, highlighted a tendency to exaggerate his biography and speak imprecisely or inaccurately.

Advertisement

And on the biggest stage of his career, he was plainly an uneven surrogate. The version of the punchy Midwesterner who rocketed onto Ms. Harris’s ticket in part by branding former President Donald J. Trump and Mr. Vance as “weird” on national television was rarely seen when confronted by two probing moderators and a slick opponent untroubled by frequent twisting of the truth.

In fact, since Mr. Walz joined the ticket, the Harris campaign has almost entirely kept him off national television, negating what was seen as one of his greatest strengths.

Ed: ‘Seen’ by who, exactly? I had a ringside seat to the Walz clown show for almost three years, and he’s not good at all under a spotlight except with the most favorable media environments. The Minnesota media are all sharply progressive and fully invested in protecting Walz in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, but that’s the only reason he’s survived there as long as he did. Walz folded during the 2020 riots and came across as an angry martinet during the pandemic. 

===

Advertisement

Ed: One bad moment … that lasted 100 minutes.

===

Last night, Walz’s inexperience with tough races and tough questions showed. Once the Bubble Wrap came off, he was supposed to demonstrate toughness, a steely spine, a righteous anger over Republicans’ outrages, and the strong will of a man who’s ready to be commander in chief. Instead, Walz looked and sounded like he was made of Nerf.

Tuesday night couldn’t have gone too much better for J. D. Vance — as I noted in that other place I write for, he was as polished and smooth as your mom’s fine porcelain tableware that she takes out only at Christmas. The contrast between the prepared, detail-oriented, focused Ohio senator and the erratic, improvising, erupting volcano atop the ticket couldn’t be starker. A vice-presidential nominee only gets two big moments in the spotlight in a presidential campaign — the convention speech and the debate. And Vance aced both.

Vance looked and sounded like a man who knew, no matter what happens in November, that he’s probably running for president in 2028.

Ed: Jim Geraghty also points out that Walz has gotten a free ride by Minnesota media outlets, which has left him vastly unprepared for this environment. I’m not sure about Vance’s chances in 2028, but that will be his next opportunity whether or not Trump wins in November, thanks to term limits on the presidency. Vance made a powerful pitch for leadership last night, no doubt.

Advertisement

===

===

Vance followed a similar formula in accusing Harris of pushing energy production to American adversaries, advocating positions that would undo Trump’s deportation policies, and helping steer an economy under which prices for housing and everyday goods rose during her tenure.

“If Kamala Harris has such great plans for how to address middle class problems, then she ought to do them now, not when asking for promotion, but in the job the American people gave her three and a half years ago,” Vance said. “The fact that she isn’t tells you a lot about how much you can trust her actual plans.”

Ed: That’s one from Politico that tried to get its readers at least in the vicinity of reality about the debate. The next one is more true to Protection Racket Media form.

===

Advertisement

===

When Walz felt especially passionate about something, he’d open his eyes wide as saucers. Eye-popping can sometimes be a sign of surprise, but for Walz, it simply revealed his emotional intensity — like this moment during an exchange about abortion. The orbicularis oculi muscle, working in concert with the corrugator and frontalis muscles, contract to raise the eyebrows — a dynamic and emphatic facial motion that grabbed the viewer’s attention. Early humans would have made such facial gestures to communicate strong emotions, like “danger is close.” For Walz, it gave extra weight to his feelings and held our gaze.

Ed: No it didn’t. It read like panic and anger all during the debate. It wasn’t quite as bad as Dan Quayle’s deer-in-the-headlights reaction to Lloyd Bentsen’s attack line in 1988, but it conveyed the same impression of helplessness. To wit:

===

===

Advertisement

Ed: I think the line was just a rhetorical fumble, but he really is terrible at this. 

===

But there was another aspect to Vance’s performance, and one that stood for much of the debate in contrast to Walz: For weeks, Vance has been participating in a series of interviews, often in forums that were less than hospitable. By the time of the debate, he’d been well versed in answering, deflecting and, in some cases, dissembling about key issues in the campaign.

The Democrats’ campaign chose a different path for Walz, as well as his running mate — essentially avoiding tough environments. And it showed. At times, Walz seemed unprepared either to defend himself (such as his whereabouts during the Tiananmen Square protests) or to summon the most effective lines of attack against Vance and Trump.

Ed: Essentially, Democrats are now reaping what they have sown. It’s not just that they kept both of them off the media circuit for the last eight weeks, though; it’s that neither of them do well in adversarial situations at all. The Biden White House put Harris on the shelf for three years because of her incompetence in interviews, and Walz (again) spent the last six years getting tongue-baths from Twin City media outlets. Republicans are better at this because they have to be.

===

Advertisement

Ed: A’s hire A’s and B’s hire C’s … and D’s. (Yes, the apostrophe use is technically incorrect, but otherwise it would read As hire Bs.)

====

Ed: This is from two months ago, but thanks to Walz’ debate response during the debate, even more relevant today.