7 Layups Tim Walz Missed in the Debate
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Hurricanes, inflation, cat ladies, and what Trump really did on January 6th.
IN TUESDAY'S FACEOFF between the vice presidential candidates, Tim Walz scored important points on some issues—but he repeatedly missed what should have been easy opportunities to persuade people on issues and points that he had to know would come up. Here are some of the things that viewers of the debate deserved to hear:
1. Donald Trump lied about the Biden administration's Hurricane Helene response.
Walz correctly emphasized bipartisanship among governors on responses to disasters, but he missed a big opportunity to contrast this bipartisanship to Trump's polarizing toxicity and dishonesty. For the past two days, Trump has been shamelessly lying about Joe Biden and his administration supposedly intentionally denying aid to Republican-dominated affected areas. Trump has falsely claimed that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp had been unable to reach President Biden. Trump has falsely accused Vice President Kamala Harris of staging a fake photo of herself talking to federal disaster officials. He has been, in effect, rebutted by Republican governors: not only Gov. Kemp, but Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who has praised the federal response. Trump long ago earned a reputation for lying about hurricanes; this is not the sort of person who should be overseeing federal emergency agencies.
2. Fentanyl overdose deaths surged under Trump and are leveling off or dropping under Biden (or Biden-Harris).
When Vance used fentanyl deaths as another weapon to go after Harris on the border, Walz correctly pointed out the recent drop in opioid overdose. What he didn't mention: Trump's border policies certainly didn't do much to curb the ravages of fentanyl. While the upward trend in synthetic opioid-related (mostly fentanyl) deaths began after 2012, the biggest spike actually happened under the Trump administration: according to the CDC, the annual number of fentanyl deaths went from 19,413 in 2016 to 56,516 in 2020. Yes, the trend continued under Biden, with deaths reaching over 73,000 in 2022, but the growth leveled off in 2023 and, as Walz said, the trend since then has been downward.
3. Harris did not cause inflation (and neither did Biden).
Vance worked hard to hang inflation around Harris's neck. In fact, inflation surged around the world in 2020 due to the COVID pandemic, and most experts believe that the United States has actually done better than Europe at bringing down inflation. This point could have also been a chance for Walz to mention the Trump administration's largely botched response to COVID.
4. Harris has not been president—or "border czar"—for the last three and a half years.
Somewhere during first two hours of the debate, Walz could have found a way to stress a simple fact: Harris did not become president of the United States in January 2021, Joe Biden did (inheriting a COVID-battered economy). Nor did she become the top official in charge of the southern border; her mandate as the point person on immigration was to work with Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala on diplomatic solutions to reduce the flow of migrants to the border, an area in which Biden administration initiatives achieved some success.
5. Trump is not a leader who projects strength and security. He's the guy who sucks up to Vladimir Putin.
Strength? Stability? Please. Trump is the guy who stood next to Vladimir Putin and said he believed him over U.S. intelligence agencies when it comes to Russian interference in the 2016 election. He's the guy who got impeached for withholding aid from Ukraine because he wanted Volodymyr Zelensky to help dig up dirt on Biden. He's the guy who still treats Putin and Zelensky as if they were morally equivalent and still brags about his good relationship with the Kremlin dictator. Also, the claim that Putin never would have attacked Ukraine if Trump had been president? In fact, Russia's covert war in Eastern Ukraine continued all through the Trump presidency, escalating in February 2017—just two weeks after Trump took office.
Obviously, this would have also been an opportunity to tie Vance himself to his amply demonstrated hostility to Ukraine. It's not a good issue for Vance: Despite a drop in support for aid to Ukraine since the start of the war, primarily among Republicans, Ukraine still has considerable sympathy even among GOP voters, who are just about evenly split on whether military aid should continue.
6. There's a startling gap between JD Vance's sensitive debate persona, particularly on the subject of women and families, and Vance's radical rhetoric on these issues in recent years.
The JD Vance we saw last night was the ultimate sensitive guy. He talked about the GOP's need to do more to win the trust of women who worry that an unwanted pregnancy may upend their careers and their lives. He mentioned, with apparent affection, a female friend who had an abortion and who told him it was essential for her because she was in an abusive relationship. But there's that other JD Vance: the one who keeps bashing "childless cat ladies" (and refers to childless people in general as "sociopaths") and who has suggested that staying in unhappy and "maybe even violent" marriages was a good thing. The one who didn't just say, on the subject of abortion in case of rape, that "two wrongs don't make a right" (as Walz pointed out), but also repeatedly described such pregnancies as merely "inconvenient."
I realize that a lot of people appreciated the niceness and civility of the Walz/Vance debate, especially compared to Harris/Trump. But "would the real JD Vance please stand up?" is a valid question.
7. Trump's behavior during the attempted coup of January 2021 was far worse than most people realize. Also, there's no comparison to Hillary Clinton.
Walz was generally quite strong on this issue, with such a huge assist from Vance himself. But a couple of important points could and should have been made.
First, Trump did not simply tell his supporters to protest "peacefully." He said "peacefully" once in his hour-long speech to the rally near the White House, and "fight" 20 times. As the rioters stormed Capitol Hill, he resisted pleas from staffers to urge the mob to stand down and continued slam Mike Pence on Twitter for refusing to enable his election-theft attempt.
Second, Hillary Clinton's comments as a private citizen two years after losing the election that Trump's victory was tainted by Russian interference are not even in the same universe as Trump's nearly two-month-long scramble to overturn a legitimate election. Clinton conceded privately on election night and publicly the next day. Trump pressured local officials to "find" more votes, filed bogus lawsuits, and pushed fake elector slates. In her concession speech, Clinton even said that "we owe Trump an open mind." After January 6th, we don't.
Tags
Who is online
472 visitors
On the whole, even though Tim Walz certainly did not embarrass himself last night, neither did he succeed in doing the job he, and all those who oppose Trump need to do.
For some reason Democrats keep telling themselves they can win this election on "policies". There are two un -overcomable problems with this approach. The first one is that after four years of being bombarded by the lies that all of the inflation, crime, and immigration issues , as well as Ukraine and Israel/Gaza , can be dumped at the Harris/Biden doorstep, much of that misinformation is baked in. The lies and misinformation, over long periods of time, like four years, takes its toll and it is an unachievable uphill climb to turn that perception around in a few weeks or a few months. This is also an area where the mainstream media is very helpful to Trump, with their incessant "horse race" obsession.
The second problem with running on policies is that such an approach detracts from the central core of this election , which is the necessity for the majority of voters to realize , and accept, that Trump can never be president again. His unfitness for office IS the issue of this campaign , and it should be the overwhelming issue in the minds of voters.
Events like last night and the approach by Walz served to "sanewash" or as I say , normalize the Trump/Vance ticket. Donald Trump was the winner of last night's debate, because Vance was able to lie with impunity and Walz did very little to point out Trump's unfitness for office because he was spending almost all of his time being friendly with Vance and discussing "policy".
Last week retired General Stanley McChrystal endorsed Harris, and his reasoning was almost entirely based on the issue of character. He says the president of the United States must be a person of good character, because character dictates actions. In his endorsement he said almost nothing about policies.
Yesterday, think about that, yesterday , Donald Trump said that brain injuries suffered by American soldiers during Trumps term when terrorists attacked a US military base in (I believe it was Iraq) the middle east were "headaches". He also said Kim Jong Un is trying to kill him, and said Biden was spending security assets protecting Jong Un at the UN meeting instead of protecting him. Kim Jong Un was not at the UN meeting in NY.
He also misread and mispronounced words he was reading off a piece of paper on the podium. A day or two before he said he had a good day in Louisiana when he was actually in Georgia that day.
Never Trumpers and a lot of Democrats see Harris veering somewhat off the core message, and I agree. She is not going to win without making Trump unacceptable. Unless he is made completely unacceptable some voters will interpret that as "permission" to vote for Trump.
I can't believe anyone would be fooled by jd and his allegedly caring persona while on the debate stage when he is such a lying racist scumbag.
Well Harris could have picked Josh Shapiro, who is probably the best candidate the democrats have for any position, but he is Jewish.
It’s not so much - imo - that he’s Jewish, specifically. It seems that the more important thing is his strong support of Israel in the Gaza conflict, and his similarly negative reactions to pro-Palestinian demonstrations, here in America. At a time when the Democratic Party is trying extra hard to express sympathy for the Palestinians, Shapiro is seen as controversial on that issue.
I like Walz well enough, but I suspect Shapiro would have been a more effective choice in a campaign battle. I also think it would be healthy to pick a VP who doesn’t agree with the president or party on every last issue.
Not only did she not pick him in order to maintain a unified party (i.e. The Squad), but also, not being a WASP she was well aware of how ingrained antisemltism is in many, too many, American voters. Of course he would have been the better VP, but not if antisemism sinks the Dem's chances.
It was the former, not the latter. It is after all 2024, not 1930.
Of course he would have been the better VP, but not if antisemism sinks the Dem's chances.
He may have even overshadowed her. Have you ever heard him give a speech before a crowd of people? He is a natural.
It was much more openly prevalent back in the 1930s and thereafter. For example, the first home my father bought, when I was about 2 years old, was right across the road from a neighbourhood that had restrictions on the realty titles of the homes that they were not to be sold to Jews, and the private ski club had a sign in front that said "No Jews Allowed" - I saw it with my own eyes. Perhaps you're not aware of how many antisemitic incidents occur annually, before they increased considerably after Oct 7 last year. I'm fully aware that now most antisemites don't make it obvious, now there are laws about hate crimes and it isn't as socially acceptable as it was previously, but maybe it's easier for someone who has experienced it enough to see it.
Well, some still seem to think it's okay and we saw them on full display a couple years ago in Charlottesville as the Trump supporting confederate statue defending tiki torch mob of whom Trump called "fine people" shouted in unison "Jews will not replace us!".
I'm curious as to which crowd seems more dangerous, the one waving Nazi flags and confederate flags side by side shouting "Jew's will not replace us!" or the crowds protesting the killing of innocent Palestinian women and children. One seems to support genocide against Jews, the waving of Nazi flags would indicate such, while the other is simply against the genocide of another ethnic group. Personally, I don't see any problem with being against genocide of any ethnic group whether it be Jews or Palestinians. And while I support targeting terrorists who threaten the peace and security of civilians in any nation, I recognize that being against the indiscriminate bombing of civilians does not make one an antisemite.
As I've said numerous times, I support Israels right to defend itself and I support bringing the terrorists who attacked civilians in Israel on October 7th to justice. I am also ashamed of my fellow Americans who continue to harbor disgusting antisemitic beliefs as evidenced by the numerous attacks on innocent Jews and the antisemitic graffiti and vandalism of Jewish places of worship and businesses. With that said, I also recognize that opposing the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in any war zone does not make one an ally of the terrorists or supporter of antisemitism even if their criticism is of how the Israeli military is conducting their war on terror. This is not a zero-sum debate; one can support Israel and be a friend of the Jewish people while also supporting the right of innocent Palestinian people to live.
There have been hundreds of Charlottesvilles since 2017, but Democrats are so obsessed with mythologizing it it that they continue to tell debunked lies about it. The protests with Hamas and now Hezbollah slogans being chanted, symbols being worn and call for deaths of jews are so common place they aren't even newsworthy any more. Even the "mostly peaceful" ones where officers are injured get almost completely ignored by the media.
of whom Trump called "fine people" sho
Witness the debunked lie and no matter how many times it gets debunked they'll continue to throw it out there. Because it's really is a cult of Trump hatred, and like many cultists, they would rather die than admit they got fooled by their own media into believing an obvious lie.
rowds protesting the killing of innocent Palestinian women and children.
Lol. What a dishonest caricature.
Your biggest concern is what you call "indiscriminate bombing", so I suppose you must make amends every day for the innocent civilians of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo and Dresden, where the Nazis and Japanese DID NOT HIDE THEMSELVES AMONG THE CIVILIANS AND USE THEM AS HUMAN SHIELDS.
Ever see this "cartoon". It isn't really a cartoon because it tells the story to those who blame Israel for "indiscriminate bombing".
Israel drops leaflets, makes phone calls, sends email messages warning civilians to vacate where Israel is going to target, but Hamas (and also Hezbollah) hide among their civilians, use them as human shields (Has the UN said anything about that, has the ICJ said anything about that?), hide themselves, their weapons and control centres in schools, hospitals, mosques and UNRWA facilities (Has the UN said anything about that, has the ICJ said anything about that?) and what the IDF has been forced to do to bring an end to terrorism against its nation and civilians is called a "genocide".
Israel does more to prevent the deaths and injury of civilians than any army has ever done throughout history, as said by Col. Richard Kemp. "Richard Kemp is a retired British Army colonel who commanded troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland. He is also a journalist, author, speaker and consultant on security, .…In 1993 he was appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire by the Queen for intelligence work in Northern Ireland. He took part in the invasion of Iraq in 1991 in a Challenger tank with the Desert Rats, and was decorated for bravery with the United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia in 1994. In 2001, he formed a tri-service organization to train 45,000 British troops deploying on operations each year around the globe, and later was counter terrorism adviser to the Macedonian premier."
LINK -> About Richard Kemp | Colonel Richard Kemp (richard-kemp.com)
LINK -> Douglas Murray, Col. Richard Kemp explain uphill battle for Israel - The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)
But the..
...around the world blame Israel.
That is not what I am talking about. Today the antisemitism comes from the left. You need to be able to look left Buzz.
I'm capable of looking both left and right. I once almost got killed looking left instead of right. In London, England, I was going to cross the street where I shouldn't have, i.e. not at an intersection, and I looked left to make sure no cars were coming, stepped off the curb and almost got hit by a taxicab.
Was it a Black Cab? At least it was by the best of cab drivers.
what would those be ?
Before you get started, there were no fine people on both sides at Charlottesville. There is absolutely no evidence of this . Trump either knew that when he made his statements, or certainly as president of the United States should have known it. Giving him the absolute most benefit of the doubt his remarks were entirely inappropriate.
That Trump called neo-nazis, white supremacists or the tiki torch carriers very fine people. Biggest lie of the last decade.
I have been over this many times. The first words out of Trumps mouth that Saturday were to blame "both sides" for the fight. He did not start out condemning Nazis or the Klan , he started out equating the two sides.
Who were the "fine people" on both sides? It was very well known in Charlottesville that the march was white supremacist , prior to the march. Are you going to say that "fine people" attended a known racist and anti-semitic event?
It sure was, he saved my life.
Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," referring to the protesters and the counterprotesters. He said in the same statement he wasn't talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he said should be "condemned totally."
No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People' | Snopes.com
Democrats are certainly interested in a trumpist's opinion on that.
You must be absolutely THRILLED that trump selected a Jewish running mate this time, right? Didn't he?
Democrats is the key word.
You must be absolutely THRILLED that trump selected a Jewish running mate this time, right? Didn't he?
Deflection. The democrat party is riddled with antisemites.
Meanwhile...
I thought Walz did a fine job overall. Let’s be honest, there’s only so much time to express yourself and he spent 95% of his time speaking very fast yet coherently. If he spent his time hitting these missed issues then this list would simply be the set of issues that would have been replaced by these missed issues. I was just thrilled that at no point did it devolve into justifying conspiracy trash and name calling.
How the hell does everyone think Tim Walz won six terms as Rep for the MN 1st district? Walz won six elections in Trump country.
Tim Walz is a gun totin' good ol' boy who highlights his jock strap history in both sports and the military. Tim Walz has never won an election by claiming street cred as a liberal.
Apparently he has never won one by telling the truth, either.
When Walz asked Vance who won the 2020 election and Vance said he is focused on the future, Walz should have asked how come Trump is focused on his 2020 election loss 24/7.
One of the interesting things to come out since the debate is the mount of Democrats who think it's some sort of dunk to point out that Vance stated the moderators were breaking the rules (they were) with their failed attempt to "fact check" him. The very idea that breaking the agreed upon rules is something that reflects well on the moderators show just how fanatical Democrats are. They whine about Trump lying, and Trump cheating, but they have zero problem with breaking the rules to serve their own purposes. They are true zealots, who believe the ends they pursue justify literally any means.
[✘] They are the type of people who will give their word, swear on their family's lives not to do something and then turn around and do it the minute it is to their advantage to do so. And rather than be ashamed of their dishonesty, they'll brage about breaking their word and insult someone like Vance for even mentioning the agreement.
Comment 6 is on a level of insanity with "the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss if I'm at 40%".
Maybe If I provide another example, you might understand it better. The type or person who celebrates a moderator breaking the rule is also the type of person who will make a bet, lose, and then fail to live up to the terms of it. They'll always find a way to rationalize their dishonesty and cheat.
I understood it perfectly the first time. Your comment 6.1.1 is totally non-responsive to my previous comment.
Lol.