The V-P Debate

As I feared might be the case, I found most of the debate to be depressing. Vance was so glib, slick, and skillfully disingenuous and masterful at hiding his fascistic character that I felt that vast numbers of under-informed viewers found him to be convincing. Every time Walz spoke, he should have hammered home the truth –– with dates, places, and descriptions of instances of unacceptable behavior –– that Trump and Vance are unfit to serve on all counts. Instead, Vance was allowed to get away with acting like he and Trump are decent human beings.

In the late stage of the debate, Walz’s good-nature and inclination to be accommodating, which hadn’t been winning him debate points, supplied authenticity to his expression of disfavor with Vance’s prevarications and evasions relating to Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. Yet even at this crucial point, Walz was far too accommodating, saying something like “We’re miles apart on this issue,” which, given what they were talking about, was agonizingly bland.

Without exception, every one of the members of the panel of MSNBC commentators found Walz far more effective than Vance, though they acknowledged that Vance excelled him in slick and slippery debate style. These noble journalists know the facts and that Walz was generally truthful and Vance was not, but I suspect that far too many viewers went to bed with the wool still pulled firmly over their eyes.