Vance Made a Great Case for the Indefensible
Being wrong never felt so right
This post is about J.D. Vance’s performance in last night’s debate, not Tim Walz’s, so I’ll limit my Tim Walz review to a movie poster:
As for Vance: In an era in which many Republican candidates, especially Vance’s running mate, seem like they chugged lead paint by the gallon in their formative years, Vance stood out. He was articulate and mentally nimble. In fact, I agree with the pundits who deemed this debate “not a national embarrassment” — that’s a major improvement! It makes it possible to imagine a time when American politics don’t fill me with shame mixed with dread mixed with anger mixed with nausea.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that the debate was informative or truthful. That’s partly because of the format — we try to jam way too much into two hours. A typical question is something like “Governor Walz: Explain your position on the Middle East and respond to this ‘gotcha’ question that I have and don’t forget to squeeze in 10-12 references to your humble roots and a story about some sad old lady you met and also attack your opponent and fact check something he said and reiterate your core message. You have two minutes.” Of course, the only solution to this problem is far more debates, which is something that not even the most depraved political junkie wants.