We all know that vice presidential debates rarely move the public opinion needle. In 2020 Donald Trump was thrown out of office by a record 81 million voters because he was Donald Trump, not because a fly took up residence on Mike Pence’s head. In 1988, the senior George Bush won 53.4% of the popular vote – we haven’t seen a percentage that high in all the years since – despite the fact that his understudy, Dan Quayle, was roundly mocked in the veep debate as a callow lightweight.
So it’s highly unlikely that the Oct. 1 Walz-Vance showdown will reshape the ’24 campaign. Both guys were too intent on playing it safe, per the instructions from higher-ups. J.D. Vance’s goal was to sheath his claws, hide his MAGA zealotry, and ooze calculated compassion – whereas Tim Walz’s goal was to soft-pedal his progressivism and stress bipartisanship. Vance never brought up his summertime lie that National Guardsman Walz chickened out of Iraq. And Walz never mentioned Vance’s “childless cat lady” weirdness.
Indeed, Walz in Minnesota Nice mode did not assail Vance for what he is: a slick serial-lying extremist…until finally, as the debate clock was set to expire, we got the moment many of us had been waiting for. It’s already a viral sensation.
Four years ago, Vance refused to accept Joe Biden’s election victory. That made him fair game for this question from the moderators: “The governors of every state in the nation, Republicans and Democrats, certified the 2020 election results and sent a legal slate of electors to Congress for January 6th. Senator Vance, you have said you would not have certified the last presidential election and would have asked the states to submit ‘alternative’ electors. That has been called unconstitutional and illegal. Would you again seek to challenge this year’s election results, even if every governor certifies the results?”
His instinct was to slip-slide away: “I think we’re focused on the future.” He never answered that crucial question. Instead, we got this:
“What President Trump has said is that there were problems in 2020. And my own belief is that we should fight about those issues, debate those issues peacefully in the public square. And that’s all I’ve said. And that’s all that Donald Trump has said. Remember, he said that on January 6th, the protesters ought to protest peacefully. And on Jan. 20th, what happened? Joe Biden became the President … (Trump) said that protesters should peacefully protest on January 6th … He peacefully gave over power on January the 20th, as we have done for 250 years in this country.”
Trump “peacefully gave over power”?
Need we bother to annotate Vance’s lies and diversionary drivel? Like the fact that 62 judges, including Trump appointees, said there were not “problems” with the balloting; that Trump’s own cybersecurity chief and his own attorney general said the balloting was secure; that Trump goaded his thugs to attack the Capitol and then watched it on TV for hours while people died and more than 100 cops were beaten; that “Joe Biden became president” on Jan. 20th only because Trump’s violent putsch failed; that “peaceful” Trump is still raising money for the jailed Capitol rioters?
Over to you, Tim Walz:
“January 6 (was) the first time in American history that a president or anyone tried to overturn a fair election and the peaceful transfer of power. And here we are four years later in the same boat…This was a threat to our democracy in a way that we had not seen. And it manifested itself because of Donald Trump’s inability to say – he is still saying – he didn’t lose the election.”
He then posed a simple question to Vance: “Did he lose the 2020 election?”
Vance: “Tim, I’m focused on the future.”
Walz: “That is a damning non-answer.”
Damning, predictable, and pathetic. Vance couldn’t muster a simple “Yes” because he is tethered to a fascist. And when you’re tethered to a fascist, you gotta stay in goosestep.
Walz took that ball and ran with it: “I’m pretty shocked by this. (Trump) lost the election … When Mike Pence made that decision (on Jan. 6) to certify that election, that’s why Mike Pence isn’t on this stage. What I’m concerned about is, where is the firewall with Donald Trump? Where is the firewall if he knows he could do anything…? So, America, I think you’ve got a really clear choice on this election of who’s going to honor that democracy and who’s going to honor Donald Trump.”
Granted, many urgent issues were raised during the debate – with Vance lying at virtually every turn, like when he said that Trump “saved” Obamacare (as president, Trump repeatedly tried to kill it); like when he said that VP Kamala Harris hasn’t invested in clean energy jobs for American workers (Harris broke the 50-50 Senate tie to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which funds billions in clean energy jobs for American workers); like when he complained that our solar panels are manufactured in China (80% are manufactured here); like when he blamed “millions of illegal immigrants” for the housing shortage (this shortage has plagued us since the Great Recession); like when he insisted that he has never supported a national abortion ban (two years ago, these were his exact words: “I certainly would like to see abortion illegal nationally”).
And to think this guy could be one Big Mac away from the big chair.
All the aforementioned issues are vitally important. But none are as existential, as fundamental to our democracy, as the willingness to abide by the certified results of a presidential election.
Will Vance’s lies about ’20 and his refusal to answer the key question about ’24 (“Would you again seek to challenge this year’s election results?”) propel swing voters toward Harris and Walz? I doubt they will, if the history of veep debates is any guide. But they should.
Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist based in Philadelphia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes at DickPolman.net and is distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com.
From The Progressive Populist, November 1, 2024
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us