Nolan Finley: Vance wins civil, substantive debate

Nolan Finley, The Detroit News on Oct 3, 2024

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Somebody pour these two guys a couple of bourbons. They earned it.

JD Vance and Tim Walz treated Americans Tuesday night to something they hadn't seen in awhile — a civil, substantive debate in a presidential campaign.

Ohio Sen. Vance and Minnesota Gov. Walz, the two men seeking to be the next vice president, went toe-to-toe in a spirited face-off and nobody called anyone stupid or a threat to democracy. There were no angry exchanges. No smarmy smiles. No hateful snarls.

The volume of the discourse remained at a tolerable decibel. And when the pair unexpectedly found themselves in agreement on an issue, they acknowledged it. There were no cheap gotcha moments, and no knockout punches. But there was a good deal of optimism.

You got the feeling these two could have walked off that stage at the end of the debate and headed off together to the nearest watering hole.

Both men came prepared. Each was able to effortlessly cite data and facts to support their positions. They seemed to enjoy themselves, and each other.

It was a far cry from the cringe-inducing, anxiety raising debates between first Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, and then Trump and Kamala Harris.

Tuesday night was what politics should look and sound like.

For the most part, Vance and Walz answered the questions they were asked — eventually. One notable exception was Walz's long and rambling response to why he said he was at the Tiananmen Square uprising in Hong Kong as a young man when he wasn't. He delivered a long and rambling soliloquy on small town life, admitted to being a "knucklehead" and, as he has when confronted with other biographical fabulisms, said he "misspoke."

It was a terrible moment for him, and his nervous dodging and darting made him look like, well, a liar.

Vance handled the complimentary question on disparaging remarks he made in the past about Trump far more deftly, sidestepping a potential embarrassing moment.

One of Vance's best moments — and Walz worst — came on the issue of abortion. Walz ticked off the the false talking points parroted in nearly every Democratic campaign commercial claiming Trump and Vance would maintain a registry of pregnant women, put them in jail and ban in vitro fertilization.

Vance handled the issue with a skill rarely demonstrated by a Republican politician. He acknowledged the GOP needs to "earn back America's trust" on abortion, refuted Walz ridiculous claims and moved on without major damage.

Vance scored big in turning the fact-checking tables on moderator Margaret Brennan., who attempted to correct his statement that Springfield, Ohio, was overrun with illegal immigrants. O'Brien claimed the Haitians in Springfield have legal status; Vance said that was only because the Biden administration twisted the law.

O'Brien and fellow CBS moderator Nora McDonald were more fair than the ABC team for the Trump-Harris debate, but did try to keep Vance on the defensive with their questions. He sidestepped the traps, and it was Walz who played defense most of the night despite the help he was getting from the moderators.

Walz did put Vance on his heels on the Jan. 6 Capitol riots and the question of whether Trump lost the 2020 election. The senator, like most of his Republican colleagues, couldn't articulate an acceptable answer. It was the closest Vance came to losing his discipline. That moment nearly evened up a debate that was clearly going Vance's way.

Both men stayed focused on their assignment. They weren't there to marginalize each other, but to tear down Trump and Harris. Walz did that by attacking Trump's record and some of the former president's more out-of-the box statements.

Vance focused on the fact that Harris has been part of the presidential administration for much of the past four years, and hasn't fixed the problems she is promising to tackle in the next four.

Give this debate to Vance on points. He was more authoritative and a more comfortable and skillful debater. And he told his own story, not allowing Walz to define him.

But in truth, I found myself wishing I could go to the polls on Nov. 5 and cast my ballot for a ticket made up of JD Vance and Tim Walz.