Without having watched the last 20 minutes of the debate or any post-debate commentary, these are my immediate impressions:
- Much more civil than what I expected. Good on both of the candidates.
- Quite frankly, Walz performed better than I expected on form, but not on substance.
- Vance did well, but I don’t think this debate will move the needle much, if at all, in either direction.
- Walz did a poor job of defending Minnesota’s macabre abortion-on-demand law, but Vance didn’t go for the jugular, asking Walz to defend the destruction of one million unborn infants in the U.S. in the last year alone. If you want to talk about choice, who advocates giving these infants the choice to survive? (If radical Democrats want to talk about genocide, this is what they should be focusing on.)
- I’d rather have both of these candidates at the top of their respective tickets than the current headliners.
- In fact, a Vance-Walz ticket, assuming Walz was the moderate congressman he was before he became a radical liberal governor in Minnesota, would be the best of all the sorry choices we have in this election.
- Walz’s bug eyes on occasion really give me the creeps.
- The moderators pulled their punches in asking the two most explosive questions that could’ve blown up the whole debate, because they don’t have the guts to ask them: Governor Walz, would you support Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia becoming the 51st and 52nd U.S. states? Do you support packing the U.S. Supreme Court?
