Veepstakes: “A Cheeseburger Away”
By • October 2, 2024 0 9
In one memorable phrase uttered on “Morning Joe,” The Atlantic’s David Frum captured the nightmare that awaits us if the Republican ticket takes the White House. Needless to say, he was not relishing the prospect.
Tuesday’s debate was a study in contrasts: the affable mid-western-nice Governor Walz vs the polished yet shape-shifting performance of Yale-educated Senator Vance. A passionate support of the environment, women’s freedom and the social safety net vs sanctimonious mansplaining of family leave, job creation and immigration.
It was also a master class in truth telling and “story” telling. Yes, CBS moderators were not required to fact-check in real time—I wonder how many viewers actually checked out the QR code—but there were a couple of whoppers that should give even the staunchest Republican voters pause. Vance’s insurrection denialism and revisionist history, for example. His dancing around a national ban on abortion (which he denied supporting despite evidence to the contrary). His stubborn refusal to say who won the 2020 election or if he will accept the results of 2024 (if the Democrats win). That’s a pretty big deal!
According to the Vance playbook, the Trump administration saved the ACA. Peacefully transferred power before the 2021 inauguration. Protects women’s and voting rights. Tariffs, not a more equitable tax structure, will pay for childcare and housing development. And immigrants are at the root of all our problems.
Walz was clearly nervous at the start. He had that deer-caught-in-the-headlights look as he faced the camera and reacted to Vance’s statements. But as the evening wore on and the conversation touched on topics where he had expertise and a clear POV, he gained strength and stature. His best line (responding the Vance’s suggestion that we need to “harden schools”): “It’s just the guns.” I still don’t understand the Tienanmen issue; if that’s considered a “gotcha” moment, I missed it. More like false equivalency. When it comes to lying, there’s no contest.
Still, it was a civil evening, not one that made me want to take a hot shower after. It was like those debates in the Before Times—where policy differences not personal attacks took precedence. Vance attempted to display the kinder, gentler face of Trumpism. Walz was his most authentic self.
In the end, I don’t know if we really care about the VPs’ opinions or positions. Their job is to make you feel good about their boss. Do you like them, trust them, believe in them? Or not. It’s not so much what they say, but how they make you feel about your future and America’s. I know whose vision I prefer and who I’d like to see a cheeseburger or samosa away from the Oval Office.
What about you? Who do you think won the debate? Will it influence your vote in November? Let us know in the comments.
