From Politico, prognosticating about how tonight’s debate might go: “Both men struggle at times to hide their tempers, and with plenty of bad blood between the two of them — stemming in large part from Vance’s attacks on Walz’s military record and Walz’s crusade to label Vance as “weird” — don’t be surprised if things turn personal.”
That’s clever—biased, insidious, but clever.
Walz has been dishonest about his military record. That is a matter of record, and pointing it out to a public that knows nothing about Walz’s past and character isn’t “personal.” Calling an opponent “weird,” however, is pure ad hominem, and a personal attack by definition. (Interesting that the self-labelled “public school teacher” wields schoolyard-style insults. I thought teachers were supposed to explain why such jibes are wrong.)
So we have Politico, a Democratic propaganda news site, engaging in false equivalence to validate Walz’s cheap tactic (admittedly, one favored by Donald Trump) while minimizing Walz’s very real misrepresentation of his military record.
The news media deserves to be rejected, foiled, mocked and crushed by this election. Their efforts to rig it are so transparent. It is an ongoing assault on democracy and a betrayal of the public.
Ethics Alarms 
And somehow, the actual conversation in the debate was cordial, respectful, and cogent. I actually came away with a higher respect for Walz than going in, but then, I’ve never listened to him before. If there was any mention of stolen valor or weird, I must have missed it, and they did not descend into rages. I walked away from the debate wishing our VP candidates were actually our presidential candidates.
You’re a fair, forgiving and objective person. For me, Walz repeating the Big Lie about police officers dying from the Jan. Riot and his “humina humina” response to being called on his lie about being in China during Tienanmen Square tell me he’s untrustworthy.
I try to be, at least.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a favorable view of Walz even now. There were a host of things he said during the debate that had both my wife and I furious. (The moderators interjected themselves into the debate several times that also raised our ire, but that’s another topic…) When he mentioned coming home from midnight Mass at Christmas, my wife lost it and started shouting at the TV.
Democrats have to push the January 6th riot until their dying day. They were hoping so badly for a real right-wing insurrection, and that was all they got, but their game plan requires them to keep flogging it. Regarding Tienanmen Square, I turned to wife and said, “That’s the longest statement I’ve heard of someone trying to say he lied without saying he lied.”
Overall, I thought Walz was fantastic in comparison to Harris or Trump. But I felt Vance did a fantastic job in keeping Walz on the defensive. Some commentators are saying that Vance mopped the floor with Walz, but I disagree and felt that it was a roughly even debate in which Vance did come out on top, but not by a wide margin.
There were a couple of things that I I especially liked during the debate. There were moments when Vance was talking, and Walz was nodding along with what he was saying. The two occasionally voiced agreement on some points (such as general goals, if not the tactics). I also like Vance stating how sorry he was to hear that Walz’ kid had a close encounter with a school shooting, and how Walz was very gracious in accepting said condolences.
Jan 6th is such a lynchpin in the Never Trumpers game plan, I can’t help but be very suspicious of it in a Reichstag-Fire kind of way. Especially on the heels of the Gretchen Whitmer “kidnapping.”
I’m tired of feeling like some weird conspiracy theorist but the government is doing some really sketchy stuff.