…because it isn’t worth more. As I assumed, nothing occurred in the debate that might be expected to change enough votes that matter, unless you believe that a Presidential nominee’s choice of Veep tells us something about the nominee’s judgment, management skills, responsibility, and priorities. It should, but historically, it doesn’t. I’m trying to think of whether anyone has been picked as a running mate on the grounds that the individual was the most qualified person to take over as POTUS. Harris wasn’t. Biden wasn’t. Pence wasn’t…I’m back to Grover Cleveland now. Nope!
Still…
1. It’s worth mentioning that the CBS moderators were almost as outrageously biased as the ABC hacks that mugged Donald Trump. Again, this is how the Axis of Unethical Conduct tries to rig an election—to save democracy, of course. At least Vance handled them as well as anyone could. No candidate should have to deal with partisan bias in a debate at all, however.
2. The rules were that there was to be no on-the-spot factchecking, but Norah O’Donnell factchecked Vance anyway, then cut his mic when he tried to rebut her—and her factcheck was wrong. Nice!
3. Kudos to Andrew McCarthy, the pundit and former federal prosecutor, for coming to Walz’s defense over his “friends with school shooters” gaffe. Of course it was a “speako,” and McCarthy is correct that conservatives shouldn’t pretend that he meant it. But it was too funny to pass up, so naturally Trump and others “pounced.”
4. If anything in the debate is going to haunt one of the two candidates, it would be this exchange:
Why did you lie about being in Hong Kong? “I grew up in a small town in Nebraska…”
I also have to say that “I am a knucklehead” ranks right up there with “I am not a crook” as a statement that does not spark confidence in an elected official.
Ethics Alarms 
After getting caught with his pants down, Walz’ attempt at a smile @~:38 (which hilariously failed to launch) reminded me of when Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy in FARGO) did the same thing after realizing he was getting painted into a corner by Frances McDormand’s Midwestern Nice Brainerd Chief of Police Marge Gunderson.
PWS
Did you come up with the “Fargo” reference independently? Because I’ve read many Jerry Lundegaard analogies with Walz. You betcha!
Matter-a-fact, yes. IMO, in both cases their reaction (however misguided) was to smile, and a millisecond later realizing “WTF, my @$$ is getting nailed to the wall and I’m cracking a grin?”
PWS
Bingo. Jerry is NOT someone you want to remind voters of.
He seemed to be running for Governor of Minnesota most of the time.
God, those two gorgeous harridans were incredible. Their questions of Vance might as well have been, “When did you stop beating your wife?” Maybe they were getting to it and ran out of time.
I was on Norah’s show once! (She didn’t like me.)
I bet she had a great career in beauty pageants. Such a swamp darling.
I was struck by two things when I looked at the screen. I thought Walz spent 70% of the time staring, unblinking, almost froglike directly into the camera. And then Vance would say something even slightly contrary, and his full-body incredulous swivel to the side was bizarre to watch.
i watched the debate, when was Vance incorrectly fact checked? I remmeber They cut off both mics when they were going back and forth and had to move on
DD
DD, any fact check was against the rules of the debate. Feel free to provide more than questions in your attempts to discuss things.
When was he fact checked and If he was incorrectly fact checked I’d like to know.
I’m going to just keep asking questions to annoy you. How’s your mother?
DD
Don’t be a dick.
Steve O, I’ve been reading your dickish and prickish behavior for years on this blog. You should be the last person to give that advice.
DD
Haha – I haven’t done a dickish thing in years, because most of the troublemakers are long gone. It’s only when troublemakers like NYT apologist “A Friend” or arrested 14-year-old “A Lib” show up, or people start advocating for beating up those they don’t agree with that the blade comes out.
We don’t need another Chris, thank you very much. We don’t need another Katie. We don’t need another Lib. It’s possible to differ without mocking, without sealioning, and without always coming off as rude.
I did not see the whole debate, but I did see the part where the mics were cut (was it only once?).
As I recall, Vance said something about illegal immigrants being in Ohio (very vague paraphrase).
Then, one moderator said that all of the Haitians in Ohio (Springfield?) were legal immigrants (here legally?).
(Do we agree that that was a fact-check?)
That is when Vance interrupted her and clarified the facts.
It is my understanding that Haitians that are here have been granted Temporary Protective Status (TPS), meaning they will not be deported because they are being protected from the violent conditions in their home country. (I recall similar things with Liberians a decade or so ago. Their TPS was set to expire and they would be subject to removal and there were concerns about whether TPS would be extended.)
Anyway, TPS would apply to all Haitians, whether they came yesterday, come tomorrow, or got in 10 years ago. In other words, Haitians entering the country illegally would have TPS and could not be deported and would legally be allowed to stay.
So, these two statements could both be true: 1. This Haitian is an illegal immigrant; and 2. this Haitian is here legally.
Vance was talking saying the first statement and was fact-checked with the second statement. He explained that the Haitians did not enter the country at a recognized port of entry, etc. The moderator cut his mic and thanked (?) him for clarifying the legal process.
The moderator deserved to be corrected because the fact-check was dishonest and deceptive.
If I were Vance, I would have kept filibustering even if they cut off the mic because they probably could not proceed if he continued to talk in the background.
The moderator was either stupid and did not know the law, or the moderator understood the ambiguous status of the Haitians and decided to exploit the public’s ignorance of that ambiguity to make Vance look bad by fact-checking him.
-Jut
I agree he was technically fact checked and Vance Shouldn’t have been if CBS agreed to that
I think these stations have to walk a line between fact checking and keeping their viewers properly informed of facts
DD
“I think these stations have to walk a line between fact checking and keeping their viewers properly informed of facts.
That’s all for commentary. Let the pundits do that afterward. It should not be part of the debate. And, frankly, I don’t trust them to be competent. Vance brought up the Minnesota abortion law and Walz said: 1. That is not what the law says; and 2. They fact-checked Trump at the last debate. First off, I would like to know what law they were talking about, but that would be a little bit inside baseball. Second, the fact-check in that case was dishonest, as well, but Walz relied on it as credible.
I thought they were even bad in the way they did set up for some of Vance’s questions.
But, they also did nail down Walz on the China issue, so I can’t say it was completely one-sided.
(And, I probably missed the last half of the debate.)
-Jut
Whatever your opinion is of the moderators, I think they feel it’s their responsibility to not misinform their viewers since they’re the ones hosting.
DD
Moderators shouldn’t misinform OR inform. Their job should only be to enforce the basic debate rules: Wait your turn, answer the question, keep your language family-appropriate, shut up when your time is up. What the candidates say is not the moderators business.
They think it’s their responsibility to undermine the Republican. The most destructive misinformation during the whole debate was Walz’s nonsense about free speech, and the moderators said nothing.
Denver Dave: “Whatever your opinion is of the moderators, I think they feel it’s their responsibility to not misinform their viewers since they’re the ones hosting.”
Then, they should not have agreed to the rule that they would not be fact-checking candidates. But, they did, knowing full well that such fact-checking has been criticized extensively.
and, the moderators still could not do what they agreed to do.
They are not trustworthy.
-Jut
#2: One of the mods (maybe O’Donnell) said she was just “clarifying”(rolls eyes) when she corrected Vance.
I actually think Vance did a great job and I wish He was running for President instead of Trump. It was a breath of fresh air to hear someone debate normally and not say a bunch of absurd and ridiculous things with no concern for what’s true or false like Trump.
i think many more people would vote Republican if we had someone like Vance running for President
DD
so close, do you consider Harris and Walz to be in the same category as Trump, in regards to saying false or ridiculous things? If not why not?
I really don’t care what his answer is, or anyone who won’t admit the truth. Walz repeated the lie that that Officers died from being attacked on January6. He said that the 2025 plan wants to “monitor pregnancies.” He lied about the weasel word change in the live abortion law that let’s doctors “care” (wink wink) for live-born infants after abortions. AND about carrying “weapons of war” into combat, and about being in Hong King when he wasn’t. He lies about substantive matters when it suits his agenda.
I do not no. Trump has no concern for what’s really true or false and says more false things compared to any other politician in recent memory.
DD
[See, James? I told you!]
shrug. I know You voted for Trump and hate the Democrats so I’m not really expecting an unbiased take from you on this matter but what I said Is 100% accurate.
Trump can’t go 5 minutes without saying something false. Whether he knows it’s true or false is irrelevant at this point. He had no care or concern for what’s true or false.
DD
I tried Jack, I really did, he almost met us in the middle.
Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe Kamala has any concern about the truth if it conflicts with her getting elected?
The issue was regarding the legal status of the persons brought in under the app that the Biden administration created to limit the numbers seen at the border. These persons flew into the country and bypassed the border crossing. All they had to do was claim asylum and never saw an agent. None of the info was vetted upon arrival.
Vance was explaining that these persons were given a temporary status by executive decree and thus they were not lawful residents. The mics were cut off when he was explaining the facts of the process . This executive order amounted to blanket prosecutorial discretion.
the app does give them legal status.
The app was developed by Customs and Border Protection annd legally operates within the framework of U.S. immigration laws and policies. It was designed to streamline immigration processes like getting an appointment for migrants seeking entry.
DD
CBP does not have the authority to grant anyone status. Their job is to enforce the existing rules not find ways to obviate them. These people are no different than those caught and released and awaiting an asylum hearing. That is what is happening. They are not green card holders. TPS was never designed to allow a president to grant everyone who asks from a given area temporary status. Imagine if a president signed an order saying anyone underemployed could sign up for federal welfare programs using an app.
The app was not designed by CBP. Biden’s appointed CBP chief provided support for its development by other App designers. It was designed not to streamline immigration process it was designed to allow more migrants into the country than could otherwise be handled without swamping the system. This was the goal. Swamp the system. This occurred because the Biden administration’s eliminated the rules that allowed the system to be overwhelmed purposely. Biden ended 91 executive orders that kept the numbers manageable in the first week of his presidency with no plan on how to handle the masses that he and Harris effectively told that our borders were open. That is what Harris was doing when she went to Central America The bill that Harris says Trump killed codified the Biden open border that included language that allowed waivers of any limits. The funding for new agents was to process people into the country and nothing for adjudication. That is why it failed.
The CBP app is just an app to streamline the process.
Immigrants cant use the CBP app to bypass seeing a border agent. It’s just designed to help with certain processes like scheduling appointments for migrants or providing information to expedite border crossings but it doesn’t replace the need for inperson processing by a CBP officer.
DD
DD
you just proved my point. Use the app. Fly into the US and never have to see a CBP officer who is trained to make cursory investigations into the background of the applicant. Interviews are an integral component of the preliminary investigation into requests for asylum. Homeland security developed the app to maximize entry into the US.
I think your interpretation is the best one. An Executive Order is an order from the president to executive branch employees. It just tells them what to do, it isn’t a law. An Executive Order can’t make them legal residents. He can tell the Border Patrol and ICE to TREAT them as legal residents, but they aren’t. No, an app can’t change the law and make them legal citizens. If it could…
“Need to sneak into a country and get legal status without any paperwork or compliance with the law? No problem! There’s and app for that!”
I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, that there’s a Dem operative on this comment thread like white on rice.