Vance proved he has what it takes to lead the GOP

The media told us that Trump made a colossal blunder in picking JD Vance, the childless cat lady hater and impostor hillbilly, as his running mate. It sure didn’t seem like it on Tuesday night. Neither he nor Walz had an easy brief — Trump is a polarizing character with a lot of baggage and Harris is a grating, flip-flopping, vacuous empty suit with an unclear agenda and a track record of incompetence. I expected Vance to come out swinging, but was surprised at how deftly he was able to bloody his opponent while remaining calm, collegial and likable at the same time.

Its been hard for me to watch Trump debate for a long time now. Sure, he did fine against Biden in July, but that was about as challenging as striking the final blow on a half-shattered piñata. Every other Trump debate performance in the last two election cycles has been a disappointment. So many times, I’ve been confounded by Trump’s inability to stay focused and deliver concise and effective answers in what seem like slam-dunk situations. I could give many examples, but let’s recall just one. Harris essentially filibustered the first question she got in the debate — are Americans better off now compared to four years ago? The dismal tone for the evening was set when Trump inexplicably failed to say, “She didn’t answer the question because of course Americans are not better off than they were four years ago.”

On Tuesday night, though, I found myself cheering for Vance in the same way I get excited when Josh Allen of my Buffalo Bills scrambles for a touchdown. Finally, here was a candidate who could not only articulate conservative viewpoints in easy-to-understand language but could do so without coming off like an angry crank. Every time he spoke, I found myself wishing he was at the top of the ticket, but also feeling reassured that, if nothing else, at least there’s a talented conservative prospect in the pipeline who could lead the party, if not the country, very soon.

Vance introduced himself and reminded us of his working-class bona fides, but he didn’t overdo it. He sensibly didn’t refer to his grandma as “mamaw” or dwell on his difficult childhood any longer than was necessary to make his points. The moderators hated him. Their mood seemed to darken as the evening went on because they understood that their job was to prop up Walz, but he was a bumbling, incoherent mess, and it was clear that, despite their best efforts, they weren’t going to be able to drag coach across the finish line. Not on this night.

Vance made the case for Trump better than Trump has been able to do for himself. But in doing so, he also undercut excuses for Trump’s disappointing debate performances in the process. Many of my friends on the right have been making moderator-based excuses for Trump for a long time now. “It was three against one,” they scream. And they’re right. But Vance showed that a skillful Republican can navigate hostile interlocutors and even turn the tables on them without coming off like a jerk.

Vance’s clear and concise description of the administration’s bogus use of mass parole and the CBP One app and his refusal to be silenced or incorrectly fact checked was a thing of beauty. Why wasn’t Trump able to turn the tables on his hostile moderators in this way against Harris, or in his 2020 debates for that matter?

He’s a very different person with a markedly different style and method of communication for starters. That’s a nice way of saying he’s a master BS artist with a bad case of ADHD. Vance explained to Americans how migrants are driving up the cost of housing and contributing to overcrowding in schools and hospitals, while Trump wanted to convince us that they’ve all just stepped out of insane asylums and are poised to devour our pets. This is a big reason why he’s getting crushed with college-educated voters. You could disagree with JD’s substance, but you had to at least take him, and his arguments, seriously. Trump too frequently relies on such an insane level of hyperbole, that he’s a lot easier to write off as a disreputable kook or characterize as an overserved and hyper-opinionated but poorly informed barfly.

Vance’s performance wasn’t flawless, of course. There were times when I thought he missed opportunities to stick a dagger in the governor’s receding hairline. His pivot to censorship in the seemingly endless J6/2020 election block of questions was a good idea, but he only scratched the surface of the Democrats hypocrisy on this issue. I was genuinely surprised that he didn’t point to Kamala’s anti-democratic coup and subsequent coronation and her avoidance of media. He also touched on her flip-flopping all too briefly for my tastes. In the immigration block, he should have pointed out that Harris used to call the wall “Trump’s medieval vanity project,” but now runs commercials featuring images of a wall, and promises to introduce a bill that included $600 million to build it. “So are you guys for the wall or against it?” I wanted him to ask.

Still, Vance’s only legit fumble was on the 2020 election result. He should have said, “Yeah, unfortunately Biden won and that’s why the country is a mess now,” and moved on. Trump might have been annoyed, but what could he do? Drop him from the ticket after Vance had just annihilated Walz on stage for the past ninety minutes? But these are minor quibbles. Vance was the Harlem Globetrotters and Walz was a paler, balder version of the Washington Generals on this night. Liberals found comfort in Vance’s 2020 election answer, insisting it was all that mattered. But that is nonsense. The only voters who are still foaming at the mouth about the last election aren’t going to vote for Trump.

We are told that VP debates don’t “move the needle.” But in a close election, I think Vance gave the ticket exactly the infusion of energy it needed. He also set himself up as the future leader of the party and gave a new lens for viewing my governor, Ron DeSantis, who is another leading contender for 2028. Seeing Vance on stage reminded me of DeSantis’s weaknesses.

Both men are in their forties, went to Yale and come from working-class backgrounds. But DeSantis seems to have more of a chip on his shoulder about it than Vance. Both are serious men, but DeSantis comes across as tight as a drum and too policy-focused. When DeSantis smiles on stage, it seems forced. When Vance spoke glowingly of his wife and children, it didn’t seem the least bit contrived. Fair or not, likability is massively important in politics, and Vance proved on Tuesday that he has what it takes to lead the party in the years to come.