Staff Reports
The final showdown between Sen. J.D. Vance and Gov. Tim Walz before the election is shaping up to be less of a debate and more of a proxy brawl representing the policies of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. As they squared off, Vance took the opportunity to air all the grievances that conservatives have held against Harris, portraying her as the architect of border chaos, skyrocketing inflation, and foreign policy blunders that threaten global stability. He’s not just tossing shade here; he’s throwing the entire shade tree.
While Vance dove into the multitude of problems that have blossomed under Harris’s watch, Walz decided to play the role of the defense attorney for Trump, albeit poorly. He labeled Trump a “fickle” leader who cozied up to authoritarian figures overseas and glossed over his own party’s failure to secure the border during his time in office. This is classic Democrat deflection; rather than focusing on his party’s record, he tried to pin the disastrous abortion policies on Trump as a means of rallying voter sympathy—a tactic that appears to be growing old.
J.D. Vance, Tim Walz battle over border, economy, abortion in election’s final debatehttps://t.co/pH4wq5jPls pic.twitter.com/10a42oXCFR
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) October 2, 2024
In the debate that had more sparks than a Fourth of July fireworks show, Walz concentrated on attacking the Trump-Vance alliance on the abortion front. He claimed that Trump’s judges created a disaster for women. Wasn’t it just a little too convenient that Walz, who has championed significantly liberal policies as Minnesota’s governor, suddenly took up this particular mantle? His arguments seem to spring from panic, given the fact that many voters see the Trump administration’s stance on judges and abortion as a win for life—and not just for the unborn.
On economic matters, Vance didn’t miss a beat when he called out the absurdity of having to defend Harris’s abortive economic record while liberal Democrat Walz attempted to convince viewers that the middle class was thriving. Vance reminded both Walz and the audience that it was under Trump where households experienced rising paychecks and diminished inflation—not a reality the Biden-Harris administration can claim. Vance deftly challenged Walz, pointing out the tightrope walk he had to perform between defending a failing administration and avoiding blame for the ultimate failings of the left.
The moderators attempted to play referee in this verbal tussle, allowing interruptions like a poorly timed comic relief. In a surprise twist, rather than the typical mute button shenanigans, both candidates got to tussle it out openly, showcasing their critiques—though Vance’s mic went silent when he nailed a fact-check about Harris’s contributions to the border crisis. The irony was palpable; Harris had her opportunity to shine, and it seemed she struck out completely.
While the debate may have lacked those dazzling “gotcha” moments that make political theatre worthwhile, it was clear that Walz fumbled over questions about his own past, leading to eyebrow-raising moments that left viewers scratching their heads. As the clock ticks down to the election, it’s evident that nothing short of a miracle will help modern Democrats recover from their liberal follies, and Vance and Trump may indeed have the advantage in a race that’s tighter than a pair of skinny jeans after Thanksgiving dinner.
