Opinion

Vance had better buckle up: His debate might go as badly as Trump’s

Like his boss, Vance does poorly with strong women interrogators. His recent appearance with CNN’s Dana Bash, which focused on his spreading of false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating residents’ pets, was a train wreck:

Losing his cool, Vance went so far as to tell Bash to “shut up.” (“Doesn’t that mean you should shut up about the residents of Springfield?”) When he accused her of showing favoritism toward the Democratic candidates, she replied tersely: “I think that if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz were making unsubstantiated claims that had racist undertones about people eating dogs and cats, I would — and they didn’t answer the questions about that, then I would have similar interactions with them.” His interview triggered another round of rotten headlines for him and the campaign.

Vance’s role in fanning what amounts to a racist blood libel, followed by his confession that he feels compelled to “create stories” to score points with voters, will not be his only vulnerability. Whether backtracking on assurances that former president Donald Trump would refuse to sign an abortion ban, or staking out a position that rape and incest shouldn’t be exceptions to abortion bans, or suggesting that people should stay in “violent marriages” (an interpretation he denies), or insisting that childless people do not have a stake in the future of the United States, or saying he “doesn’t care” what happens in Ukraine, Vance’s record is littered with gaffes, extreme statements and offensive slurs. (Recall his statement about getting grandparents to solve our child-care problem). He certainly will need to explain why he went from calling Trump “America’s Hitler” to praise so obsequious that it would make former vice president Mike Pence blush.

The larger problem for Vance, however, may be that he has not accomplished anything (other than getting on the MAGA ticket) in his two brief years in elected office. He has been part of the “no” votes on everything from IVF and contraception protection to the tough border bill (which Trump instructed senators to sink). As he faces a former six-term congressman and two-term governor, his lack of gravitas and substance may be painfully obvious.

Moreover, Vance’s debates against former Ohio Democratic congressman Tim Ryan during their Senate race went poorly. Cornered in one on his use of the great replacement theory to demonize immigrants, he sputtered. (“I think I struck a nerve there!” crowed Ryan.) Ryan repeatedly scored points on Vance, a Yale graduate and Silicon Valley investor posing as a man of the people (“absolute fraud,” Ryan said). Vance came across as surly and duplicitous.

In addition, Vance’s association with Project 2025 might well cause problems for Trump, who has tried to disavow any knowledge of the extreme right-wing policy guide. During an interview with Newsmax, Vance said there are “some good ideas in there,” but also other parts he dislikes. He also enthusiastically blurbed a book from Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, who piloted Project 2025. That book shares some positions with Project 2025, such as eliminating the Education Department. Vance might well be asked which Project 2025 ideas he agrees with. (Undermining the Federal Reserve’s independence? Firing 50,000 government workers so Trump lackeys can fill those jobs?)

Finally, Vance’s declaration that he would not have upheld his oath, as Pence did, to allow counting of the electoral votes after the 2020 election raises a fundamental question of his fidelity to the Constitution. It is one more indication that Vance’s only fixed principle is self-advancement.

Trump has two options. Because he is miffed about how his own last debate transpired, he could demand that Vance not show up for his. That wouldn’t be the worst idea, given Vance’s potential to make sore points for Trump into gaping wounds. Ninety minutes on national television will be more than enough time for Vance to remind American women why so many dislike him. Alternatively, Trump could let Vance debate and then disavow whatever his running mate says — which was his tactic when asked about Vance’s claim that Trump as president would veto a national abortion ban.

Certainly, vice-presidential candidates historically have made little or no difference in the outcome of presidential races. But with a deteriorating 78-year-old at the top of the ticket, and as someone who magnifies the most unattractive Trump qualities — e.g., xenophobia, misogyny, hypocrisy on immigration — Vance has not helped Trump. (That might be why Trump ducked the question from the National Association of Black Journalists on whether his running mate would be ready to take over if need be.)

In the end, voters will most likely base their decision on the top of the ticket. Nevertheless, given that Vance has turned out to be such a troublesome, unpopular and gaffe-prone choice, voters might well ask whether they want someone for president who most certainly does not pick “only the best people.”