Truth and consequences – the Vance-Walz VP debate’s nuclear moment

The first of the two moderators at CBS headquarters in New York promised “a consequential night ahead” – everyone knew that was a lie because Vice Presidential debates have never counted for anything, never moved any dials, never shifted any allegiances. They are pro forma chores, performed for an impatient electorate. No matter how big a network TV anchorwoman’s shoulder pads are it could not make it true. The non-entity runners-up would never be able to affect the outcome of the election – not even the top of the ticket debate devolving into the  eating of pets could change the trajectory.

They said voting was already underway in twenty states. Five weeks out from the Presidential election and voting has started in almost half the country. Christ how idiotic. Putting Christmas presents under the tree at Halloween. Their state-by-state basis for a nationwide federal office – with no uniformity at all – is a moronic electoral system. Having random states vote months in advance is just pointlessly insane. Trump could well be killed in a third-time-lucky assassination by then. Do Americans appreciate how faulty their elections are? The obsession with machines to do the voting and the counting are bad enough but the rest of the rules are also mad. It’s as though they were formulated 236 years ago.

The two moderators sit behind a garish plastic desk, they are generic middle aged white women – they could be twins. Twin Barbies. For balance they wear the colours of the candidates ties – one blue, the other fuchsia. The first, in blue, gives her name and introduces the candidates – all done rapidly. The two candidates give big phony American smiles as the camera dollies in. There’s an awkward sequence of nodding from the hosts before a cut to the podiums where it appears the candidates have just shaken hands – but the moment was missed. Live television – nothing like it. Fuchsia barbie goes through the agreed debate rules. Questions will be directed to one candidate who will have two minutes to respond and then a two minute rebuttal with an another one minute each for further points and an additional one minute each at the discretion of the moderators. Blue barbie tells us CBS reserves the right to mute candidates’ microphones “to maintain decorum” and assures us the questions have not been shared in advance. Incredible that they would even have to mention this but CNN hated Trump so much they gave Hillary Clinton the questions in advance in 2016 so it has been a live issue since then.

Vance was wearing more eyeliner than the two female hosts were and what’s more he did his own. He has a sleazy confidence. Maybe he had got to second base with the sofa in the Green room just before, who knows. Walz was practically bald, looking and like Ed Asner (Lou Grant) but more concerned than confident, unsure.

Inexplicably there is no opening statement. How demeaning to the candidates, like they don’t deserve the respect of affording them this because they are merely the Vices that aren’t worth a pitcher of warm piss. This is irritating and just wrong – no-one in their right mind would start it like this, it’s just rude. It forces the candidates to use up time on the first question introducing themselves and giving their overview. This diminishes everyone including the viewers. A terribly bad call.

It starts with a dramatic question on the Middle East. “Earlier today Iran launched its largest attack yet on Israel, but that attack failed thanks to joint US and Israeli action…” See how they framed that? It “failed.” Because no civilians were killed like how Israel defines a successful attack? Failed because only some of the missiles got through to their intended (military) targets? The only thing failing in this was the journalism. They’re the ones that need to be fact-checked. Straight out propaganda, just like NZ mainstream media, how familiar. Fuchsia barbie recounts all the American military assets scrambled to defend their 51^st state and then simply says: “Iran is weakened.” As if the propaganda spiel listing American hardware alone justifies that claim. It is just outrageous. She says Iran getting nukes is down to “one or two weeks time.” Astounding claims just thrown out there. “Governor Walz, if you were the final voice in the situation room would you support or oppose a pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran? You have two minutes.”

He finally looks up from the podium and he looks ill. Is he pale or is he just Minnesota white? He’s nervous. He’s swallowing hard, he’s stopping and starting. He mentions October 7^th. He mentions the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He’s struggling for coherency. “But the expansion of Israel and its proxies is an absolute and fundamental necessity for the United States to steady leadership there…” He meant Iran. He meant Iran. He said Israel, but he meant Iran. He’s barely into his third actual formed sentence and he’s got the two confused. What a mess. You wouldn’t want this guy even serving coffee in the situation room let alone making a final decision on anything that might precipitate WWIII – he’s likely to nuke the wrong country. Then he suddenly veers off saying that Trump in the Presidential debate was an 80-year old talking about crowd sizes and how terrible he is. And I thought Harris was the flaky one!? His disjointed sentences are just random bullet points. He’s running down the time and he hasn’t answered the question, squeezing in at the end: “we’ll protect our forces and allied forces and there will be consequences.” It took until the last seconds of the two minutes to get a concrete answer that was both vague and belligerent.

Same question to Vance. He gives an introduction to himself instead – completely understandable. He sounds smooth, slick. He hits on “the American dream.” He handles it like a pro, making Walz’s flubbing by contrast much worse. He pivots to attack the Biden administration for easing sanctions on Iran. Fair enough. To his credit (and he did this throughout the debate whereas Walz seemed incapable of it) he reiterated the question and then answered it. “It is up to Israel to do what they think they need to do to keep their country safe and we should support our allies wherever they are fighting the bad guys. I think that’s the right approach to take to the Israel question.” But it was an Iran question wasn’t it? “Bad guys” was a folksy phrase aimed to the lower education grades where Trump is doing well.

Neither candidate wanted to sketch out the strategic issues of what protecting forces and supporting our allies would mean. That sketch might take on the shape of a mushroom cloud – no wonder they don’t want to start painting by numbers provided by Netanyahu on live TV. But the pink moderator asks Walz if he cared to respond to any of the allegations. Walz hammered Trump calling him “fickle” repeatedly, emphasising Harris as “steady”. Fushcia barbie – according to my understanding of the rules – should have asked Vance to respond, but instead she asks him about Trump’s previous stance of exiting the Iran nuclear deal and his recent statement saying a diplomatic deal must be made with Iran because “the consequences are impossible. Did he make a mistake? You have one minute.” The question itself is valid, but I don’t think that is within the rules for her to have posed it – especially when she just simply gave the floor to Walz to say whatever he wanted. I’m calling bias here – and we’re still only on the first question (it happened again later too). Vance says the last three and half years have been under Biden/Harris not under Trump and that’s where the blame lies claiming there were no conflicts breaking out under Trump (which is true enough, but still unsatisfacory).

Interestingly, disturbingly, neither of the candidates refuted the moderator’s claim Iran is a week or two away from becoming a nuclear power. Assuming Trump is still receiving briefings – as he is entitled to as a former President – is he in receipt of the same information – and is this why he now advocates a diplomatic solution? Is the fortnight window to a potential Middle East Armaggedon a consensus opinion?

Gaming out the Iran – Israel scenario in the new dispensation where both have nukes becomes somewhat confounding. Only semi-organised skirmishes of little consequence have ever taken place between nuclear powers before, but this could be quite a different affray given Israel’s hardline government and their vowed policy of depriving Iran of nukes. What would the US involvement be? My guess is this is why Trump has swung towards resolving things without conflict – because the outcome of a confrontation is unpredictable. Trump has been vocal about how affected he was by his inaugural nuclear briefing and how unthinkable their use would be and there seems no reason to doubt his sincerity on that. His boasting of saving 20 million Koreans from war by meeting Kim Jong Un indicates he will take political risks to prevent tensions boiling over. But the election is more than two weeks away and Biden is Commander in Chief until January regardless of the result.

Biden has been so weak on Israel we stand at a dangerous junction. He looked and sounded lucid – for the first time in months – during a hurricane emergency meeting this week, but that natural adrenaline (or Dr Biden’s Jill juice) cannot be relied upon in a circumstance of an intense crisis. That crisis could arise whenever Netenyahu and his war cabinet choose, whether it’s a reaction to Iranian developments or not.

My guess is the AIPAC pressure suppressing Biden’s free hand evaporates on polling day, so the acute jeopardy is from now till then. If Netenyahu thinks Trump will cut a deal with Iran (to stop their nukes in exchange for lifting sanctions for example), Netenyahu might calculate it is better to pre-emptively strike Iran before the election. Iran might well see the best outcome as a deal, but since that is a 50/50 probability dependent on a Trump win they might see going nuclear before the election and before any Israeli strike as the next best outcome and the more realistic option. There could be brinkmanship ahead with the US at its absolute weakest in terms of decision-making. Whether the Israeli red line is crossed before the election or not the fact the assessment is that it could be is enough to sober up the rhetoric at least. What does support to Israel look like, and does that mean committing any of the 40,000 US troops in the theatre to action that would make them targets? All of this seemed to be above both VP candidate’s pay grade.

Interestingly, disturbingly Ukraine was not a question – nor was it an answer, it never arose in the course if the debate (or if it did it was a blip inconsequential enough that I missed it). The US can – and let’s be honest about it – single-handedly cause the worst land war in Europe since WWII killing tens and probably hundreds of thousands and spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it and it’s not even worth debating! It is incredible to an outsider, yet Americans seem so blasé about starting and funding wars they don’t even question their murderous, wasteful, barbarism – apparently not an issue. Tie themselves in knots on abortion, on trying to make an insurance-based healthcare system work, yet dragging NATO into a war with Russia… not important. They are a degenerate people in many ways that they cannot comprehend.

As for the balance of the debate: Walz overcame his nerves, but demonstrated what I’ve seen before as a reflexive avoidance of answering a straight question which is infuriating and damages his credibility. Vance came under increasing pressure until he also resorted to all-out avoidance. Both exaggerated and fibbed a bit. Both made an effort to agree with each other where it arose in total contrast to the outright visceral hostility of their running mates in Presidential debate.

Both would be adequate VPs. Both lack the presence and personality to be the President – which is exactly why they were chosen.