Hands down, Sen. J.D. Vance was the winner of Tuesday’s vice presidential debate. It was obvious that Vance was well prepared. He was focused, competent, confident, knowledgeable and thorough in his answers — all qualities we would want in a vice president who is second in command.
By contrast, Gov. Tim Walz was ill prepared. And what we don’t want is a self-proclaimed “knucklehead,” as Walz referred to himself when questioned about misspeaking about a Tiananmen Square visit.
— JoAnn Lee Frank, Clearwater, Florida
Walz emerged the victor
Democratic nominee Tim Walz won the vice presidential debate. He was informed and genuine and an active listener. The pundits and media reported that he wasn’t as smooth or polished as Republican nominee JD Vance, that he stumbled and gave a weak performance. They praised Vance for his smooth debate skills that he learned at Yale University, yet didn’t call him out for his ongoing lies and lack of reliable data.
Why? Have we normalized his dishonesty and falsehoods?
The overwhelming descriptor from the press for this debate was “Midwest nice.” I find that term simplistic and somewhat derogatory as it implies a lack of intellectual thoughtfulness and analysis of issues. At its best, it could describe the sensitive, kind side of Walz based on his campaign behavior in general, but there is no way Vance exhibits sensitivity or kindness when his campaign rhetoric instills fear and hate.
Walz is not an experienced debater. He acknowledges that, but what he brought to the stage on Tuesday was a knowledge of the issues backed by facts. He brought stories of real people, people who have been hurt by recent policies instituted in states inspired by Donald Trump and Vance’s inflammatory rhetoric. He also listened carefully to Vance, and rather than criticize him for every lie, he nodded and noted where they had similar ideas. Some say that was naïve and not politically smart, that he should have lambasted Vance for every lie he told and corrected his many misstatements, but he chose the high road.
Walz saved his anger for when it mattered the most: He asked Vance if he believed that Trump had lost the election. When Vance answered that he was focused on the future, Walz replied: “That is a damning nonanswer!” That says it all. It hit home more forcefully than if he had thrown out invectives like that throughout the evening.
It’s easy to follow the formal rules of debate if that’s what you’ve been taught. It’s more difficult to simply be yourself and present your ideas in simple, clear words without politics guiding your every word.
— Martha E Casazza, Glen Ellyn
Walz answered questions
As I watched the vice presidential debate, the question I kept asking myself during the first 30-plus minutes was this: Am I learning anything new about JD Vance and Tim Walz? The short answer was yes. Vance clearly was the better speaker of the two. If this was a football game instead of a debate, I’d say the score before the break was 14-7 in favor of Team Vance.
But football is a game of two halves, and that’s when Coach Walz started firing on all cylinders. So much so, by the end of the night, I’d say Team Walz won the debate 28-17. Because Walz actually answered questions thoughtfully, Kamala Harris should be pleased with her running mate’s performance.
I’m not sure that’s how Donald Trump feels about his running mate. The senator left so much unsaid, the former president just might need to debate Harris a second time. After all, he is the only person who can answer the questions Vance dodged most of the evening.
— Denny Freidenrich, Laguna Beach, California
Echoes of past injustices
Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance suggested solving the housing problem by rounding up immigrants and using their housing for people whom I guess Vance would think of as “real” Americans.
I heard echoes of the terrible losses suffered by innocent Americans of Japanese ancestry who were rounded up and interned in camps during World War II. I heard echoes of the thefts of artwork from European Jews by the Nazis, not all of which have been recovered and returned to their rightful owners. I heard echoes of present-day Israelis settling illegally in the West Bank.
That’s the solution Trump and his cronies are proposing? What a load of guilt they want to settle on the American psyche.
— John Podulka, Wolverine, Michigan
What about Mike Pence?
I listened to the vice presidential debate and heard JD Vance say dozens of times that Donald Trump did this or that, but that Kamala Harris is vice president and therefore she had either the opportunity or the responsibility for her administration’s policies.
My question is: What about Mike Pence?
According to Vance’s reasoning, Pence also deserves all the credit for the Trump policies and all the blame for the unfulfilled Trump policies solely because he was similarly vice president.
Oops. Perhaps Vance forgot that there was also a Republican vice president who gets zero credit for all of Trump’s policies. Unless and until Trump and Vance recognize the role of Trump’s vice president, they have no right to discuss the role of Joe Biden’s vice president.
— Kenneth Fleischer, Flossmoor
Act with respect, dignity
As we engage in the democratic process, let us not forget the fundamental Islamic principles of respect, dignity and the sanctity of life. The Holy Quran emphasizes the importance of respecting and honoring those who represent the people (Chapter 4, Verse 59). Moreover, Islam teaches us that every human life is precious and should be protected from harm (Chapter 5, Verse 32).
In light of these teachings, I urge all candidates and supporters to conduct themselves with respect and dignity, even in the face of disagreement. Let us reject the politics of personal destruction and instead focus on issues that uplift and benefit our communities.
Furthermore, let us work toward creating a society in which every human life is valued and protected from violence and harm.
— Zeeshan Virk, Franklin, Wisconsin
There will be no winner
Wouldn’t it have been better for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to have ended the war in Gaza and bring the forgotten hostages home instead of escalating the war with Hezbollah in Lebanon? Hezbollah would have ended the bombing of northern Israel if the war in Gaza had ended and so would have Yemen.
There is no military solution to endless bloodshed and violence. There will be no winner in the present conflict, and it seems Netanyahu won’t be happy until he gets the U.S. involved once again.
— Andrew Kachiroubas, Chicago
Downplaying tactic of war
In describing the state of Israel’s recent attacks directed against the Lebanese militant organization Hezbollah, using booby-trapped exploding pagers and walkie-talkies, the Tribune Editorial Board writes (“How should Americans feel about Israel’s pager offensive? The issue is the need to pay attention,” Sept. 25) that children and other Lebanese civilian victims of the explosions “should not have been near these pagers” and “were in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Such phrasing appears to downplay the inevitable consequences of Israel’s use of a tactic of war (planting explosives in civilian objects) that has long been expressly criminalized by international legal conventions to which the majority of the world’s countries are signatories, including the United States and Israel.
Have proponents of these attacks genuinely considered what it would mean to regard every single wartime combatant as some sort of macabre King Midas, automatically transforming anywhere they go and anything they touch into a legitimate military target? By contrast, how do such proponents react when militant organizations such as Hamas or Hezbollah adopt a similarly permissive approach toward targeting the homes and families of members of the Israeli military?
If an attack like this had taken the life of a child of a United States service member, killed in their own home by a bomb planted in their parent’s work-issued cellphone, U.S. public officials and media outlets would not celebrate it as “innovative” or search for “things to cheer” in the outcome. Instead, Americans would unambiguously recognize and denounce such an attack for what it was: a heinous act of terrorism.
— Will Grannan, Verona, Wisconsin
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.