Republicans celebrated J. D. Vance’s crushing triumph over Tim Walz in Tuesday’s conversation with a burst of brilliant jokes. Liberals and the liberal media worked their way into Walz’s pitiful achievement, branding his lays over Tiananmen Square as simple cases of misspeaking and recasting the concern he saw as “passion.”
The Left also made an effort to undermine Vance’s excellent performance, and especially the strong link he made with ladies throughout the 90-minute debate, in addition to their efforts to support Walz.
Vance’s calm tone, courteous tone, and critical conversation of the bread-and-butter issues that worry all Americans, contrast sharply with the photo women had been sold by the leftist click of a knuckle-dragging ancient. The Republican candidate’s woman was warmly greeted by the Ohio senator’s loving embrace of his wife while addressing difficulties that she faces in balancing her three-year career as a powerful lawyer.
Democrats and the illegal press corps could n’t, of course, because people are just the ones whose ratings the Harris-Walz ticket still have are also highly favorable. Thus, the Left immediately invented a narrative to strike Trump’s running mate, with MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace, shortly after the debate ended, claiming Vance’s “worst moment” came when “he attempted to ‘ mansplain’ over subdued mics”.
Wallace argued that if you’re a lady, that might be the worst time for JD Vance because he was going to mansplain right over that mute option. He was, and again, I do n’t pretend to know how everyone will react to this. Many women, in positions of authority that should be respected because of that fluid, may see their own actions as disrespectful and talked over.
But as I posted on X in response to a similar framing from a self-described “gender-bias expert”, as a woman, let me explain what these supposed feminists are saying: They and the female moderators are so weak and incompetent, they ca n’t handle being challenged when they are wrong and must instead resort to whining about purported “mansplaining”.
And do n’t get me wrong, J. D. Vance was correcting the moderators after they made an inappropriate interjection following a discussion on the immigrant crisis in Springfield, Ohio.
Following an exchange between the prospects on the subject, facilitator Margaret Brennan added:” And just to understand for our listeners, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Creole workers who have legal standing. Temporary protected status”.
Vance sought to reply, saying” Well, Margaret, Margaret, I think it’s important”, before Brennan and her fellow moderator Norah O’Donnell cut him off.
The Ohio senator was having none of it and continued:” The rules were that you guys were n’t going to fact check, and since you’re fact checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on. In order to become a legal migrant, apply for asylum, or be granted parole, and do so with the help of a Kamala Harris open border wand, you can also apply for citizenship through the CBP One app. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years … That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway”.
The moderators then cut Vance’s microphones as Walz and Vance continued the debate, with Walz claiming” those laws have been in the book since 1990″, but Vance countered, albeit muted by the silencing of his microphone,” ]t ] he CBP app has not been on the books since 1990. It’s something that Kamala Harris created”.
That was not a mansplaining: It was a vice-presidential candidate who handled the inappropriate behavior of a moderator politely and respectfully. Had Margaret Brennan been Michael Brennan, the same scene would have unfolded. And the only reason anyone would criticize Vance is because they want to attack the Republican nominee for the role she played in breaking the debate rules.
Well, that, or they believe women really ca n’t handle the tough job of moderating high-profile debates, in which case, there are two options: Female moderators either need to man up or if they ca n’t take heat, stay in the kitchen.
Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She then worked for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals as a permanent law clerk for nearly 25 years. Former full-time university professor, Cleveland teaches adjunct occasionally. The New Civil Liberties Alliance also has Cleveland as its attorney. Cleveland is a follower of her greatest accomplishments, her dear husband and dear son, on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. Cleveland’s views are those expressed here in her personal capacity.