36 key lines to explain the Vance-Walz vice presidential debate

Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN

(CNN) — The vice presidential debate between Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota and Sen. JD Vance of Ohio was a civil and policy-oriented affair, and it included some important developments.

Both men admitted they had been wrong on past comments.

On many things they agreed, perhaps drawing a roadmap for bipartisan efforts on issues as varied as child care, housing and the economy.

Vance also issued a somewhat stunning acknowledgment that Americans don’t trust Republicans on the issue of abortion.

Here are key lines from the debate, which was hosted by CBS News in New York City on Tuesday.

Vance rattled off the short version of his own inspiring biography, which includes that he was raised by a grandmother on Social Security and that he joined the military and went to college on the GI Bill.

Vance was effusive in his praise of former President Donald Trump’s leadership and argued how much better things were during the Trump administration. Walz frequently allowed those claims to go unchecked, even when they were untrue.

The first question the men answered was about whether Israel should be able to strike at Iran. Walz turned that question back to Trump’s fitness.

Walz might have preferred to have Trump on the debate stage Tuesday night. Vance said many of the things Trump says, but he did it with a control that Trump lacks. Vance said Trump was effective as a world leader because of “effective deterrence,” which basically means people were afraid of him.

Vance directly answered the Israel question. One wonders how he would apply the “we should support our allies” test to NATO, the alliance Trump frequently criticizes.

Trump’s foreign policy was not without issues. He tried to pull the US out of Afghanistan by negotiating with the Taliban, something President Joe Biden later controversially completed. Trump negotiated, unsuccessfully, with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. He undid the diplomatic agreement by which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program. He also ordered missile attacks in Syria and the killing of an Iranian official in Iraq and a terrorist leader in Syria. The world was not exactly a quiet place.

Is that an acknowledgment by a top Republican of human-caused climate change? Hard to tell. Vance’s answer went on to make the argument that Trump’s proposals to massively increase oil production and invest in US manufacturing would help fight climate change better than Democratic proposals that acknowledge climate change.

Walz shot back that the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act had actually made investments in American manufacturing focused on the green economy:

Vance probably said more about the issue of immigration than anything else. He deflected from a question about mass deportation and whether Trump would separate undocumented immigrants from their American-born children to say the US must first focus on the border. He also tried to tie immigration to inflation, housing prices, the gun violence epidemic and more.

Walz argued that Trump’s rhetoric on immigration is tired because he did not solve the border issue or immigration while he was in the White House:

Walz pointed out Trump’s role in helping to kill a bipartisan immigration bill and said there’s enough agreement in Congress to get something done. Later, Vance would say the same thing about the economy. The two men actually both repeatedly talked about how they agree on a lot of issues.

Walz was critical of Trump and Vance for spreading false information about the Haitian community of immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. Vance did not retreat from his claim that immigrant communities are destroying American towns:

To which Walz brought out a Bible verse:

Here’s the verse, which is slightly different. It was an important moment to quote a Bible verse – a clear outreach to religious Americans on the border issue.

Following Walz’s response, one of the CBS moderators fact-checked Vance on his argument that the lives of Springfield residents are being “destroyed” by illegal immigrants. The Haitians currently in Springfield are, by and large, in the US legally.

When Vance pushed back and tried to argue the legal process is flawed and Walz pointed out the law has been on the books since 1990, they devolved into talking over each other. CBS cut the mics.

Vance is arguing Trump’s tax cuts that passed in 2017 caused a boom economists don’t think it caused. Cuts were focused on wealthy Americans and corporations, and the law drove deficit spending. Vance’s focus on “common sense” instead of experts like economists is something he came back to during the debate.

Walz is more trusting of the experts. He also made a point about the current tax system benefiting people like Trump – who reports have shown has not paid income tax in some years – over working-class Americans.

It’s not too far a leap from here to the vaccine skepticism of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Trump. But the anti-elitism of ignoring “experts” continues. Pharmaceuticals were a subject of conversation later in the debate, when Walz argued Harris should get credit for the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress giving Medicare new power to lower drug costs by negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies.

Walz has several times during his career talked about being in Hong Kong when democracy protests occurred in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. There’s evidence suggesting he wasn’t in the region until later that year, after the protests took place.

The misstatements feed a narrative that he can misspeak on key details. It also plays into scrutiny by Republicans of his time in China. This admission came after he first failed to answer a question from one of the debate moderators about the discrepancy and instead talked about his time leading school trips to China.

Separately, Vance was asked why people should trust him now after his many previous criticisms of Trump and Trump’s policies. Now he’s a true believer:

Vance also acknowledged that Republicans need to regain the trust of Americans on the issue of abortion. He has previously supported severe restrictions on abortion rights, a position he said voters don’t share:

Walz said women want to have rights from Roe v. Wade restored:

Walz also referenced multiple women by name who have been impacted by Roe’s overturning and forcefully argued that women should have control over their bodies across the country. He referenced Amber Thurman, a woman who died in Georgia after waiting too long for care after Georgia’s six-week abortion ban went into effect. A state judge this week struck down that law in Georgia.

On guns, Vance argued Americans should focus on school safety since guns are here to stay.

Walz said his son once witnessed a shooting at a community center. Experiences like that and meeting with parents who lost children in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting while he was a member of Congress have changed Walz’s tune as gun owner. At one point, Walz misspoke and said he was friends with school shooters. He presumably meant victims of school shootings.

Vance said the difference between the US and other countries with high rates of gun ownership, like Finland, is a mental health crisis. Walz said it’s dangerous to simply blame mental health.

Vance found many opportunities to bring the conversation back to undocumented immigrants.

Both Walz and Vance offered up ideas on how to solve the housing crisis. One thing Walz and Harris want to do is give $25,000 credits to first-time homebuyers, something Walz disputed would just drive up prices. Vance tried to explain Trump’s idea to just build housing on federal land, an idea for which there are few specifics.

Vance also tried to give Trump credit for Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, even though Trump tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to kill the law. After years of defeat, he allowed some changes to be made.

Now Trump says he still wants to replace the Affordable Care Act and he has “a concept” of a plan, but he has not released specifics. Vance said it would be silly to talk about a new proposal at the debate.

The issues of child and family care were a moment for some bipartisan agreement. Both men seemed optimistic about a federal family leave program, although such a plan has eluded both the Trump and Biden administrations.

Vance complained that women feel too much pressure to work rather than freedom to have families.

Vance struggled to explain Trump’s claim that tariffs would pay for a new child care benefit. It wasn’t clear if Vance was talking about the government or individuals paying more money for better child care.

Child care was another of the issues on which the two men saw some agreement.

But there was a wide gulf between the men on the issue of democracy. Vance tried to argue that Trump’s role on and leading up to January 6, 2021, was peaceful – a take that is the opposite of what federal prosecutors and the House January 6 committee have found. He tried to argue that discouraging misinformation is a bigger threat to democracy.

Trump did much more than tell protesters to peacefully protest. But the very next words out of Walz’s mouth were:

That was a prelude to him trying to say that Vance was completely wrong about the threat to democracy posed by Trump, which Walz said is still alive:

Trump has shown no indication he will accept the election results if he loses. Vance seemed to say it doesn’t matter if Trump accepts the results or not, or whether he tries to overthrow the election or not, as long as power transfers on Inauguration Day.

Walz asked Vance if he would agree that Trump lost the 2020 election, to which Vance said he’s focused on the future. Walz called that a “damning non-answer.” It was one of Walz’s stronger moments but came at the end of the debate.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.