CNN Anchors Reflect on Vance ‘Laundering Trumpism’ in Debate, While Walz Falls Flat
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
After Tuesday night’s debate between Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) and Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz, CNN anchors walked away with a striking impression: both candidates seemed to achieve their primary goal of appearing likable, but J.D. Vance’s performance stood out for one key reason. As anchor Abby Phillip put it, Vance succeeded in “laundering Trumpism.”
During post-debate coverage, anchor Jake Tapper noted to his colleagues Abby Phillip and Dana Bash that both candidates set out to appear amiable, and in many ways, they succeeded. “They both set out to — and possibly achieved — their task of seeming likable,” Tapper observed.
Dana Bash labeled the event a “rehab debate” for both Vance and Walz, emphasizing that it was about image restoration, especially for Vance. “Certainly that was the case for J.D. Vance, that was his goal, of trying to rehab his image. And more importantly, the image for the guy at the top of the ticket,” she said, referring to former President Donald Trump. Despite the civil tone of the debate, Bash questioned whether it would have any lasting impact on voters.
Bash highlighted a striking contrast with other recent political debates, noting the cordial interaction between the candidates and their families. “That was not something we saw anything close to at the presidential debate,” she remarked.
Abby Phillip, however, was quick to point out that while the debate appeared civil, Vance came ready to attack. “He came to this debate to land a bunch of punches,” Phillip said. “And he did. He landed a lot of punches between all the niceties.” She noted that Walz appeared unprepared, allowing Vance to get away with unchallenged claims and falsehoods.
“He didn’t respond to a lot of the criticisms and attacks that Vance put on the table,” Phillip said. “He allowed some clear falsehoods to just go completely unanswered. On climate change, on his flip-flopping on Donald Trump, and even on Trump supposedly salvaging the Affordable Care Act — Walz took too long to refute these points.”
Bash, however, believed the problem wasn’t a lack of preparation for Walz but perhaps too much. “He had so many lines that he was clearly trying to say that he didn’t listen,” she said, attributing Walz’s stumbles to a lack of recent media exposure.
Ultimately, the anchors agreed that Vance, with more experience in public speaking, handled the debate better. As Phillip summed up, Vance’s goal was clear: to “launder Trumpism.” And by the end of the night, it was apparent that Walz didn’t offer much pushback.
