Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod
Listened to Walz's responses again - his performance wasn't as bad as I initially thought.
But he did miss a lot of opportunities. He didn't say a number of things I was hoping he would say. He also wasn't emphatic in his delivery, and I thought it hurt him.
|
I maintain that Walz is the platonic ideal politician. He is in politics to help people and I think he's honest - in this case to a fault. Him admitting he mis-spoke about Tiananmen Square was curious. He was clearly uncomfortable trying to dodge the question and then his admission is seen as weak in a debate context, but it demonstrates his high moral compass and EQ.
It was probably a poor choice to try and find common ground with Vance given how the entire GOP is based around gaslighting, but if you look at it from that lens, Walz did what almost no politicians do anymore, he was trying to prove a point that if elected he has a responsibility to listen to the other side and try to find ways to compromise and move forward. It's always how he's been, like he was in congress:
We should actually celebrate that, but politics is so broken.