There was a moment in the Tuesday night debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz that's been overlooked by feminists and female pundits alike. It came after the question was asked about paid family leave, when Vance was asked if he supports "a national paid leave program." In response, the Senator said he cared deeply about the issue, and then spoke about his wife, the choices she's made as a mother and a woman with talents and a career, and what that's meant for their family. It was an honest moment where voters could hear that this was, indeed, a personal issue, and revealed that he and his wife, Isha, have faced the tough question of how to handle the need for child care in much the same way that so many American families have. It was a moment that showed his care for women, children and families. But oddly, it would not be the moment that most impacted the pundit classes, who went out of their way to paint him as anti-woman despite that being an obvious lie. The pundits that fawn over Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, who gush over how super supportive he is of his second wife of 10 years who has propelled him into the national spotlight and landed him big media interviews and positions of power and influence, are the same ones that deride Vance as a misogynist for speaking up for American families.
"I speak from this very personally because I'm married to a beautiful woman who is an incredible mother to our three beautiful kids," Vance said on the childcare question, "but is also a very, very brilliant corporate litigator, and I'm so proud of her. But being a working mom, even for somebody with all of the advantages of my wife, is extraordinarily difficult. And it's not just difficult from a policy perspective. She actually had access to paid family leave because she worked for a bigger company. But the cultural pressure on young families, and especially young women, I think, makes it really hard for people to choose the family model they want. A lot of young women would like to go back to work immediately. Some would like to spend a little time home with the kids. Some would like to spend longer at home with the kids. We should have a family care model that makes choice possible."
In this statement, Vance recognizes the need for a varied approach to childcare and paid family leave, noting that each should be available to the women who want that, while it should be possible for women who want to spend more time with their young children to be able to do that as well. He sees clearly that laws regarding motherhood and families cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach, but need to be nuanced and tailored so that families can get what they need and raise their children in the way that they, not the government, sees fit. As a mom who wanted more leave than I got, I appreciated the sentiment, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Vance and his wife are raising three children, they are both high-achieving, successful people, and if things go Vance's way, his career demands will only increase as he takes on a larger public service role.
But that was not the takeaway for MSNBC's Nicole Wallace, who found another debate moment to be even more poignant. To her, the key moment showed that Vance was not a supporter of women but a hater of some kind, a misogynist who resents powerful women, both when they serve as moderators for a CBS-hosted presidential debate and, likely, when they serve in higher positions of power. This moment was not about family and children, but about illegal immigration, a top issue this election season and one on which Vance has been outspoken. He is the one who brought concerns about the massive influx of Haitian migrants into the small, struggling community of Springfield, Ohio to light, and he's caught nothing but grief for it. He was asked about what he felt was the necessary relationship between the executive branch and congress when it comes to creating laws around immigration.
Vance spoke about empowering law enforcement officers at the border to "do their job." He spoke about the need for additional resources, but pointed out that most of the problem at the US-Mexico border is because the Biden-Harris administration has not let the border agents do the job of removing people from the US who shouldn't be here and denying people entry. As for Springfield, he said "you've got schools that are overwhelmed, you've got hospitals that are overwhelmed, you have got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes. The people that I'm most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris's open border."
Moderator Margaret Brennan let Walz respond to that, per the debate rules, but then she broke the debate rules that had been set out for CBS, going so far as to fact-check Vance in real time, which was not at all allowed. "And just to clarify for our viewers," Brennan said, "Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status." She did not intend to let Vance respond to that. In fact, these various semi-legal status designations have been dreamed up and implemented by far-left politicians over the years in an attempt to minimize the appearance of illegal immigration while conjuring up new ways to give illegal immigrants legal status without their having gone through the proper legal channels. Vance was determined to point this out.
"Well, Margaret," Vance began, "Margaret I think it's important, because—"
"Thank you, Senator," she said, cutting him off, "we have so much to get to."
"We're going to turn to the economy," spouted co-moderator Norah O'Donnell, backing up Brennan, "Thank you."
But Vance would not be deterred. "Margaret," he said, "The rules were that you guys weren't going to fact check, and since you're fact checking me, I think it's important to say what's actually going on. So there's an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years." She tried to shut him up again. "That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway," Vance went on.
"Thank you, Senator," Brennan said dismissively, "for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to." Walz jumped in, too, trying to defend the Biden-Harris administration's remaking the CBP One app, which was designed to better facilitate the importation of perishable goods, into a program fueling greater illegal immigration.
"Gentlemen," Brennan said, "the audience can't hear you because your mics are cut. We have so much we want to get to. Thank you for explaining the legal process." The moderators then unilaterally moved on to the economy, though it appeared that Vance and Walz both had so much more to say on an issue that ranks in the top 4 for American voters.
"And I actually think," opined MSNBC's Nicole Wallace during their post-debate coverage, "if you're a woman, that might be the worst moment JD Vance had, because he was gonna mansplain right over that mute button. And again, I don't pretend to know how everyone will react to this. I think a lot of women in positions of authority that should command respect just by virtue of that dynamic, will see themselves and some dude that disrespected them and talked over, you know..." she said, probably envisioning how horrified she would be had she been moderating in Brennan's place and Vance had the nerve to speak facts despite her push to move on to another topic.
But this wasn't a woman man thing, it was a citizen demanding truth thing. Vance knew that he had a moment to deliver necessary facts; that he had a slim window to break through the media's linguistic manipulation and get actual reality out there, and he took it. He took that chance for all of us, and personally, as a woman in a position of authority, I felt empowered by that, not by Brennan's demand to skip the truth for the sake of the schedule.
Emhoff is said by the progressive left to be redefining masculinity. He quit his job so he could boost Kamala and her career ambitions, which had greatly benefitted the Second Gentleman, who wants to be First as well. He goes out on the campaign trail and speaks in her place, talking about how great his brat wife's vibes will be once they fill the White House with joy. But it turns out masculinity doesn't need to be remade, it just needs men to stand up, tell the truth, and lean into that desire to love and protect their families. Emhoff banged a nanny and fathered a child with her while he was still married to his first wife, Rumors are now circulating that he hit some ex on the face while they were waiting for valet service outside the Cannes Film Festival in 2012 back before anyone knew his name. The pundits want men to look up at Emhoff and Walz because they are ineffectual, small men hungry for power and influence and don't care what lies they have to tell to get it. Vance embodies the kind of values that women can respect without trying, without fluffing, without fawning and that's precisely why women like Wallace and Brennan seek to knock him down.
