Republicans celebrated J.D. Vance’s crushing victory over Tim Walz in Tuesday’s debate with a flurry of hilarious memes. Meanwhile, Democrats and the liberal media went to work to spin Walz’s pathetic performance, branding his lies over Tiananmen Square as mere matters of misspeaking and recasting the fear seen in his eyes as “passion.”
In addition to their efforts to prop up Walz, the Left also sought to damage Vance’s winning performance — and particularly the positive connection he made with women over the course of the 90-minute debate.
Vance’s calm demeanor, respectful tone, and serious discussion of the bread-and-butter issues that worry all Americans, contrast sharply with the image women had been sold by the leftist press of a knuckle-dragging neanderthal. The Ohio senator lovingly bragging on his wife while discussing challenges she faces in balancing her career as a successful lawyer and mom to their three kids further warmed women to the Republican candidate.
But Democrats and the party’s unofficial press corps couldn’t have that — not with women being one of the only groups where the Harris-Walz ticket still has a net favorable rating. So, the Left quickly invented a narrative to attack Trump’s running mate, with MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace, soon after the debate ended, claiming Vance’s “worst moment” came when “he attempted to ‘mansplain’ over muted mics.”
Wallace claimed that “if you’re a woman, that might be the worst moment JD Vance had, because he was going to mansplain right over that mute button. He was, and again, I don’t pretend to know how everyone will react to this. I think that a lot of women, in positions of authority that should command respect just by virtue of that dynamic, will see themselves and some do, the disrespect of them 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 can’t handle being challenged when they are wrong and must instead resort to whining about purported “mansplaining.”
And make no mistake, that was precisely what J.D. Vance was doing: He was correcting the moderators following their inappropriate interjection into the debate following a discussion on the immigrant crisis in Springfield, Ohio.
Following an exchange between the candidates on the topic, moderator Margaret Brennan added: “And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. 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 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 … 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 no mansplaining: That was a vice-presidential candidate in a debate properly and respectfully handling the unprofessional conduct of a moderator. Had Margaret Brennan been Michael Brennan, the same scene would have unfolded. And the only reason anyone would criticize Vance for his handling of Ms. Brennan’s breach of the debate rules is because they want to bash the Republican candidate.
Well, that, or they believe women really can’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 can’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 later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishments—her dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
