He wrote that on X, and I'm reading it this morning in "Vance Blames L.A. Violence on California Democrats and Disparages Padilla/Vice President JD Vance said during a Los Angeles stop that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass had encouraged protesters to engage in violence. He also criticized Senator Alex Padilla and called him by the wrong name" (NYT).
Maybe Vance should take Newsom up on that offer. It would focus attention on the administration's arguments. It's not as if the Vice President would have to go on to other debates with other other opponents on all sorts of issues. This is the Governor of California, and immigration enforcement and opposition to it are centered in California. This could be a unique debate.
How would the debate go? I asked Grok to compare the debating skill of the 2 men and to predict the outcome: here. (NOTE: bad link is fixed).
Please think it through before taking my poll:
Posts
65 comments:
I don't see the Grok response.
Don’t give the gimp Newsom the time of day. He’s a known ponce.
JD is a formidable debater. Newsom (please note there is no effing "e" on the end of his name) is dreaming if he thinks he could match wits with him.
We had a debate about immigration last November and the Democrats lost.
They don’t seem to accept the results of the election.
I'd watch. With popcorn.
Newsom doesn't like the fact he's totally irrelevant to the current conversation. If he had any balls he would have broke ranks with the rest of the Democrat NPCs and challenged Biden in 2023.
No. Plenty of real-world events need attending to right now, professor. Nobody but you academic-intellectual-failing types want debate-style games over... nothing. There are no coming elections nor any indication either party will change due to a ... debate. Change is coming, boomer. It really is.
mezzrow said...
I'd watch. With popcorn.
---------
"Here we are now. Entertain us."
The world isn't over for everyone, boomers.
I was thinking the other day how interesting it would be to get Gavin Newsom on record re all of these endless wars that Joe Biden championed so recklessly.
There seem to be a lot of recently unemployed 'journalists' like Acosta and Moran of late; I'm sure one of them now has the time to step in as an esteemed impartial moderator.
I am Laslo.
Debate Newsom? No, Vance should not. The NYT article is all about political theater, and that's what a debate would be. Newsom wants a debate to get traction for a presidential run and improve the prospects of the DNC in the midterm election. There is no upside for Vance.
Instead, Vance should invite Newsom to Washington to talk about about California and blue states in general. Dick measuring contests are fun and all, but at some point, Democrats have to start contributing. Vance should take the statesman role.
By now one AI bot debating another must be old hat.
They should be throwing the confederates in jail for breaking US immigration law and violating equal protection rights of Californians, not "debating" them.
Why elevate Newsome?
The VP debating a state governor is to the elevate the latter beyond his position, allowing Newsom to present himself as a player at the national level, gain attention, backers, make his nomination for 2028 more and more a foregone conclusion. Why should Vance give him the oxygen, it's not like the VP needs the attention, and he needs to be careful that he doesn't try to steal the spotllight from Trump.
Grok: "The debate would likely be a draw."
Ah, Grok ... uncommittal as always. Grok's fatal flaw is that it's anchored to mainstream media narratives that it is fed a steady diet of. Watch as it quotes MSNBC, as if MSNBC is an uninterested impartial media observer.
The fact of the matter is that Newsome would win any debate, because the media in the United States decides who wins debates, and they'll claim Newsome won - even if on stage, Newsome eats a small child.
Our media is corrupt. A nation with a corrupt media is finished.
Vance should fight Newsom.
I like this question asked: "How was Newsom able to do so well given his meager educational achievement?"
Answer: The Getty Family.
It continues to work for him.
Strangely, Grok's assessment of the DeSantis/Newsom debate seems to go against what I saw, what much of the nation saw. It pushed Newsom out of the picture at the time. His stock was rising, then the debate, then he was sent back to the minors.
Newsom is a greasy bug angling for his 2028 presidential run. He is inferior to the VP, so no need to debate. He'll have to earn the honor of being on stage with Vance, not handed to him as a cheap publicity stunt.
I have mixed feelings—Trump’s policies are overwhelmingly preferred to Newsom’s and the first rule of debates is the person winning should avoid them.
Still, I said yes because Vance’s strengths match well with Newsom’s and I think it’s a chance to help the California Republican Party, which really needs to get its act together—it wasn’t so long ago that California was in play and right now is the best chance they’ll have for a long time.
Another angle arguing against a debate is that it would cement Newsome as the candidate when what Vance really wants is for the Democrats to pick front-runner Dylan Mulvaney.
I voted no. Vance would run circles around him, but it would raise Newsom's profile considerably. Don't give him the oxygen (which he is obviously desperately seeking).
"Since you’re so eager to talk about me, how about saying it to my face. Let’s debate. Time and place?"
Translation: I’m smart! Not like everybody says… like dumb! I’m smart and I want respect!
I voted yes, because I hope it would freeze Newsom as the potential DNC nominee, and that will keep Democrats out of DC for another 4 more years.
JD probably shouldn't, (at least not until 2028 when they are both running for the Big Job) but wouldn't it be fun to watch!
It might be interesting to ask Vance why we are tearing up the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The reason countries sign it is that in exchange for allowing intrusive inspections, they get to have peaceful nuclear power, and to enrich uranium to a certain level, and Iran has been in compliance with it. The US is a signatory, and yet the Trump-Vance Administration is trying to coerce another signatory by use of military force to give up its rights under the treaty. So basically the US is immolating the NNPT.
But if this debate happens, it will all be about scoring points on hot button issues.
Jaq, there's a simple explanation for this.
We've altered the deal. Iran should pray we don't alter it further.
What was said above, this could only help Newsom. JD can and would crush him, but what's the upside?
Vance got Padilla's name wrong, calling him "Jose".
Newsom jumped on it, like a dope. Now a whole lot more people are going to know what Padilla did, and that Newsome has his back. They will probably also watch the video of Padilla tearfully recounting his "ordeal." Should do for Newsom what the "Manly Men Who Are Voting For Harris" spot did for the Dem ticket.
Methinks Vance is learning a thing or two from The Master.
Gavin should be careful what he wishes for. DeSantis isn't even considered a strong debater but handled him with ease, to the point Newsom's wife had to throw in the towel.
Newsom should take Vance out behind the gym and beat the hell out of him. Just like Slow Joe would have done. In his dreams. Not a joke.
formerlawclerk said..."Grok's fatal flaw is that it's anchored to mainstream media narratives that it is fed a steady diet of. Watch as it quotes MSNBC, as if MSNBC is an uninterested impartial media observer."
Exactly.
JDVance should stay completely away from Newsom in a debate. Why debate someone who has shown themselves to be not in contact with reality. No upside. Wait for 2028 to do your debating. Right now use the power of the office to hammer the failures of California and the rest of the democrat party.
JD doesn't need to engage in a sideshow with Newsom. And what's to debate? It's plain to see that Newsom and his ilk are actively encouraging violent unrest.
I voted yes- but I changed my mind. Newsum is just looking for a plug.
"Say it to my face."
Why do all democrats in power, sound the same? Like petulant Antifas, high school bullies, or the mob? They all sound like they read from the same Biden/mob manual.---"I'm going to take you behind the bleachers".
the man who helped destroy CA wants us to say it to his face.
I voted 'yes', but conditionally. It should not be run like a political televised debate - it should be run as a classical debate, Munk-style, where it starts with a 'Resolved' statement and proceeds. This way, nobody confuses it with a political race, and it becomes a thought piece, an exchange of ideas rather than cage politics. Newsom would run right out of gas. Vance would mop the floor with him.
BlueSky is a perfect microcosm of why people really, deeply dislike the Democrat party right now. The Progressive Democrats at BlueSky been left to themselves, and look what it's become. This is precisely what has driven people away, and continues to repel them. It is very easy to see, that when Progressive Democrats are in power, they want the kind of society that they have created in BlueSky, only in real life instead of virtual, and for everybody, not just willing subscribers. The evidence of this behavior is in place from Biden world, and it's ratified by visiting BlueSky. Poison, under glass.
JD is an excellent debated.
The left will need to surround any democrat JD debates, with many many dutiful leftist democrat media hacks...
I hope JDV references the "poop map" in any debate with Greasy Gavin.
"Say it to my face."
"Which one?"
typos galore.
Bumble Bee - LOLOLOLOL> perfect.
The best argument against violence is a showing of argument without violence. Bring back CNN Crossfire.
Frankly Gavin I don't care.
Gavin should simply be ignored. The debate has already been lost by the bug-eyed lefties. The ICE enforcement is proceeding apace, and the public still largely favors what the majority voted for.
Vance has more important tasks as Vice President than to give exposure to a preening popinjay with greasy hair gel.
- Krumhorn
I voted “no” on the Vance / Newsom debate. JD would probably throw him down a flight of stairs, but as the old saying goes “ Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself”. The California Gov comes across as a dolt so just let him keep talking, keep digging that hole he’s in.
I believe Vance would trounce him among thinking people. However, a debate would suggest Newsom actually has positions worth articulating. He does not. LA and his state are incompetently governed.
As I've pointed out before, Newsome is one of those politicians who talks in "corporate-speak." There's no substance and everything is sugar coated. That kind of talking is really annoying people right now. Period. Full stop.
"How would the debate go?"
Eye rolling, cross talk, accusations of lying, shouting. I doubt they would even agree on a subject, much less a moderator.
Instead of a face to face debate, they should match speeches, a la Lincoln and Douglas.
Debates are for a more civilized society with an honest media. What we would get is gotchas and spin and propaganda with a some Biden style noises and a c’mon mans…
i don’t believe there’d anything worthy of debate here other than the President has Presidential powers he is entitled to use. Perhaps a debate on what to do with activist judges and rediscovering the remedy for voter fraud…
I heard Newsom many times during Covid, doing pressers. I would be astounded if he could hold his own in a live debate.
Like Randomizer said….
While Newsom fiddled, Bass strummed a DEIst cacophony, LA burned and burned again. Now (no pun intended), Trump AdVanceS with federal intervention to mitigate catastrophic anthropogenic climate change and immigration reform.
Didn't Newsom already have or want to have a debate with some Republican last year? My internet isn't that good. Was it Ramaswamy?
It’s a good time for Vance to start picking his opponent for 2028. He should debate Newsom on this issue. Make Newton the Face of the Opposition. Then clean his clock in 2028
Insert video of Newsome's debate with Adam Carolla here.
If you haven't seen it, it's epic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42wbI7LxRns&t=1s&pp=ygUkZ2F2aW4gbmV3c29tIG9uIGFkYW0gY2Fyb2xsYSBwb2RjYXN0
Lazarus said...
Didn't Newsom already have or want to have a debate with some Republican last year? My internet isn't that good. Was it Ramaswamy?
He was about even with Desantis in the debate where the GOPe was trying to prop Desantis up and take over after Trump was thrown in jail.
Oh please, Achilles, Newsom was taken apart by DeSantis, and he would be taken apart by Vance.
Part of it is that Newsom lives in an all-Dem world where he's never challenged, but the big part is his positions are shit, because the positions the Democrat Party activists require their candidates to take are shit, and therefore there's no way he can win a debate as judged by normal Americans.
The Newsom position in the National Guard case was "Trump shouldn't be allowed to Federalize the National Guard because doing so pisses off the people who are upset that president Trump is following his oath and enforcing US immigration law. How dare he try to claim that no one is above the law!"
You can't win a debate in front of a national audience when you're stuck on the 20 side of all 80 - 20 issues
Yes, but not now. There’s no benefit for Vance at the moment. But the match up is inevitable.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.