Initially, I wasn’t pleased when Donald Trump chose Ohio Senator JD Vance as his vice presidential pick.

In July, while attending the Republican National Convention, I shared on X that Vance was a “terrible choice for VP,” as he seemed unlikely to appeal to undecided voters. I thought his enthusiasm would come off as too aggressive.

However, I was completely mistaken, and I’m glad to admit it.

After the debate on Tuesday night with Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, my thoughts shifted from Trump to Vance and his perspective for America.

Voters should feel the same way.

Vance Outperformed Walz on Both Style and Content

Typically, vice presidential debates can be quite dull, garnering little attention.

However, this debate captured interest.

The low expectations were set due to the underwhelming performances by both former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in their recent debate. Vance exceeded my expectations significantly, and Walz also performed admirably, though Vance clearly came out on top.

Displaying kindness and substance, yet delivering sharp responses when needed, Vance effectively challenged Walz’s statements. He empathetically acknowledged the complexity of the issues raised by the CBS News moderators, suggesting that while they might share similar views, their approaches differed.

When discussing issues such as the economy, immigration, and gun control, both candidates showcased a calm and thoughtful demeanor, prioritizing meaningful policy discussions over insults and evasion (with a few exceptions).

Considering the harsh rhetoric we’ve heard from Trump since 2015, the composed approach was both surprising and refreshing.

Whether it was Vance’s challenging upbringing or his education at Yale Law School that honed his persuasive skills, the Vance we witnessed on Tuesday night epitomized the standard for political debates.

Vance’s kindness and empathy stood out as a significant contrast to Walz, Harris, and Trump. Americans are looking for leaders who inspire calmness and strength, and Vance embodies these traits.

This debate was crucial for Americans to clarify their choices moving forward. For the first time in years, I found genuine hope for America, prompted by the candidates’ demeanor.

Vance Addressed Key Issues, from Free Speech to Economic Strategies

Vance’s composure was only one of his strong attributes. He effectively expressed views on various topics that could resonate with all Americans, even those who identify as Democrats.

Unlike Harris, Walz, or Trump, Vance clearly articulated his positions in a manner accessible to everyone. He has been actively engaging with the public—not just at rallies but also by having candid discussions with reporters, even facing challenging questions. As a result, he provided straightforward answers to complex topics like border security and immigration reform.

In contrast, Walz appeared isolated, confined within a bubble of Democratic ideology, which was evident throughout the debate.

Vance’s commentary on issues like censorship and Big Tech was particularly insightful. He stated, “While there are indeed threats to our democracy, they aren’t the ones Kamala Harris and Tim Walz focus on. The real threat is censorship, where friendships dissolve over political disagreements, and tech companies silence individuals. Instead of engaging in dialogue, Harris advocates for censoring those she labels as spreading misinformation.”

As a working mother, I appreciated Vance’s nuanced perspective on paid family leave. He argued against a blanket federal mandate, suggesting instead that companies be encouraged to offer paid leave due to employee demand, emphasizing the importance of choice for women in the workplace. His acknowledgment of diverse needs among mothers reflects his experiences as a father and husband.

Vance reminded viewers that the economy flourished under Trump—something anyone with a budget can recognize. Amid the conflicts around the world, he also highlighted that we experienced relative peace during Trump’s leadership.

Vance’s most compelling argument was simply to remind the American public that Harris has had 1,350 days to enact the proposals she now presents as fresh ideas. “She has served as vice president for three and a half years. Day one was 1,400 days ago, and her policies have exacerbated these issues,” he stated during his concluding remarks.

However, Vance did have a notable weakness.

He chose not to criticize Trump for his actions on January 6, 2021, nor for the former president’s refusal to recognize his loss in the 2020 election.

This was the only moment in the evening when he seemed to dodge the truth. He understood the necessity of defending Trump’s actions but struggled due to their questionable nature. Vance attempted a balancing act, aiming to support his running mate while expressing that democracy takes precedence. He fell short.

Voters are wary of Walz’s deceit and policies

Walz is a much more skilled debater compared to Harris. However, like her, he seemed to operate in two modes: being dishonest or advocating for unwelcome policies.

When questioned about his claim of being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, Walz spoke about his small-town upbringing, military service, and learning experiences. He danced around the question, calling himself a “knucklehead.” When the moderator probed further, Walz appeared uneasy and couldn’t provide a clear answer.

While Walz acknowledged his love for hunting and support for the Second Amendment, he attributed school shootings to guns instead of the individuals committing those crimes. He mentioned having made friends with school shooters. Clearly, this was a slip of the tongue, yet his overall response failed to offer any tangible solutions to address school violence.

Walz is a progressive leftist, comparable to California Governor Gavin Newsom. Don’t let his Midwestern demeanor deceive you.

Vance for President?

In contrast, Vance envisions an America where working women are valued, the dignity of life is upheld, taxes remain low, and the borders are secure.

In Vance’s vision of America, disagreement is expected but accompanied by kindness and empathy. His approach does not advocate for civil strife domestically or hostility on the debate stage; instead, it highlights unity against external challenges.

The debate held on Tuesday has inspired hope that a constructive path exists, free from insults and uncertainty on pressing issues.

If only the order of the Republican ticket were different.