Foolish Assertion

As a man who is explaining to people, women included, I must be mansplaining here. At least Nicole Wallace would think so.

In which a strong, independent woman with a national TV platform turns two other strong, independent women with national TV platforms and the power to literally silence Vance into victims who cannot handle… a man ✨talking✨ during a debate. https://t.co/KmzBJD9uSV

— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 2, 2024

Ironically, Wallace's argument would be stronger if she had claimed that Vance was simply incorrect. It is debatable (pun intended) whether there had been an agreement for the moderators of the vice-presidential faceoff not to challenge the candidates on the validity of their statements.

Preceding Tuesday night, articles describing or even listing rules of the debate appeared in, presumably among others, The Washington Post, The New Republic, The New York Times, USA Today, and TIME. Although it had been widely assumed prior to the debate that there would be no fact-checking by CBS' O'Donnell and Brennan, none of these pieces addressed the issue.

One exception was a article on the website of NBC Chicago, which was entitled Fact-checking and more: What are the rules for tonight's VP debate? There, we could read "unlike the September presidential debate, CBS announced Friday that it will be up to the candidates to keep each other honest at Tuesday's debate."

Presumably, the reporters did not make this up out of whole cloth. Rather, it is likely that while there was no written agreement on the matter of fact-checking, the two sides had agreed informally that the moderators would avoid it. I would characterize that in, in the traditional manner, as a "gentleman's agreement," if it weren't likely to trigger Nicole Wallace.

This is the exchange to which Wallace refers was referring

MB: Thank you, Governor. And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status. Norah.

JDV: Well, Margaret, Margaret, I think it's important because…

MB: Thank you, senator. We have so much to get to.

NO: We're going to turn out of the economy. Thank you.

JDV: Margaret. 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.

MB: Thank you, Senator.

JDV: That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway.

 MB: Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to.

There probably was an understanding between the two camps that "you guys weren't going to fact check," as J.D. Vance alleged. If there were not, either Norah O'Donnell or Margaret Brennan should have stated so following what Wallace labeled "mansplaining" by the GOP vice presidential candidate. 

Obviously, there was no such interjection by the moderators. We can only assume, therefore, that Vance was essentially correct, which suggests that, spontaneously or by design, the CBS duo itself broke the rules of the debate.

Even in the unlikely event that Vance was incorrect in his charge, his objection must not be written off as "mansplaining." He would have been as likely to respond assertively to what he believed, or at least claimed, was a breech of an agreement. 

The cynical might suggest that Wallace's accusation is as credible as one might expect from  a news host who frequently has her husband as a guest husband Michael Schmidt without ever revealing her relationship to him. If not so cynical, one should merely maintain that Wallace's nonsense is beneath her.

Share |