XPost: alt.fraud, free.tampon.tim.walz, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has surely benefited from his portrayal as the country’s “football dad.” But he wouldn’t have passed the truth test in my father’s household, where lying was ranked as the highest punishable
offense.
I’m not saying that Walz lies, precisely. But he tends to gild his résumé
for political gain. He’s hardly the first to do this. And it’s not always detrimental to one’s career, as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) has
proved. Blumenthal claimed to be a Vietnam veteran even though he sought
and received at least five deferments to avoid serving in the war.
Walz, too, is a bit of a fibber.
Take his 1995 arrest for drunken and reckless driving. Walz, then a 31- year-old high school teacher, was clocked at 96 mph in a 55-mph zone in Nebraska. He was pulled over by a state trooper, who, upon smelling
alcohol, asked Walz to take a field sobriety test, which he failed. Walz
then submitted to a hospital for a blood test, which revealed his blood
alcohol level to be 0.128, well above the state’s legal limit.
All this information is recorded in police records, yet during Walz’s 2006 congressional campaign, the press was told that he hadn’t been drinking,
that he drove himself to the police station and that the reason he failed
his field sobriety test was because of a misunderstanding related to
hearing loss from his time in the National Guard artillery unit.
In 2018, when Walz was running for governor of Minnesota, he came clean
and admitted to drinking and driving. Telling the truth eventually is
better than never at all, I suppose — and Walz now refers to his
incarceration that night as life-changing. Today, his go-to beverage is
Diet Mountain Dew. But Walz’s prevarications didn’t stop there.
Now, admittedly, there’s lying and then there’s LYING. When Walz said he
and his wife wouldn’t have their two children if not for in vitro fertilization, he was pointing to his Republican opponent, Sen. JD Vance,
whom Walz accused of wanting to eliminate IVF as a fertility option. But
the Walzes did not, in fact, use IVF, according to his wife, Gwen Walz,
who clarified the record in a statement. The couple went another less- expensive, less-invasive route — intrauterine insemination — which is also
less ethically challenging because, unlike with IVF, no embryos are
created outside the womb.
This might seem a small deviation from the truth if Walz hadn’t been using
the anecdote to attack Vance on a false premise. Both Vance and former president Donald Trump are on record as supporting IVF.
Meanwhile, it is doubtful that Walz concerns himself much with the ethics
of “women’s reproductive health,” including abortion, since he signed a
bill last year that would no longer require doctors to preserve the life
of infants who survive abortion. Whereas Minnesota law used to require
medical personnel to “preserve the life and health of the born alive
infant,” the Walz-approved law says only that doctors “care for the infant
who is born alive.”
So “care” can mean “let die,” if one’s conscience permits.
Such deceptive language is the stuff of nightmares and leads to the gulag. Walz’s administration cloaks reality with words that neither offend nor
inform. Then he employs soothing love language to justify turning
Minnesota into a sanctuary state for children seeking transgender
treatments. Everybody is welcome in Minnesota, he says, but he also
believes that children, in some cases, should be allowed access to
surgical and chemical procedures without the consent of their parents.
And you thought Republicans were dangerous.
It’s almost certain that Walz won’t be giving any “big solo interviews” because, according to Politico, he “might not have a full command of where Harris is on every issue.” This is certainly understandable, as Harris has changed her positions on several issues since Democrats made her the
emergency presidential nominee five weeks ago.
Harris seems to prefer that she and Walz grant only joint interviews,
which, as Politico said, “tend to be softer and focus more on the
relationships between the two candidates.” No tough questions, in other
words. Morning show softballs may give comfort to the ill-prepared, but
they deny viewers the content they need to be better-informed voters.
Nothing about the pair’s first (taped) interview Thursday night, with
CNN’s Dana Bash, satisfied that imperative. Although Harris handled the interview relatively well, Walz seemed to be a mixed-up mess.
He answered none of the four questions he was asked, including whether he
had misspoken when he said he had carried a gun “in war” when he never was deployed to a combat zone. A simple “yes” might have sufficed, but instead
he sputtered evasive nonsense and, to be rhetorically accurate,
gobbledygook.
Walz’s Midwestern charm and “tonic masculinity,” to quote a Post
colleague, might work for state politics and political rallies, but voters don’t need their tires changed — or a new gutter. They need to feel
confident that Walz can capably step into the presidency if need be.
There’s no reason to believe Harris picked Walz because of his avuncular
antics or his image as a great father, the latter of which should be
assumed as normal, not celebrated as something rare.
As Harris’s repackaging team tweaked her record to make her seem like a moderate, she studiously selected as her running mate the country’s most liberal governor — a man who just happens to fudge reality, exaggerate his accomplishments and invent half-truths to burnish his résumé.
And to think, the Democratic Party’s big pitch in Chicago was character.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/30/tim-walz-half-truths- record/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)