It's Walz
-
From the RWEC:
Let's try to do the pro-con analysis that Harris must have performed. First, the pros:
- Guarantees a win in [checks notes] Minnesota
- Solidifies the Defund the Police wing of the Democrat Party
- Achieves a level of boring that makes Minnesotans so desirable as running mates
- Ensures a smooth transition from one incompetent to another
- Doesn't alienate the, er ... "Dearborn" faction of the Democrats
- Manages to avoid a competent running mate in case the convention decides to "Biden" her at the last minute
The cons:
- Snubs Pennsylvania, but who needs that state anyway?
- Has absolutely no traction anywhere outside of his own state
- Scratch that -- Walz has no traction outside the metro counties of the Twin Cities
- Leaves Jewish Democrats with a distinct impression of anti-Semitism
-
From a Pilitoico article:
[Walz] grew up in a small town in Nebraska. He served more than two decades with the Army National Guard.
I suppose it's going to be a play on the VP candidate's "life story."
Besides, Walz is the one who popularized the "Vance id weird" messaging framework.
Addenda: former public school teacher (I suppose this will keep the teachers unions happy), one DUI arrest in 1995, gave up alcohol since (may be spun as a redemption story).
-
This kills the Kamalamentum that built up over the last few weeks and should allow the race to start getting into the issues.
-
-
https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz
On November 1st, 2006, Tom Hagen, Iraq War Veteran, wrote a letter to the editor of the Winona Daily News. Here are a couple of sentences from the letter: But even more disturbing is the fact that Walz quickly retired after learning that his unit -southern Minnesota's 1-125 FA Battalion - would be sent to Iraq. For Tim Walz to abandon his fellow soldiers and quit when they needed experienced leadership most is disheartening.
Here is part of Tim Walzs response: After completing 20 years of service in 2001, I re-enlisted to serve our country for an additional four years following Sept. 11 and retired the year before my battalion was deployed to Iraq in order to run for Congress.
According to his official Report of Separation and Record of Service, he re-enlisted for six years on September 18th, 2001. However, in his response he says that he re-enlisted for four years, conveniently retiring a year before his battalion was deployed to Iraq. Even if he had re-enlisted for four years following Sept.11, his retirement date would have been September 18th, 2005. Why then did he "retire" on May 16th, 2005, before his supposed four-year enlistment was up? And he makes it sound like he "retired" a year before his battalion deployed to Iraq; when in reality he knew when he "retired" that the battalion would be deployed to Iraq.
The bottom line in all of this is gut wrenching and sad to explain. When the nation called, he quit. He failed to complete the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. He failed to serve for two years following completion of the academy, which he dropped out of. He failed to serve two years after the conditional promotion to Command Sergeant Major. He failed to fulfill the full six years of the enlistment he signed on September 18th, 2001. He failed his country. He failed his state. He failed the Minnesota Army National Guard, the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion, and his fellow Soldiers. And he failed to lead by example. Shameful.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz
On November 1st, 2006, Tom Hagen, Iraq War Veteran, wrote a letter to the editor of the Winona Daily News. Here are a couple of sentences from the letter: But even more disturbing is the fact that Walz quickly retired after learning that his unit -southern Minnesota's 1-125 FA Battalion - would be sent to Iraq. For Tim Walz to abandon his fellow soldiers and quit when they needed experienced leadership most is disheartening.
Here is part of Tim Walzs response: After completing 20 years of service in 2001, I re-enlisted to serve our country for an additional four years following Sept. 11 and retired the year before my battalion was deployed to Iraq in order to run for Congress.
According to his official Report of Separation and Record of Service, he re-enlisted for six years on September 18th, 2001. However, in his response he says that he re-enlisted for four years, conveniently retiring a year before his battalion was deployed to Iraq. Even if he had re-enlisted for four years following Sept.11, his retirement date would have been September 18th, 2005. Why then did he "retire" on May 16th, 2005, before his supposed four-year enlistment was up? And he makes it sound like he "retired" a year before his battalion deployed to Iraq; when in reality he knew when he "retired" that the battalion would be deployed to Iraq.
The bottom line in all of this is gut wrenching and sad to explain. When the nation called, he quit. He failed to complete the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. He failed to serve for two years following completion of the academy, which he dropped out of. He failed to serve two years after the conditional promotion to Command Sergeant Major. He failed to fulfill the full six years of the enlistment he signed on September 18th, 2001. He failed his country. He failed his state. He failed the Minnesota Army National Guard, the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion, and his fellow Soldiers. And he failed to lead by example. Shameful.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
Looks like scenes from the Trump administration to me.
I fail to see how the President has anything to do with local and state law enforcement.
-
I don’t think he is the right choice for the ticket. Shapiro is more moderate and would have pulled the more crucial swing state, Pennsylvania.
This choice will probably cost Harris the election.
I don’t think he is the right choice for the ticket. Shapiro is more moderate and would have pulled the more crucial swing state, Pennsylvania.
This choice will probably cost Harris the election.
Walz will help with Michigan, but I generally think that you are correct.
The Brad
-
-
Does NOT picking Shapiro put Pennsylvania more into play? Minnesota's been a fairly reliable blue state for a long time.
What does he bring to the ticket?
One talking head said that the VEEP pick rarely influences elections, though. He may be right.
ETA: Shapiro, from what I understand, is fairly popular in Pennsylvania. More so than Walz in Minnesota.
And what in the world is this shit?
-
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
Looks like scenes from the Trump administration to me.
Yeah and who set the fires in Portland in DC?
Which you may counter with Jan 6 nonsense.
My point is it's ridiculous at this point to attribute the nation's growing radicalism to Trump. We've been marching farther down this road for over a decade.
-
It’s just, well, weird to warn of the dark days of 2020 if we don’t elect Trump. We had Trump and that happened.
Later we had Biden and Harris and it didn’t happen (yet - maybe in Chicago in two weeks).
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
I don’t think he is the right choice for the ticket. Shapiro is more moderate and would have pulled the more crucial swing state, Pennsylvania.
This choice will probably cost Harris the election.
Walz will help with Michigan, but I generally think that you are correct.
Ah yes, Michigan. I had forgotten. Will have to wait and see how it all unfolds. Right now we’re seeing no time being be lost on the deployment of SwIftboats. Am sure that with Walz’s past drunk driving charge the spectre of a Chappaquidick or some such will also emerge. Am sure there’s dirt from his years as a teacher and football coach that will also be dug or dredged up.
A whole new series of Dallas is about to be aired.
Elbows up!
-
It’s just, well, weird to warn of the dark days of 2020 if we don’t elect Trump. We had Trump and that happened.
Later we had Biden and Harris and it didn’t happen (yet - maybe in Chicago in two weeks).
It’s just, well, weird to warn of the dark days of 2020 if we don’t elect Trump. We had Trump and that happened.
Agree, weird argument.
Later we had Biden and Harris and it didn’t happen (yet - maybe in Chicago in two weeks).
Because the nutters, the Portland contingent of which, turned their city into fucking Gangland, thought they won the election, not because of anything constructive Biden or Kamala did. It's all bottom-up, not top-down.
