In Defense of Tim Walz

[SevMax2]

I've heard repeatedly from various conservative/Republican voices as to the sheer "radicalism" of Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota. Some of these are people who are friends or family in my personal life. However, I've done some research, and so far, while I disagree with what I think is a misguided call for a ceasefire in Gaza, on balance, the guy doesn't come across as especially extreme. I think that maybe some of his moves on police retraining overshot the mark a little, but retraining on dealing with autistic people like makes sense. I'm sure that a police do find neurodivergent folks a bit trickier to handle at times, especially if we don't communicate or react in expected manners. On guns, he's not insanely to the left of me, not precisely, not the record so far. At least not on the general principle of expanding background checks, which while I might differ from him on details, essentially has some merit (and was even endorsed at one point by Wayne LaPierre in testimony before Congress).

In essence, I think that the "radicalism" of this guy has been overblown, and I would urge anyone here who is saying thing about how "far-left" Walz really is to cite some examples of this alleged extremism. I might not one hundred percent share his views on specific issues, but his record as Governor and Member of Congress doesn't seem especially militant or strident or even hard left. In fact, while I have some genuine reservations about certain positions of a potential Harris-Walz Administration, those are mainly on matters such as foreign policy and some undesirable proposals such as mandatory gun buybacks, taxes on unrealized capital gains, and imprudent price control measures (as price controls haven't had a good track record of actually lowering costs in the long run). To be fair, at least they are suggesting ideas. The no tax on tips on idea sounds nice, though I would prefer rather raising the federal tipped minimum wage to at least the same as the ordinary federal minimum wage. But I digress. One think that I like about both the Harris and Trump campaign is their proposals for tax credits for families with children. That could help a lot of families, especially ones starting out, such as younger parents. Just as I think that the attempts to tie Trump to Project 2025 are exaggerated, I also find the attacks on Walz as some kind of fringe candidate to be cringe and extreme (hell, the guy endorsed Amy Klobuchar, not my cup of tea, but hardly a far-left radical). Much like the Haitian pet thing, it's disgusting and dishonest.

Whatever my decision about November, I have a lot less anxiety about the prospect of Harris-Walz Administration should they prevail in the fall. I am not sure that I will have issues with them, if they win, but as with Obama, Trump, and Biden, we should give these guys a chance. If they win, that is. If Trump wins, well, we'll see.

 

[RoryN]

He doesn't need your help. Kthx.

 

[ll74]

This thread is a direct response to histrionics coming from the right. Walz is a good pick for VP....perhaps not the best. The right likes hyperbole and bullshit and you're responding to it

In the end,.a VP has specific duties that can be performed by most all people regardless of ideology and they rarely have any power to insert their own agendas into the administration.

 

[RobDownSouth]

"mandatory gun buybacks"?

 

[SevMax2]

This thread is a direct response to histrionics coming from the right. Walz is a good pick for VP....perhaps not the best. The right likes hyperbole and bullshit and you're responding to it

In the end,.a VP has specific duties that can be performed by most all people regardless of ideology and they rarely have any power to insert their own agendas into the administration.

I am simply sharing my own take on this particular question. That is all. This is my own conclusion, based upon the available data. Feel free to agree or disagree, but bear that in mind.

 

[DeluxAuto]

. VP Harris' team did a helluva job and I look forward to more great decisions by her squad.

 

[ll74]

I am simply sharing my own take on this particular question. That is all. This is my own conclusion, based upon the available data. Feel free to agree or disagree, but bear that in mind.

There isn't a question. He's qualified to be VP.

None of his views that you mention will have any bearing on his job. With the thin margin of the Senate, he will vote as Harris tells him to.

 

[SevMax2]

There isn't a question. He's qualified to be VP.

Okay, semantics. When people are voting on these things, though, it is phrased as a question: Trump/Vance or Harris/Walz. I am simply stating that I am a lot more comfortable with the prospect of him becoming VP after some research on that matter. That is all. While the VP slot is usually not decisive, it is a factor. Sarah Palin's selection was one of the dealbreakers for me with McCain, for instance, given his advanced age and the higher risk of her possible accession to the Presidency. I could not stomach that risk.

 

[ll74]

Okay, semantics. When people are voting on these things, though, it is phrased as a question: Trump/Vance or Harris/Walz. I am simply stating that I am a lot more comfortable with the prospect of him becoming VP after some research on that matter. That is all.

I wasnt finished with my comment and added after the fact

His vote will be what Harris tells him to vote.
Why you need to feel good about him as VP is weird.

 

[SevMax2]

I wasnt finished with my comment and added after the fact

His vote will be what Harris tells him to vote.
Why you need to feel good about him as VP is weird.

Because it is a factor, though rarely a decisive one. It was definitely a factor in 2008. In any case, though are my personal thoughts. You have your views and I have mine. It is also a factor because of the nature of the Vice Presidency. It is a job with just two constitutional functions, as you know. One of them is to preside over the Senate. The other one is, well, something that one typically hopes is never required.

In any case, I was looking into the wild claims about him being a fringe, left-wing liberal. Now, I'm not particularly familiar with Minnesota politics. It seems a bit more liberal-leaning than most of the states in which I have lived. That is most of what I know about that state, other than the sports franchises, the Twin Cities, and the high incidence of people of Scandinavian stock. So I wasn't especially familiar with major players in that state's political sphere compared to others. I could tell you a lot more about key figures in Arizona, of course. Less so a state like Minnesota. So, it took a little digging, but not too much. I am simply sharing my own take, that is all.

 

[Bn2f]

Great!
Now tell us how a dude bro, carpetbagger novelist who was able to buy a senate seat that he has held for less than 2 years qualifies to be an heartbeat away over Governor Walz.

 

[ll74]

Because it is a factor, though rarely a decisive one. It was definitely a factor in 2008. In any case, though are my personal thoughts. You have your views and I have mine. It is also a factor because of the nature of the Vice Presidency. It is a job with just two constitutional functions, as you know. One of them is to preside over the Senate. The other one is, well, something that one typically hopes is never required.

Neither one will vote based on anything beyond what the President tells them.

 

[SevMax2]

Great!
Now tell us how a dude bro, carpetbagger novelist who was able to buy a senate seat that he has held for less than 2 years qualifies to be an heartbeat away over Governor Walz.

Well, Vance has....so far not impressed me as much. I haven't read his book. Maybe in time I will. I'm not sure how much he has changed from the past, but one gets the impression that he has reversed himself on key points, including his apparent distaste for Trump. As running mates go, so far, he's not as impressive. I don't know about the buying the Senate seat part. I do know that he has only held one public office, not that this is inherently disqualifying. I know that he has a bad habit of inserting his foot in his mouth. That's usually something that doesn't help with a VP's reputation (see Spiro Agnew). While running mates aren't the decisive factor, as stated, it's a less promising start. If these two were running each other for the top post, well, it's likely that I would cast a Democratic vote.

 

[adrina]

There isn't a question. He's qualified to be VP.

None of his views that you mention will have any bearing on his job. With the thin margin of the Senate, he will vote as Harris tells him to.

While I'm not sure about the specific views mentioned, I believe that Walz's overall temperament and core philosophies will come into play as part of his job. If Harris needs a sounding board, he will look to his values and positions to form his opinion when giving it to her.

 

[SevMax2]

Neither one will vote based on anything beyond what the President tells them.

One would tend to assume as much, that is true.

 

[Bn2f]

Because it is a factor, though rarely a decisive one. It was definitely a factor in 2008. In any case, though are my personal thoughts. You have your views and I have mine. It is also a factor because of the nature of the Vice Presidency. It is a job with just two constitutional functions, as you know. One of them is to preside over the Senate. The other one is, well, something that one typically hopes is never required.

In any case, I was looking into the wild claims about him being a fringe, left-wing liberal. Now, I'm not particularly familiar with Minnesota politics. It seems a bit more liberal-leaning than most of the states in which I have lived. That is most of what I know about that state, other than the sports franchises, the Twin Cities, and the high incidence of people of Scandinavian stock. So I wasn't especially familiar with major players in that state's political sphere compared to others. I could tell you a lot more about key figures in Arizona, of course. Less so a state like Minnesota. So, it took a little digging, but not too much. I am simply sharing my own take, that is all.

I’m sorry, but make this make sense to me. If in 2008 your concern was with John McCain’s age and his buffoon of a vice presidential pick - what’s different for you in 2024?

 

[ll74]

One would tend to assume as much, that is true.

You struggle to understand that as much as you need.

The one thing that Pence went against during his tenure has already been addressed by Congress and is no longer in question

 

[SevMax2]

I’m sorry, but make this make sense to me. If in 2008 your concern was with John McCain’s age and his buffoon of a vice presidential pick - what’s different for you in 2024?

Different how? What kind of difference do you specifically imply here that I must infer?

 

[adrina]

I would also go so far as to say that when it comes to core temperament and positions, Walz is far more valuable than Vance could ever be when it comes to providing feedback to their president.

 

[SevMax2]

You struggle to understand that as much as you need.

The one thing that Pence went against during his tenure has already been addressed by Congress and is no longer in question

Okay, I'm not quite sure what Pence has to do with this. My whole point here is that my research has concluded that Walz is not the fringe extremist that he is portrayed to be. That's all. It's just clearing the air and making my own position known. That's it.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Not that it really matters, but Vance is objectively a worse leader than Walz by the basic metrics. Under Walz, Minnesota’s economy and overall prosperity had grown. Under Vance, Ohio has continued to languish.

In any sane Governance system, Vance should have been run out of state for fucking up this bad. Unfortunately, Fox News has convinced red state idiots that it’s better to elect morons who run proto-genocide campaigns against immigrants than leaders who bring prosperity and hope to their people.

Trump worshippers would inflict incompetence and death on us all. They must be destroyed.

 

[Bn2f]

Different how? What kind of difference do you specifically imply here that I must infer?

I’m saying that the Republicans have nominated the oldest presidential candidate ever. He is in poor health. He is in mental decline. That’s not me giving hyperbole or a bias, it’s clear for all to see. Please do not make me defend Sarah Palin by saying that as a governor of Alaska she at least had, delegated powers more so than anything Vance has displayed.

 

[ll74]

Okay, I'm not quite sure what Pence has to do with this.

He was vice president.

My whole point here is that my research has concluded that Walz is not the fringe extremist that he is portrayed to be. That's all. It's just clearing the air and making my own position known. That's it.

And my whole point is that Walz being extreme or not is irrelevant to the job he will have. That's it. If you're voting.thinking differently, you probably should retake civics

 

[Lazaran]

I would also go so far as to say that when it comes to core temperament and positions, Walz is far more valuable than Vance could ever be when it comes to providing feedback to their president.

It isn’t even close

 

[adrina]

It isn’t even close

Exactly.

I bust the OP's chops on a regular basis. But he's correct that Tim Walz is nowhere near as extreme as the right portrays him to be.