Main Edition
US
FR
August 9, 2024 - 1:00pm
As Democrats unite around Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as their ticket’s VP nominee, Republicans are trying to find lines of attack against the folksy Midwesterner. So far, they have fallen flat, with neither “Tampon Tim” nor “Twitchy Tim” catching on. His Republican counterpart Senator J.D. Vance may have just found a potent, if controversial, rhetorical weapon, however, when he cast doubt on Walz’s status and image as a veteran.
Some are comparing it to the infamous “swiftboating” tactic of questioning a veteran-candidate’s service record used by the George W. Bush campaign in 2004 against then-Democratic presidential nominee (and Vietnam veteran) John Kerry. In this case, Vance has pointed to the fact that Walz retired from the National Guard just prior to the announcement that his unit was being deployed to Iraq in order to run for Congress. Republicans are depicting this as an act of abandonment on the part of Walz.
As Politico reports, then-Command Sergeant Major Walz “filed paperwork for his congressional run in February 2005, about a month before reports emerged that the Army National Guard might be [sent to Iraq],” which his defenders can cite as evidence that Walz did not know about the looming deployment. Waltz retired after 24 years in service, including a stint conducting support work for Operation Enduring Freedom.
In any event, the Trump campaign has added to the critical claims of other veterans who served with Walz and has taken to calling the Governor’s representation of his record an instance of “stolen valour”. The campaign has sought to highlight a 2018 speech in which Walz made reference to “weapons of war that I carried” even though he has openly stated that he has never seen combat. (Vance, a former marine, did deploy to Iraq but served as a combat correspondent, and did not see active combat either.)
It remains to be seen, however, whether this attack will be effective. For the pattern of presidential politics in America suggests, perhaps incongruously for a nation that venerates its warriors, that voters do not actually care all that much about a presidential candidate having combat or military records, of any kind. In fact, the last president (and vice president) with combat experience was George H.W. Bush, who fought in the Second World War.
Since then, not only have there been no chief executives or VPs with combat experience, but candidates with distinguished war records, like Kerry or Republicans Bush Sr., Bob Dole, and John McCain, ended up losing to ones with conspicuously no such experience, namely Bill Clinton and the younger Bush (who also managed to swiftboat McCain in the 2000 GOP primary, before the term was coined); these two elder Boomer presidents managed to avoid service in Vietnam, the latter through student deferments and the former by obtaining a placement in the Texas Air National Guard, before such units were deployed overseas. Yet these issues failed to blunt their respective campaigns.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI told you a day and a half ago.
Perhaps the bio for Mr. Cuenco should be updated to include his allegiance to the DNC. I am less interested in Walz lying about his military record – and he did lie, repeatedly – than about the tampons in boys’ rooms or the policy that allows the state to override the wishes of parents and perform irreversible surgery on children. Children. Not adults. Kids.
Totally agree. I’m not sure this scandal resonates at all with voters. They might not care. Walz and the Dems are best served to shut up, keep low and let it blow over in a couple days. But don’t effing gaslight me. Dont rewrite history. Make the case that this all about nothing because I’m not convinced voters care either way.
You guys are really in a spin about the Trump implosion – its really fun to watch!
Here are some swiftboating-proof words: “You know, if you’re young, and in this era, and if you have any guilt about not having gone to Vietnam, we have our own Vietnam — it’s called the dating game,” Trump said to Stern in a 1993 interview. “Dating is like being in Vietnam. You’re the equivalent of a soldier going over to Vietnam.”
Thanks for the Dem spin brother. Trump may be a POS rich brat who lied to avoid serving, but this is neither stolen valor or swift boating. You are shifting the goal posts.
Don’t criticize Jim’s hero – he loves Donald Trump and will defend him at every turn even if it makes him look utterly ridiculous!
Trump also said that not getting STD was his Vietnam.
He’s all class that guy!
This reads like any piece of garbage you get in the regime media. It’s what I absolutely despise about the regime media. Cuenca is writing a spin piece for a Dem candidate, rather than actual journalism, by misrepresenting the facts and moving goalposts.
Walz absolutely knew his unit was heading to Iraq before he submitted his resignation two years early. Convenient that the author didn’t note that Walz resigned before his commitment expired.
And then the shifting goal posts. Yes, people don’t care if their candidate served or even made cheap excuses not to serve, but this is not what Walz was accused of doing. Throwing shade on Vance is just as creepy. Vance never once claimed to have seen action on the battlefield.
And to top it off, the author betrays his fundamental laziness by falling to do basic research – there are actual cases of candidates being accused of stolen valor who still win their election. This would have been a legitimate argument to make, yet it is apparently beyond the grasp of the author.
Distorting the facts, lazy reporting, misrepresenting the truth – this is why I despise the regime media.
I’m not sure I understand. You said that Wals quit the National Guard two years early. He served 24 years. What’s magic about 26 years? People quit the Gaurd for all kinds of reasons. Is 26 years the limit? Does that mean you can’t serve for 30 years? Do you get a medal if you stay in the Guard for 26 years? Wals quit, because he wanted to run for a seat in Congress. He isn’t the first. Nor will he be the last.
He signed a commitment letter to remain in the national guard until 2007 in order to attend Sergeant Majors Academy. He quit in 2005.
This actually doesn’t offend me. Notice that none of my comments are directed at Walz. On the scale of crappy things politicians say and do, this is pretty minor IMO. Vets may disagree.
What offends me is being gas lit by the regime media running cover for the Dems.
Vets do disagree. Unless you have been there, you really can’t know the realities.
Republican ‘stolen valour’ jibe won’t hurt Tim Walz
Oh dear, how sad so very sad, it has already reversed the supposed poll gains that the gruesome twosome have made.
I do not know which planet most media scribblers are from, but it is not of the real world.
Hey weirdo! Not sure where you are getting your numbers from (I can guess though!) but MAGA suport is collapsing, Trump is spinning completely out of control (did you enjoy the Mar a Lago fiasco yesterday?!?!) and Harris is cruising towards the presidency.
And for Trumpbots to complain about some (anyone!) else’s military record is dumb even for you people! Do you really want Corporal Bonespurs telling us all about “his Vietnam”?
MAGA desperation is showing!
Better a trader than a warmonger.Hattids’s strings are pulled by the US corporate war creating machine.
Err, err umm, the polls in 2020 at the same time, showed Biden up to 18 points ahead instead of it being 50/50
That is real polling, actial votes.
I thought war record was trotted out alongside church attendance by those found to be Wide Stancers ?
The article neglects to mention the whole Walz quote: “… those weapons of war, that I carried in war …” (to quote NBC, hardly to be accused of anti-Walz bias: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/tim-walz-misspoke-discussed-using-weapons-war-campaign-says-rcna166038 ).
Now Walz can claim to have “misspoken”, but it’s on anyone to believe it or not to. And lying is bad optics, whether or not one views the armed forces as central to society.
I wouldn’t bet the ranch on his conclusion. Besides, this is nothing but a spin piece by a shill who really doesn’t count. Useless.