The Tim Walz campaign, and the ******** attacks upon him.

Checkmite said:
Well, I certainly can't say I expected to see pre-WWI-era anti-German racism tropes being revived for the purpose of attacking this guy, but here we are.
Click to expand...

Because obviously a fourth-generation descendent of a German immigrant is less American than a second-generation descendent of a German immigrant.

Dave
 
Right wingers on twitter have convinced deluded themselves that the Walz pick has been a Vance level disaster for the Dems and that he is being pressured to remove himself by Pelosi et. al.

Yeah. Keep telling yourself that.
 
Dread Pirate Roberts said:
The only social media I'm really on is TikTok. From posts there it seems that there's a #tampontim on the right online because he mandated that tampons, pads etc have to be placed free of charge in all bathrooms in MN schools.
Click to expand...

The weird thing is that putting the tampons in boys rooms wasn't even really controversial in the Minnesota legislature. I cannot readily find anything indicating that Walz had anything to do with it other than signing the big education bill passed by the legislature that included this small provision.

The amendment was passed with bipartisan support. There were some objections from Republicans about requiring schools to providing feminine hygiene products at all on the grounds that schools should make those decisions. Most of the amendments proposed by Republicans to the education bill were on the basis that policy decisions should be made at the local level rather than the State level. (See comments by Rep. Patricia Mueller.)

Representative Dean Urdahl proposed a single word change to say that the hygiene products would be provided to "female" students. That didn't appear to be related to any transexual issues as much as limiting access to the students who actually need the products. He said transgender students could get the products from the school nurse (which was also already in the bill).

That was opposed because some schools have unisex restrooms, which makes the wording difficult, and issues that could arise regarding whether or not a student is "female". A school nurse testified about the hesitation of even girls to ask for products.

Urdahl had no rebuttal. He leaned his chin on his hand looking a bit perplexed and said, "This old Norwegian has trouble understanding some of that, but, you know, Representative Feist [sponsor of the original amendment] , maybe you can explain some things to me some other time offline here." He voted for the original amendment.

Urdahl later told the press, "I have apprehensions about the potential uses of feminine products by 4th-grade boys." Other testimony in the House included a study that showed that 43% of girls were too embarrassed to ask a school nurse for tampons. Urdahl's own statement shows why including feminine hygiene products in all bathrooms in needed.

Imagine a girl who identifies as a boy and looks like a boy and uses the boys' restroom who goes to the nurse and encounters a nurse who shares Urdahl's limited awareness of the issues and think this is a boy trying to get tampons for some nefarious purpose. That student faces not just the embarrassment that other girl's face, but also has to explain their gender identity to convince the nurse that they do actually menstruate just to get a tampon in order to attend class.

This has been made into a mountain out of a molehill that was never even an issue for the Minnesota legislature.

You can listen to the House discussion here starting at 53:44

 
Last edited:
They just need a hook to pin the label of "if you don't condem being transexual, you are grooming children to chop off their genitalia".
 
kookbreaker said:
Right wingers on twitter have convinced deluded themselves that the Walz pick has been a Vance level disaster for the Dems and that he is being pressured to remove himself by Pelosi et. al.

Yeah. Keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...

They have a weird way of believing that they can trick people by saying obviously untrue nonsense.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
They just need a hook to pin the label of "if you don't condem being transexual, you are grooming children to chop off their genitalia".
Click to expand...

Which takes us to the next talking point that Walz passed a law allowing children under the age of 13 to get sexual reassignment surgery. It appears what they are referencing is actually Executive Order 23-03.

That Order simply protects people receiving care in Minnesota from laws in other States. Some States have passed laws that prohibit people from going to another State to get an abortion or some types of transgender care. This Order says that nobody in Minnesota should be denied such care if it is legal in Minnesota. No assistance will be provided to other States and people will not be extradited to other States for the enforcement of such laws.

This does not change any existing Minnesota laws. It simply says that if it is legal in Minnesota then it is legal in Minnesota no matter what any other State says. It refuses to accept that the laws of another State will dictate the laws of Minnesota.

States Rights!
 
acbytesla said:
What's Vance trying to say?
Click to expand...

Initially the argument was that since Vance had seen combat and Walz purportedly hadn't, Vance's service was somehow more praiseworthy regardless of length or distinction. Serving briefly in combat was postured as more qualifying than a career in service as a noncombatant. After it was shown that Vance was not the combatant he claimed, but merely at a desk job in the vicinity of combat, the only way to save that was to go on the offensive, nitpick at Walz' record, and claim stolen valor.

In my opinion, doubling down by going after a combat-decorated general with the same rhetoric was a misstep. There's a school of thought that says you can claim combat spurs if you could have been a target, whether or not you participated in an actual exchange of fire. Vance could have rehabilitated his claim on that principle. Instead he insinuated he was more praiseworthy than someone who had been wounded in actual combat.

Either Vance is a political novice, or he's starting to believe his own lies.
 
JayUtah said:
Either Vance is a political novice, or he's starting to believe his own lies.
Click to expand...

Or he's a political cynic who knows that a large number of people will believe any lie, no matter how ridiculous, because they want to believe it and it furthers their side. Vance can add himself to helicopter ride if he likes, it won't result in losing any Republican voters.
 
I'm not an expert on this but I don't think Governor Walz is a retired Command Sergeant Major (pay grade E9) and he should probably start referring to himself as a retired Master Sergeant (pay grade E8). shemp references a Public Affairs Office statement from wikipedia footnote 54 and according to a Washington Post article
The Harris-Walz campaign on its website initially called Walz a “retired Command Sergeant Major” but then updated his biography to say he “served as a command sergeant major.”
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/09/assessing-claims-about-walz-service/

This change was probably in response to the Public Affairs Office statement since it uses the same language, including the capitalization. The Washington Post article overall does a very good, succinct job of presenting the current state of the controversy.

Most people probably won't care about the distinction between 'retired as' and 'served as' but if military people care then non-military people might start caring.

Does he continue to refer to himself as retired Command Sergeant Major? He probably shouldn't, due to the change on the campaign website.

Does he call himself retired Master Sergeant from now on? It might possibly help dispel the controversy within the military community.

They're both very high, very respected ranks but they're not the same and Governor Walz didn't earn a permanent rank of Command Sergeant Major.
 
Last edited:
Scopedog said:
I'm not an expert on this but I don't think Governor Walz is a retired Command Sergeant Major (pay grade E9) and he should probably start referring to himself as a retired Master Sergeant (pay grade E8). Shemp references a Public Affairs Office statement from wikipedia footnote 54 and according to a Washington Post article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/09/assessing-claims-about-walz-service/

This change was probably in response to the Public Affairs Office statement since it uses the same language, including the capitalization. The Washington Post article overall does a very good, succinct job of presenting the current state of the controversy.

Most people probably won't care about the distinction between 'retired as' and 'served as' but if military people care then non-military people might start caring.

Does he continue to refer to himself as retired Command Sergeant Major? He probably shouldn't, due to the change on the campaign website.

Does he call himself retired Master Sergeant from now on? It might possibly help dispel the controversy within the military community.

They're both very high, very respected ranks but they're not the same and Governor Walz didn't earn a permanent rank of Command Sergeant Major.
Click to expand...

Walz is retired and was promoted to the rank of Command Sergeant Major. However he didn't retire with that rank. But NOBODY, seriously, NOBODY CARES. It is a nuanced difference as you are putting forward. Where it really matters is with his pension and nowhere else. But it has been changed in all the published bios.
 
acbytesla said:
Walz is retired and was promoted to the rank of Command Sergeant Major. However he didn't retire with that rank. But NOBODY, seriously, NOBODY CARES. It is a nuanced difference as you are putting forward. Where it really matters is with his pension and nowhere else. But it has been changed in all the published bios.
Click to expand...

This. The only people who care are "I wouldn't have joined the military but I would have punched the drill instructor the first time he got in my face" types.

This kind of things happens all the time with retiring from the military.
 
acbytesla said:
Walz is retired and was promoted to the rank of Command Sergeant Major. However he didn't retire with that rank. But NOBODY, seriously, NOBODY CARES. It is a nuanced difference as you are putting forward. Where it really matters is with his pension and nowhere else. But it has been changed in all the published bios.
Click to expand...

He committed to six additional years of service in 2001 and said he would deploy with his unit as late as March 2005 then retired during May 2005. However, he had every right to retire, any time after 20 years, for whatever reason, if permitted, and he was permitted.

At least one of the costs of that permission to retire at 24 instead of 26 years was his recent conditional promotion to Command Sergeant Major. The retirement precluded his completion of the Sergeants Major Academy and the required additional two years of service as Command Sergeant Major. I think he knew that he shouldn't call himself a retired Command Sergeant Major, regardless of when the reversion to Master Sergeant was instated, yet he did. This seems like an insult to anyone who permanently earned the rank and verifiably calls themselves a retired Command Sergeant Major.

It's okay to think it's trivial or petty but I think it reflects poorly on him and that the military community might rightly bristle at it.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
This. The only people who care are "I wouldn't have joined the military but I would have punched the drill instructor the first time he got in my face" types.

This kind of things happens all the time with retiring from the military.
Click to expand...

Marine Corps, 2001-2005. Dull administrative job, never left the US.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Well, I certainly can't say I expected to see pre-WWI-era anti-German racism tropes being revived for the purpose of attacking this guy, but here we are.
Click to expand...

From your link:


malmesburyman
@malmesburyman
Walz is a great example of what people mean when they say that there are still unassimilated German immigrants living in the midwest. He may adopt the outward trappings, but inwardly these people are not fully American, which is why they gravitate to identity grievance politics.
Click to expand...

Those unassimilated German immigrants are the Amish and Mennonites who speak "PA Dutch". "Dutch" is a mispronunciation of "Deutsch".

Irony meter meltdown: "identity grievance politics".

MyopicEeyore
@MyopicEeyore
·
Aug 7
Replying to @malmesburyman
Amen. Germans and Scandinavians in upper midbest have been socialists since they arrived in 19th c and promoted the worst sorts of Dem policies post CRA. Walz shares these beliefs and should not be VP!
Click to expand...

Another stupid remark.
 
Scopedog said:
He committed to six additional years of service in 2001 and said he would deploy with his unit as late as March 2005 then retired during May 2005. However, he had every right to retire, any time after 20 years, for whatever reason, if permitted, and he was permitted.
Click to expand...

Not according to this:

Federal Election Commission records show that Walz filed to run for Congress on Feb. 10, 2005.

On March 20, 2005, Walz’s campaign put out a press release titled “Walz Still Planning to Run for Congress Despite Possible Call to Duty in Iraq.”

Three days prior, the release said, “the National Guard Public Affairs Office announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard. … The announcement from the National Guard PAO specified that all or a portion of Walz’s battalion could be mobilized to serve in Iraq within the next two years.”
According to the release, “When asked about his possible deployment to Iraq Walz said, ‘I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on specifics of the deployment.’ Although his tour of duty in Iraq might coincide with his campaign for Minnesota’s 1st Congressional seat, Walz is determined to stay in the race. ‘As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq.'”

On March 23, 2005, the Pipestone County Star reported, “Detachments of the Minnesota National Guard have been ‘alerted’ of possible deployment to Iraq in mid-to-late 2006.”
“Major Kevin Olson of the Minnesota National Guard said a brigade-sized contingent of soldiers could be expected to be called to Iraq, but he was not, at this time, aware of which batteries would be called,” the story said. “All soldiers in the First Brigade combat team of the 34th Division, Minnesota National Guard, could be eligible for call-up. ‘We don’t know yet what the force is like’ he said. ‘It’s too early to speculate, if the (soldiers) do go.’
“He added: ‘We will have a major announcement if and when the alert order moves ahead.’”
Click to expand...
Walz retired on May 16, 2005. Walz’s brigade received alert orders for mobilization on July 14, 2005, according to the National Guard and MPR News. The official mobilization report came the following month, and the unit mobilized and trained through the fall. It was finally deployed to Iraq in the spring of 2006.
Click to expand...

I see no statement by Walz that 'he would deploy with his unit as late as March 2005".
At least one of the costs of that permission to retire at 24 instead of 26 years was his recent conditional promotion to Command Sergeant Major. The retirement precluded his completion of the Sergeants Major Academy and the required additional two years of service as Command Sergeant Major. I think he knew that he shouldn't call himself a retired Command Sergeant Major, regardless of when the reversion to Master Sergeant was instated, yet he did. This seems like an insult to anyone who permanently earned the rank and verifiably calls themselves a retired Command Sergeant Major.

It's okay to think it's trivial or petty but I think it reflects poorly on him and that the military community might rightly bristle at it.
Click to expand...

George Armstrong Custer is known as "Gen. Custer". However, the rank of general was only during the Civil War: major general of volunteers and a brevet major general in the regular army. After the war, he was reduced to captain with the colonel being highest rank held in the Army. He was Col. Custer when he was killed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom