“Look, he’s Yale Law guy. I’m a public school teacher.”
—Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, expressing his anxiety about this week’s debate with Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance.
I can’t bring myself to believe that this debate will have any impact on the election at all, and I have made up my mind pretty securely about both Vance and Walz, neither of whom were responsible choices to be “a heartbeat from the Presidency. ” At least Walz, unlike Vance, has some executive governing experience, and at least Vance isn’t a parody of a woke idiot. But Walz’s comment pings so many ethics alarms that attention must be paid.
Let’s see…
1. Talk about dishonestly lowering expectations! For Walz to say “I’m a public school teacher” would be like me saying “I’m just a fund-raiser” (or Kamala Harris saying, “I’m just Willie Brown’s sex partner.”) Walz IS a governor of a state, and its top elected official. His statement is literally a lie, and exactly the kind of rhetorical sloppiness that would win Trump another entry in the Washington Post’s alleged lie data base.
No, Governor, you’re NOT a public school teacher; you were, just as Trump was a TV reality show star.
2. Focusing on Walz’s strange diminishment of his own experience, however, one has to ask: why is this champion of public schools and their teachers (a Democrat voting block) saying that public school teachers can’t express their opinions and positions as clearly and persuasively as “a Yale Law guy” ? Why does our public school system employ such limited talents to introduce our rising generations to critical thought?
I had many public school teachers from elementary school through high school who were articulate, focused, intellectually impressive and wise. I also know a number of “Yale Law guys” and their equivalents who would have a tough time winning a debate with Joe the Plumber.
3. What Walz really is saying is that Vance is smarter than he is. Based on what I’ve heard from Walz and his record as governor, I believe it. One of the many intellectually dishonest ploys of the Harris campaign has been to try to simultaneously cast Vance as an out-of-touch nerd and a hillbilly bigot. Now suddenly the debate is unfair because Vance is a elite credentialed whiz compared to poor Mr. Walz, yanked out of the comfort of a middle school social studies class into a challenging experience he’s unprepared for.
4. I know it might be hard for anyone to recall after what we’ve been exposed to since 2016, but effective communication is supposed to be a primary tool of effective leaders. Since Obama, whose entire Presidency was based on his speaking skills and little else, we have had Trump, Biden, and Harris to ponder as leaders, none of whom meets even the average standards of Presidential communication ability. Now Walz is using his deficit in that crucial area as an excuse if he gets beaten in a debate by a “hillbilly”?
5. Harris’s choice of Walz, a remarkably phony politician even by recent phony politician standards, is another tell regarding her integrity and seriousness. Just like the rest of this “it isn’t what it is” campaign, Walz is all packaging, with the substance inside being not only very different from reality, but intentionally hidden from the public. He is ethically estopped from citing the part of his past that he has used as the misleading substitute for his crypto-Communist, far, far Left present as a source of sympathy.
The 2024 Democratic Presidential campaign is the most dishonest and cynical since at least 1840, by far.
____________
Source: The Washington Post.
Ethics Alarms 
My read on this comment is Walz is trying to emphasize his “Man of the People” credentials. He hunts; he is a high school football coach; he enlisted in the service; he’s a public school teacher. He’s no elitist Ivy League Yalie.
You would no better than I do, but there have been other Presidents that have tried to emphasize there connection to normal people. (Truman? Coolidge? Lincoln?) It is not an unheard of strategy.
But, considering that Walz has said the First Amendment does not protect disinformation, I might prefer a VP with a Yale Law degree.
-Jut
Bill Clinton, Yale Law School. Hillary Clinton (the most qualified person ever to run for President) Yale Law School. Barack Obama, Harvard Law School. George Bush Senior, Yale undergrad. George Bush Junior, Harvard MBA (maybe Yale undergrad/legacy). Al Gore, Harvard undergrad. Donald Trump, Wharton MBA. John Kerry, Yale undergrad (Skull and Bones member). All the Kennedys, various Harvard degrees). (Done from memory, so some of these may be incorrect.)
Kamala Harris, historically black college undergrad, affirmative action law school, flunked California bar three times.
Do Walz’s speechwriters think no one’s been paying attention? Are they going for the eighteen-year-old vote? But would eighteen-year-olds vote for their high school history teacher and coach for President of the United States? I wouldn’t.
I looked to find a source for Harris failing the bar more than once and did not find anything to support that.
She failed it once. Nobody should fail it once since everyone started taking Bar prep courses
She’s clearly a DEI idiot.
Then why is he running for Vice President?
So let’s see…
Going to Yale was prized by the Democratic Party when composing the list of speakers for their Convention, because many of those speakers are graduates.
Going to Yale was panned at the Democratic Convention because JD Vance is a graduate.
Going to Yale is now deemed “an advantage” – though it’s being treated as an unfair advantage – because JD Vance is a graduate.
The Democratic Party has become like the proverbial “whore on dollar night”. They’ll assume any position for a buck.
So we have a dull instrument commie vs an authentic American hillbilly patriot who rose from rags to accomplished. Pop the popcorn because this is must see TV!
Have a nice day and keep the faith…🤠
On the subject of Walz trying to think on his feet, his We Can’t Afford Four More Years OF THIS?
Priceless!
PWS
One of the most idiotic things I have heard from school teachers is that they cannot attract and retain the best and brightest without higher salaries. I don’t see a mass exodus from the public schools.
That tells me they are not the best and brightest so why should I pay them more.
If you paid them more you could then attract the best and brightest who could then slowly replace the dregs you have now. There is no mass exodus because what you have now couldn’t hack it on an outside job.
As an old boss of mine often said, “If you pay peanuts you get monkeys”.
If you pay more than the job is worth, you get bad people. People will flock to the job because of the pay, not because they want to do it. Education is, by far, the highest paying job you can get that uses a humanities degree. The teachers are in it for the money, so they don’t care. Vast amounts of money are funneled out of the school system. Good teachers don’t survive even if they are hired. Third rate people don’t hire first rate people.
In my state, the community college and smaller state universities are having trouble hiring people because the public schools pay better. A B.A. in elementary ed is paying better than a Ph.D. in history.
Errol the point is they are saying they are not the best and brightest.
BTW
Hiring the most knowledgeable in a particular subject area does not make that person the best teacher. Teaching requires the ability to affect a change in behavior which is the definition of learning. In this case behavior means the understanding and appropriate use of a given concept.
Upcoming headline:
President Sees Photo of Tim Walz and Surrounding Children; Turns Red with Envy and Dies of Brain Aneurysm
When did the Dems start using children as background props? That’s disgusting. It’s bad enough they do it with alleged adults.
Geez you’re really taking swings at the Democrats. In my opinion, this amounts to just political rhetoric and exaggeration to get a point across “The other guy isn’t like you, he went to an Ivy League school, I’m a man of the people, a school teacher”
Nothing burger I say! Would love to see you post about recent things Trump said.
DD
The point is the hypocrisy of the Democratic party and the obvious attempt to spin a feared loss. Whataboutism is disfavored.
Yeah, when Trump engages in political rhetoric and exaggeration to get a point across, partisans like you call it lying.
I’ve covered Trump’s unethical rhetoric more than that of any other politician, but since during the campaign this year, the election rigging effort effort is to ignore the flagrant lies from his opposition and to shrug off its obvious hypocrisy and dishonesty, I’m not going to pile on with the pro-Democratic media. Trump was President and doesn’t hide his record. He also doesn’t say things like “I’m just a real estate mogul, how can I be expected to debate a lawyer?”
Gov. Walz isn’t really like JD Vance…that is true. However, it’s because Walz should have a tremendous advantage, having been a governor and, in effect, in charge of a “country in miniature.” Vance is a Senator and hasn’t been in charge of anything. Walz should understand policy decisions and nuances of leadership and decision-making that Vance has never experienced.
And yet, Walz is making it appear that he is the underdog because his opponent attended Yale, even though Tim graduated from college, earned a degree, and later earned a Master’s degree.
At this point in both men’s careers, no one cares where either of them went to college. Walz’s statement would be just as pointless if he said, “Look, Vance speaks fluent Swahili. I’m a public school teacher.”
“Nothingburger?” Did I hear “nothingburger?” Paid troll alert!
well I think it depends no? Some lies are worth calling out. This one is not one of those things.
It’s just general bs politician speak.
”I’m not going to pile on with the pro-Democratic media.”
Does this mean you’re making a choice to not criticize Trump before the election?
DD
Right. TRUMP’s “lies” are worth calling out, but Harris’s and Biden’s are not. Yeah, I know the rule: I’ve seen it in action for 8 years.
again I think It depends what the lie is. Is it a minor one like what your post is about? Or a major one like you can keep your health insurance plan?
I’d still love to have you confirm if ”I’m not going to pile on with the pro-Democratic media.” Means you’re not going to criticize Trump now.
DD
No misrepresentations in a political campaign are “minor,” and to an ethicist, a flagrant breach of integrity is significant. Harris and Biden keep lying about trump saying white supremacists are “fine people” and that he promised a “bloodvath,” and that he said he would be a dictator from “Day One. None of these have been called out by the media, even in the debate when they were “factchecking” Trump on statements that were hardly misrepresentations. Trump exaggerates. He says obnoxious things, and isn’t careful, as when he talked about Jews who don’t “love Israel.” But it’s a known quality. He’s not the one masquerading as the truth-teller in this election opposing a “pathological liar.” THAT’s a lie, and that’s the lie I’m here to expose as much as I can. I also know the difference between an opinion and a fact. For example, Trump’s opinion that the election was stolen/rigged/fixed is not a lie. saying it’s “completely goundless’ is either a lie or astoundingly ignorant.
Well that makes me wonder then, do you think Trump lies at all?
No misrepresentations in a political campaign are “minor,”
I don’t agree, there are definitely levels to lying and the impact they have vary.
i assume by you’re ignoring my question that you are not going to criticize Trump anymore but feel it’s your duty to call out with the Democrats lie.
DD
Denver Dave,
You really have 3 separate issues here:
But, for sake of argument, what is the latest example of something unethical (not necessarily a “lie,” because this is an ethics site) that Trump has said?
Maybe Jack does not want this deflection off of his post, but you are asking a hypothetical and I have to ask, “what are you talking about?”
-Jut
The host of this site – and a large percentage of the responders here – have been heavily critical of President Trump before this election, before the last election, and before the election before that.
Go read the archives.
The fact that the other side gets criticized, too?…that’s called “balance”.
And the tireless host does not take kindly to be told what he should and shouldn’t post about.
What’s the next talking point on the list there, DD? You’ve tried, “Tell the blogger he should be talking about something else that’s more important,” and “Trump lies.” “Trump is an existential threat to democracy?”
And is “nothingburger” really still on the list of talking points? Pathetic.
DD,
You may want to review your Socratic dialectic, it requires details not generic what about ism to be effective.
have us unwashed started a pool on how many posts DD makes before he actually posts facts or an argument versus leading, generic questions?
My perfect fact free talking point/assertion: “There’s no proof of that.”
“have us unwashed started a pool on how many posts DD makes before he actually posts facts or an argument versus leading, generic questions?”
I’ll take the over…
PWS