There is no better indicator of how far the Democratic Party has fallen into disarray than the fact that Knucklehead Tim Walz is being taken seriously as he tries to position himself as a viable option to run for President in 2028. Not only does Walz continue to display the incompetence that marked him as the most inept Vice-Presidential candidate in modern US political history, he appears to be completely unable to embrace reality.
I don’t know how clearly or directly I said it here at the time, but I instantly felt Walz’s awful performance in his debate with J.D. Vance was the tipping point for the 2024 election, the first time ever that the second slot debate had any significance or weight. Even with disgracefully biased debate moderators, Walz looked like the fool he is, and I could just sense undecided voters thinking, “This is the guy Kamala Harris picked to be a heartbeat from the Presidency? Oh-oh!” More substantively, Walz revealed his absence of respect for the First Amendment as well as his ignorance of what it means.
After a pathetic performance like his during the 2024 campaign, Walz should be, as I like to say, quoting one of Justice Scalia’s pet phrases, hiding his head under a bag. Yet here he is, making the rounds of interviews and podcasts and not getting lustily booed, because that how bad the news media is as well as the political Left.
“Tim Walz has some sharp critiques of the Dem 2024 campaign” was the jaw-dropping Politico headline today. What could Walz say, “We really had a boob running for Vice P…wait, that was me!”? And yet we read…
- “’We shouldn’t have been playing this thing so safe,’ the Minnesota governor said in an interview with POLITICO…” The reason they played it “safe” is that every time Kamala Harris tried to answer a question without a teleprompter she descended into platitudes and gibberish. What alternative did they have?
- “Walz said the campaign’s risk-averse approach was a byproduct of the brief, 107-day campaign, because ‘these are things you might have been able to get your sea legs, if you will, 18 months out, where the stakes were a lot lower.’” Boy am I sick of that excuse! Candidates are nominated in conventions, and the conventions never happen “18 months” before an election. Just because the Democrats have lately decided to run their party like the Communists in the old Soviet Union and decide who their Presidential candidate is without a fair contest doesn’t mean it has to be that way. For most of our history Presidential candidates only had a few months to campaign. The 2024 Democrats are the first ones to say that they didn’t have enough time….and, as we all know, the chaos around the 2024 nominee was their own fault.
-
“I think we probably should have just rolled the dice and done the town halls, where [voters] may say, ‘you’re full of shit, I don’t believe in you,’” Walz continued. “I think there could have been more of that….We, as a party, are more cautious” in engaging the media, both mainstream and non-traditional, Walz said. And during the 2024 campaign, he said, “in football parlance, we were in a prevent defense to not lose when we never had anything to lose because I don’t think we were ever ahead.” Ha! They were in a “prevent defense” all right, as in “Let’s prevent the voters from finding out what our Presidential candidate really thinks about anything!” And if the Democrats really thought Harris was ahead it’s condign justice: they believed the Axis media’s rigged polls and anti-Trump spin, when the idea was to fool the public, not Democrats.
- “Walz’s assessment of the campaign’s missteps — which he emphasized he also ‘own[s]’ his part in because ‘when you’re on the ticket and you don’t win, that’s your responsibility.'” Unbelievable! Here, let me fix that: “He owns the campaign’s missteps because one of them was to nominate a mediocre standard-issue knee-jerk woke clown who made J.D. Vance look like the second coming of Abe Lincoln in their debate.”
Just to make sure nobody forgets what a terrible candidate Walz was, he’s still making a fool of himself, as Jonathan Turley neatly describes here. Moreover, the self-labled Knucklehead seems unaware that as an aging, white cis-male in a DEI-obsessed party, he has the approximate chances of being nominated to run for President as this little LEGO man sitting on the base of my desk lamp…less, actually, because the LEGO man has a yellow head.
Ethics Alarms 
It seems to me that nearly everything Gov. Tim Walz says supports my general impression of him, he’s a f’ing moron.
I wonder whether “The Meathead” might be a better nickname than “Knucklehead?” I suppose he’s actually younger than Rob Reiner, but it has a certain symmetry to it.
Rather than saying Harris picked him, I’d really like to know who it was in the administration who decided Walz would be Harris’ running mate. Who was running the show and how on earth did they settle on Walz. Maybe they thought they needed a white moron on the ticket to attract Trump voters, whom they assumed are simply white morons? But Walz’s selection is the most intriguing aspect of the good ship Harris going down with such panache.
“But Walz’s selection is the most intriguing aspect of the good ship Harris going down with such panache.”
Yeah, it was almost too much to take.
Almost……
PWS
Well, I call him that because he called himself that, as far as I know a first for public declarations by a Presidential or VP candidate. “I’m a knucklehead sometimes” may be admirable candor, but given the choice, I prefer non-knuckleheads.
Incidentally, Victory Girls this morning posted the equivalent of my post, but nastier, here.
Reading Jonathan Turley’s blog, Walz continues his assault on American freedoms. We already knew he was anti free speech. Now he’s helped block an effort by the Minnesota legislature to put a clause in their laws basically saying there is no duty to retreat in a confrontation.
So now we know he is against self-defense. I wonder when the people of Minnesota will have had enough.
He’s certainly giving high school football coaches and teachers a bad name. Didn’t he teach history, as do most high school football coaches?
IANAL thankfully. Question about states with a duty to retreat law: I wake up at 2 in the morning to the sound of breaking glass. I have younger children at home (all are old enough to get out of the house but not very quickly or quietly). I have no idea the intention of the glass-breaker(s). What are my rights in this situation? Would having children in the house be sufficient to remove my duty to retreat? Or would I have to ask the home intruders whether they were going to be violent first?
Well, IANAL either but I’m pretty sure this falls under the Castle Doctrine. It varies from state to state also. In most cases (I believe) deadly force is lawful when a criminal invades your home. There is no duty to retreat inside your home to the best of my knowledge.
I’m sure there are other EA commenters that can explain it much better than myself.
Gun control groups opposed the bill that would have clarified the rule that citizens did not have a duty to retreat in the use of self-defense.
One must wonder why they would do such a thing.
An overhwleming majority of gun control supporters sim,ply fear street crime, and feel that gun control laws will make it easier to put away the street thug and the gangbanger.
So where does this concern for self-defense laws come from? It is not as if street thugs and gangbangers typically get away with their crimes with dubious cases of self-defense.
I would conclude that the leadership, spokesholes, and financiers of the gun control movement do not actually care of about suppressing street crime.
They consider the White male conservative to be tgheir enemy, and they support gun control laws due to animus against the White male conservative.
Likewise, they feel that the White male conservative fights back against the street thug, so they want to punish the White male conservative who fights off (let alone kills) an armed robber.
Duty to retreat laws.
As far as I’m concerned; they can take their “duty“ to retreat laws and shove them straight up their illogical morally bankrupt ass. Sure people can choose to take the opportunity to flee a life threatening situation if by some random chance it exists, but to legally mandate it is absurdly immoral! In most, if not all, life or death situations where seconds count and it’s reasonably and legally justified to shoot someone because there is a immediate threat of imminent and extreme violence or death from an assailant against you or others, the simple act of trying to retreat gives that assailant additional opportunities to carry out their impending violence. If a potential victim(s) of an immediate threat of imminent and extreme violence or death from an assailant is concentrating on following the “duty to retreat” law then they are not properly focused on stopping the active threat in the moment.
Seriously, think about it; this is a round about way to prosecute every person that shoots someone regardless of the circumstances, all the prosecutor has to do is claim that the shooter didn’t follow the “duty to retreat” law. It makes those protecting themselves with a firearm instantly guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of anti-gun advocates. In my opinion, duty to retreat laws are not only morally bankrupt but they are anti unalienable individual human rights.
The Declaration of Independence specifically states…
Duty to retreat violates the unalienable Right to life specifically stated in the Declaration of Independence by requiring an individual to retreat when in an extreme violence or life threatening situation which will very likely cause their own immediate death or serious injury.
Duty to retreat; HELL NO!
Seriously, think about it; this is a round about way to prosecute every person that shoots someone regardless of the circumstances, all the prosecutor has to do is claim that the shooter didn’t follow the “duty to retreat” law. It makes those protecting themselves with a firearm instantly guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of anti-gun advocates. In my opinion, duty to retreat laws are not only morally bankrupt but they are anti unalienable individual human rights.
This raises the question of why gun control groups would want these laws, if they care about suppressing street crime.
Mr. Walz allowed Minneapolis to burn and then threw the mayor (who is barely better than Walz) under the bus when he asked for help from Walz. That alone is enough to disqualify him. Why do people forget this? The majority of businesses that were destroyed remain so. A friend I spoke with who lives in the general vicinity of the tragedy says he and his male partner feel unsafe inside their own home even now. Someone who makes decisions like this for the largest city in their state would only allow the same happen to this country. It’s that simple.
Tim Who?