Building Walz

There's at least two things Republicans should never do during campaign season (or ever, for that matter): they should never accuse their opponents of lying, and they should never make an issue of the southern border.

The lying part is easy to discuss. When former President and convicted felon Donald Trump was in office, he let loose with approximately 30,500 documented lies, with the bulk of them – about 15,000 – coming in the final year of his presidency, according to The Washington Post.

So any accusations of political opponents lying for gain only adds to the considerable pantheon of Republican hypocrisy. Go ahead and lie and see how well that expands your tent. You are, after all, the party of the Big Lie.

The lying issue came to my attention after vice presidential candidate Senator JD Vance, in his self-righteous indignation, said his opponent, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, lied about Walz' military service when Walz said in a 2018 video that he carried a gun into combat. Vance also argues that Walz retired just in time to avoid his unit's deployment to Iraq, insinuating cowardice as well as disloyalty to his men.

Let's back up a minute. Walz is a 24-year veteran of the National Guard who achieved the rank of command sergeant major, the highest rank an enlisted man can reach. He was deployed twice in those 24 years – once to Norway above the Arctic Circle, and another time to Italy in 2003 while backfilling troops who were headed to Afghanistan.

Vance is also a veteran. He enlisted in the Marines after high school and was subsequently deployed to Iraq. Apparently, that's enough for Vance to jump on Walz' case since Vance was actually in a war zone. He asks Walz "what gun did you carry into combat?"

What Vance doesn't say much about is that during his tenure in Iraq, he was was a correspondent armed with a keyboard and where he quickly skyrocketed to the rank of corporal before serving out his enlistment. Technically, by virtue of rank, Vance should be saluting Walz, not denigrating him.

Additionally, Walz – who served with an artillery unit and consequently suffered hearing loss – retired after 24 years as a Guardsman. In January 2005, after much consideration, he filed a statement of his candidacy with the Federal Election Commission to run for Congress, so his decision to retire was already known. By May of that year, he officially retired, and in July, his unit received it's mobilization alert. It's not until 10 months later, in 2006, that his unit is actually in the field.

By this time, Walz would be 41 years old with a hearing impediment. I'm not sure that's who the military wants on its front lines.

But I find it beneath any sense of dignity that Vance should attack a fellow veteran for his service. This simply illustrates that the Republican party has shown no sense of dignity or respect anywhere during the Trump years.

I don't think Walz' misstep in the 2018 video was intentional, but even if it was, the Harris campaign has addressed the issue.

“In making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the Governor misspoke,” said Harris campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt. “He did handle weapons of war and believes strongly that only military members trained to carry those deadly weapons should have access to them, unlike Donald Trump and JD Vance who prioritize the gun lobby over our children.” 

That's another blog right there.

As for the border, well, Trump surely had his opportunity to fix things during his presidency. He did build 452 miles of border wall that Mexico did not pay for (the US taxpayer did, at the tune of $15 billion), but his most disgusting legacy is the separation of young children from their families. That was actually administration policy. Nice job fixing the border there.

Now Trump says he wants to build "detention" camps for illegal immigrants. Guess who's going to pay for that?

Even worse, the GOP recently vetoed a strong border security bill authored by Oklahoma Senator James Lankford. They did so because Trump thought the bill, if it passed, would give Democrats the credit and the advantage in the upcoming elections. The bill seemed to be a step in the right direction. If nothing else, it would have been progress to a problem that has plagued several administrations – both Republican and Democrat – for decades.

So now, whenever the GOP attacks Democrats about the border, it's a weak argument with little substance.

Just like most everything else they propose.