Tim Walz's DUI
His Lack of Honesty Is Disturbing
It’s a week of puff pieces about the Democrats. The Boston Globe suggests that “Walz’s unique blend of an easygoing demeanor coupled with his all-American resume — military veteran, former high school teacher and football coach — will bolster the appeal of the Harris ticket and fuel a victory on Nov. 5.” Today’s article about him had this glowing title: ‘This genuine guy who cares’: In Tim Walz, Kamala Harris finds an enthusiastic hype man.
Accompanied by this photo:
Left unremarked upon was Walz’s arrest for drunk driving in 1995 as reported on here at CNN.
In 1995 in Nebraska, Walz was arrested for drunk driving. His blood alcohol level was .128. He was also driving 96 mph, more than 40 mph over the posted speed limit. He took a plea deal the next year where he admitted to reckless driving. At the court hearing, he further admitted to drinking and driving, or driving under the influence (DUI).
We all make mistakes. Walz had too much to drink and drove way too fast. He was arrested, briefly jailed, and had his day in court. But this isn’t the end of the story.
Reading the account at CNN, Walz subsequently denied he’d been driving drunk and denied he’d been briefly jailed. He made these false statements in 2006 when he was running for Congress.** Later, in 2018 as he ran for governor, he admitted he had been driving drunk, depicting it as a wakeup call, a life-changing moment.
The headline of the CNN story is very odd: “Tim Walz’s 2006 campaign falsely described details about his arrest for drunk driving in 1995”
Think about that a moment. It wasn’t his campaign that falsely described details. It was Tim Walz himself.
Here’s how that headline should read: In 2006, Tim Walz lied about his arrest for drunk and reckless driving in 1995.
Again, my point isn’t to bash Walz for recklessly driving drunk. We all make mistakes. But it reveals a weak and hypocritical character if you subsequently lie about the details for political gain, as he did in 2006.
I’m glad Walz is honest today about this “life-changing” incident. But he hasn’t always been honest about it since he was arrested in 1995, and that does raise legitimate concerns about his integrity. Especially since he’s being hyped for his “all-American resume.”
**A clarification: The CNN article cited above said it was Walz’s campaign manager and his communications director who lied in 2006, not Walz himself.
The most plausible scenario, I think, is that Walz told his top campaign staffers what to say. This was a highly personal matter, and only Walz knew the details. In short, Walz lied to them; they repeated his lies.
Another scenario is that these staffers lied without Walz's knowledge. This is worse, since it suggests he had no control over his campaign staff. As near as I can tell, these staffers weren't fired or otherwise punished. So I think this scenario is unlikely.
Assuming Tim Walz told his staffers lies which they then repeated for him, this is worse than lying himself, for getting someone to mouth your own lies is really low.
How should that CNN Headline read? Assigning blame to “the campaign” lets Walz largely off the hook, for where did “the campaign” get this highly personal information? “The campaign” was obviously speaking for Walz, saying what he wanted it to say. The terseness of “Tim Walz lied” is far more telling, I believe, than the statement his “campaign” lied, because, for a politician, you are your campaign and your campaign is you.
I regret if my terse rewrite of the CNN headline was misleading in any way.
In the comments, a reader has suggested that Walz didn't lie in 2006. It was his campaign manager and communications director who lied, therefore my suggested headline (and critique of CNN's headline) is wrong.
The most plausible scenario, I think, is that Walz told his campaign staffers what to say. After all, this was a highly personal matter. In short, Walz lied to them; they repeated his lies.
Another scenario is that these staffers lied without Walz's knowledge. This is worse, since it suggests he had no control over his campaign staff. As near as I can tell, these staffers weren't fired or otherwise punished. So I think this scenario is unlikely.
Assuming Tim Walz told his staffers lies which they then repeated for him, this is worse than lying himself, for getting someone to mouth your own lies is really low.
Granted one of the two imbeciles will be elected. Neither has much experience or thoughtful positions on domestic, economic or foreign affairs that will benefit the citizenry or the rest of the planet. As ironic as it is to say it, however - Trump has a tiny bit more of each for at least sitting behind the Resolute desk on his rump for four years.
Walz's actual DUI could be called a "youthful indiscretion" But he doesn't get off with his later denial at 42. His character was on display and he is another empty suit in terms of the policies needed to guide the U.S. in a better direction and away from the calamities facing us.
As this is the week of the DNC convention, focusing only on the Democrats: it appears the Obamas have beaten out the Clintons as the silent force behind Harris. Therefore, if she's elected, it will be the fourth term of the Obama administration in terms of staffing - and staffing is destiny. (We've already seen how well that has worked out for both Obama and Biden).