by Jeff Childers
Despite 48 hours of nonstop media damage control, it appears we correctly picked the ultimate winner from Tuesday’s Vance-Walz debate. The New York Times ran a post-debate story yesterday alliteratively headlined, “Tim Walz as a Harris Ally: Folksy, Factually Sloppy and Far Less Visible.. F, F, and F. Let’s call it ‘F-minus’.
The Times evidently decided not to lipstick the vice-presidential pig. “Mr. Walz,” the story plainly admitted, “has a history of misspeaking, misstating facts and otherwise getting over his skis.” The article admitted that, even while delivering uncomfortable gaffe moments, Walz also still avoided answering:
This wasn’t the first time. Walz was in trouble last month for wildly exaggerating his military service, claiming heroic combat status when, in fact, he was never even in the same country as combat in the now-media-forgotten “stolen valor” incident.
Walz is Pinnochio!
A Walz theme may be developing. I’m not the only one who’s noticed Walz’s tendency to, shall we say, stretch the facts to the point they snap and whip Walz right in the eye. For instance, posted yesterday:
The best evidence that Vance did win this week’s debate came toward the end of the story, when the Times punctiliously noted that, “Win or lose, vice-presidential debates have almost never moved the polls.”
Yep, Vance won.
Walz proves why he is not fit for the job just like John Kerry maybe he should just retire