Staff Reports
Kamala Harris’s running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, recently demonstrated a curious concept of veterans’ advocacy by opposing the VA Mission Act of 2018. This landmark piece of legislation, which provided veterans with the invaluable option to receive care from private hospitals rather than languishing in the notoriously inefficient government-run care facilities, sailed through the political waters with a surprising level of bipartisan support. Yet, Walz stood on the wrong side of history, voting against a measure that most Democrats and Republicans championed. One has to wonder if he was busy during civics lessons or simply chose to ignore the will of the people.
In perhaps the most befuddling aspect of Walz’s dissent, he became part of the exclusive club of just 70 naysayers in the House, all of whom happened to sport a “D” behind their names. When the votes were tallied, it was clear that while the majority of both parties recognized the urgent need for better veterans’ care, Walz and his fellow Democrats were hanging out on a different planet—one where the needs of veterans mysteriously took a backseat to party lines.
Another reason to despise Tampon Tim.
Walz Opposed Bipartisan VA Healthcare Bill Expanding Hospital Choice for Vets https://t.co/BcpyjJQmIG
— RedwoodStrong🇺🇸 (@RedwoodStrong10) August 7, 2024
Leading the charge into this political oblivion was none other than then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. On the same day she voted against the bill, she showered Walz with praise, labeling him a hero of Democratic priorities. The irony is rich, as the vaunted “leadership” they championed can effectively be described as an elaborate exercise in partisanship, putting politics before the very real and pressing needs of those who have served their country.
The legwork and tenacity of a bipartisan slate pushed the bill through the Senate with the kind of enthusiasm rarely seen in Washington—it passed with a whopping 92-5 vote. Former President Trump signed the bill into law, a moment that truly honored veterans by turning choice into a permanent fixture of U.S. policy. The notion that Walz would publicly object to a measure hailed as a giant leap forward for veterans, while behind the curtain, the whole establishment praised his lack of participation, might just be the definition of hypocrisy.
Compounding this situation is Walz’s current predicament—facing accusations of stolen valor concerning his military service record. The man who served in the Minnesota Army National Guard departed with the rank of master sergeant but was caught embellishing his achievements on his official biography; he misleadingly suggested he retired at the much higher rank of command sergeant major. Such discrepancies raise eyebrows and fuel further questions about his sincerity in advocating for veterans. It seems he may have spent more time spinning political narratives than ensuring that those who wear the uniforms have access to the care they truly deserve.
