Three deceptions from Tim Walz

THREE DECEPTIONS FROM TIM WALZ. Vice presidential candidate Tim Walz is scheduled to address the Democratic National Convention in Chicago tonight. He will enjoy a wildly enthusiastic, rapturous reception. In the 15 days since Vice President Kamala Harris chose Walz to be her running mate, Democrats have celebrated Walz, the governor of Minnesota, as "America's dad" and "America's coach." They have swooned over his Midwestern manner, his clothes, and even his taste in food . They have made him a hero for calling Republicans "weird" and extolling the "joy" that the Democratic Party is apparently feeling these days.

Walz has also developed a reputation as someone who cannot be trusted to tell the truth about his own biography. Here are three examples of Walz deceptions that have raised concerns in the last 15 days.

1) The IVF deception. Walz has delighted Democrats with his attacks on Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), the Republican candidate for vice president. (Vance was the original target of the "weird" meme.) One of Walz's criticisms is that Vance in June voted against a Democratic messaging bill called the "Right to IVF Act." The bill was intended to gain publicity for Democrats attacking a since-overturned Alabama court decision that briefly, until it was reversed by legislation, declared frozen embryos to be persons. Vance noted that he, Vance, personally supports in vitro fertilization and no state in the country bans it. So he voted against the bill while also signing a statement in support of IVF.

It was a common Washington brouhaha. One party sees political advantage in drafting a bill that will never become law, written for the purpose of embarrassing the other party, and then attacks the other party for voting against it. In the case of IVF, it was particularly meaningless, because Vance fully supports access to IVF.

Nevertheless, Walz made the Vance vote an emotional highlight of his very first speech as a vice presidential candidate. In a h ighly personal account , Walz said he and his wife used IVF to conceive, and that their decision should be none of Vance's, or anyone else's, business.

"In Minnesota, we respect our neighbors and their personal choices that they make," Walz said . "Even if we wouldn't make the same choice for ourselves, there is a golden rule — mind your own damn business. That includes IVF. And this gets personal for me and my family. When my wife and I decided to have children, we spent years going through infertility treatments. And I remember praying every night for a call for good news — the pit in my stomach when the phone rang and the agony when we heard that the treatments hadn't worked. So it wasn't by chance that when we welcomed our daughter into the world, we named her Hope.”

The IVF story became part of Walz's political appeal. In a podcast interview last month, he said of Vance, "If it were up to him, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF and the things that we need to do reproductive. My kids were born through that direct — you know, that way." On a number of other occasions, Walz made clear that he and his wife conceived through IVF.

Except they didn't. This week, the New York Times reported that Walz and his wife used another method, known as intrauterine insemination, to conceive. It falls into the same broad category of fertility treatments as IVF, but with a huge difference: "Unlike IVF, IUI does not involve creating or discarding embryos," the New York Times explained. "And so anti-abortion leaders are not trying to restrict the treatment.”

So, to summarize: Walz and his wife used a technique , IUI, that nobody opposes. But Walz saw political benefit in falsely alleging that Vance opposes a different treatment, IVF, which Vance does not, in fact, oppose. Then Walz embellished the accusation by giving a seemingly emotional personal account of his own use of IVF, which was false. Walz's untruths left Vance mystified. "It's just such a bizarre thing to lie about, right?" Vance said Tuesday. "There's nothing wrong with having a baby through IVF or not having a baby through IVF. Like, why lie about it? I just don't understand that."

2) The DUI deception. In 1995, when he was 31 years old, Walz was stopped while driving 96 mph on a 55 mph road in Nebraska. He was drunk. He failed a field sobriety test, and then police took him to a local hospital for a blood alcohol concentration test, which measured 0.128, well above the legal limit. In court, Walz pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of reckless driving and paid a $200 fine.

Eleven years later, in 2006, Walz ran for Congress. When Republicans dug up the old arrest, the Walz campaign denied that he was drunk. From CNN : "In 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed a field sobriety test due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard. The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night.”

"None of that was true," CNN continued. Walz got away with it for 12 years, until he ran for governor in 2018 and the issue resurfaced. He finally acknowledged that he had been drinking that night. In 2022, the arrest popped up again when a Republican-leaning news organization discovered that Walz's alcohol level had been 0.128. At that point, there was no debating whether Walz was drunk or not and that his campaign defenses in 2006 had been false.

3) The National Guard deception. This is the Walz truth issue that has received the most attention . Walz served in the Army National Guard for 24 years. In 2003, he was deployed to Italy to support U.S. military operations in Afghanistan in what was known as Operation Enduring Freedom. In 2005, Walz retired from the National Guard as he was preparing a run for Congress and his unit was preparing for deployment in Iraq.

The deceptions involve Walz making a number of statements suggesting he actually served in Afghanistan and that he carried a weapon in combat when, in fact, he was involved in support work in Italy. The second is that Walz has referred to himself as a retired "command sergeant major" when, in fact, he retired one rank below that, as a master sergeant.

These are hugely sensitive issues, and there seems no doubt that Walz said things that were designed to leave the impression that he had served in Afghanistan when he had not. And he flatly said that he retired at one senior rank when he had retired at a lower rank. On the other hand, a careful reading of some of Walz's statements shows that he technically did not lie even as he left a misleading impression. In the words of a New York Times account that consulted four experts on military records, "All four said they do not believe Mr. Walz engaged in stolen valor, but that he did misrepresent his record at times."

It's also a fact that Walz served 24 years in the National Guard and was deployed overseas in service to the United States. In politics, as in American life in general, that is viewed as an admirable thing. So it can be hard to understand why Walz hasn't been more clear about what, precisely, he did.

So those are three Walz deceptions. On Tuesday, Axios published a few examples of Walz misleading reporters — promising a report would be released when it was never even written, claiming that Minnesota's pandemic school closures were less extensive than they actually were, and others. None of these examples, big and small, would likely be a huge problem for Walz. But put together, they might add up to something more. "Walz dissembling approaching critical mass — seems only a bit less than what got Al Gore the reputation as a congenital fibber," journalist Mickey Kaus wrote . "Turns out there's more than just the military/IVF/DUI stuff."

It does seem clear that there should be more fact-checking of Walz's statements. For example, even with all the attention paid to the National Guard matter, there is a lot we don't know. And now that Walz is a candidate for vice president, there could be other honesty concerns that arise through normal journalistic scrutiny of his record.

One thing that can be said with certainty is that none of that will matter to the delirious delegates in Chicago tonight. The enthusiasm for "America's coach" will be sky-high, and any questions about his truthfulness will await another time.