Tim Walz Not Ready For Primetime

He's a man for the small stage. I remember this very clearly with Scott Walker, the former governor of Wisconsin, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, and there was this flurry of excitement on the right when Walker became the governor of Wisconsin, and a lot of libertarian leaning conservative money was so thrilled about Walker because he took a lot of steps after he came into office to break the power of a lot of different unions within Wisconsin, especially

public sector unions. And that's the one, you know, the Koch brother money that's out there. I mean, the one thing that they're all very very much united on is that unions are bad. So they loved Scott Walker, and I'm a bit more ambivalent on that question. I certainly

not crazy about public sector unions and teachers' unions. Nonetheless, there was all of this excitement about Scott Walker, and you know, kind of twenty thirteen, twenty fourteen, latter half of the Obama years and everyone's like, this guy's running for president, this guy's running for president, this guy's running for president. And then twenty sixteen rolls around and what do we see? Eh, he was on the debate stage and completely dwarfed charisma wise by guess who, Donald Trump.

Some people are just not made for prime time. They're not made for a national political stage. They're not national political figures. They are appealing to a statewide audience. They can get support from statewide donors, they can get political and media coverage that's favorable, and you know, a breeze to their back from local media and local outlets. But they're not ready for prime time. And that's who Tim

Walls is. Walls has been kind of bubble wrapped throughout this process and with Democrat and media narratives telling us how wonderful he is, but there's been no uncontrolled occasion for actually seeing him face to face. And once we did,

what did we see? Well, he kind of looked dopey, look like I saw someone on Twitter make the joke that he looked like Don Rickles, Don Rickles wimpy Lutheran brother, which I thought was hilarious and dead on the other thing that I find hilarious is how, both for Walls and then lately, for some reason, Kamala Harris's husband, Scott Emhoff, there's this constant effort by people on the left to want to identify their favored politicians as like family members

or like either either to grossly sexualize them like or to portray them as like their father or something. Oh, Joe Biden's like our grandpa. Kamala Harris is Mamla. She's you know, just like your fun aunt, and or to the gross sort of there were different ways throughout the Obama years where people were sexualizing bro Oh, he's so hot, he's so confident, he's so cool. With both Walls and m Hoff, there was a recent story about Doug m Hoff saying that, oh, Doug m Hoff, he's he's reshaping

our concept of masculinity. So it's basically and similar things have been said of Walls, which is so hilarious to me, Like a liberal man exists and liberals go, wow, this is reshaping our entire concept of masculinity. I don't think they're reshaping anyone's concepts of masculinity. They're guys. I mean whatever, Maybe they're a good guy, maybe they're a bad guy. I highly doubt that the vice presidential nominee or the current the husband of the current vice president, is really

reshaping anyone's sense of masculinity. Although if we're going to talk about Doug m Hoff, I mean, I don't know that he's reshaping my concept of masculinity, given that his concept of masculinity is cheating on his wife with the nanny and then marrying some other galp you know, so, I don't know, doesn't strike me as a very appealing concept of masculinity. Now, it seems like the soft consensus is that Vance did better, and a lot of the messaging from the left after the fact has been well,

the vice presidency isn't all that important. It's not like the vice presidency such policy, which is an awkward thing for liberals to argue right now, given who their nominee is. And it's almost this impossible tightrope that liberals have to walk with Kamala Harris. They have to portray her as smart and competent and part of the plan. They cannot I think they have to pick one or the other. Either.

She was really heavily involved as a prominent key decision maker for Democrat policies for the last four years, in which case, unfortunately for her, she has to bear a lot of the blame for those policies. Or and frankly, I kind of think this is more likely. She was often left out in the cold, she was off And by the way, Biden is saying she was involved. She was involved with every just major decision I made. She

was there making it with me. So Biden is clearly taking the posture I think I was a great president, I'm not. And so I can't say that, and Biden can't say, yeah, she wasn't really involved in anything. It was all me, because the only reason to do that would be to help Harris distance herself from Biden. He doesn't think he's he should be distanced from. He's very proud of his presidency. He thinks he's this great historic figure.

In his head, he has constructed this image of himself, so he's like, oh, yeah, she's deeply involved in all my policy decisions. But I think and I think most of the reporting that was out there prior to the big switcheroo in July when Biden dropped out and Harris became the nominee all of a sudden. I think it's more likely true that Harris actually was sidelined most of the time within the Biden administration. I think she was

a relative unimportant figure within the Biden administration. I think lots of cabinet officials had more, say, more influence. Biden trusted them more, relied on them more than he did on Harris. And I think a lot of the reporting that was coming out was indicating things like Biden can't stand Harris, Biden can't stand how she won't take anything

off his plate. Coming from the Harris camp was you were hearing rumblings of frustration that Biden wouldn't give her anything, that the stuff he did give her seemed like he was setting her up to fail. I mean, I don't know that she's ever going to recover from the border Zar thing, because like the the assignment Biden gave her, he basically just did did not at all empower her to actually fix anything that was wrong with the border.

So here she is. He's making this big enough. Oh, I'm putting you're in charge of migration issues, root causes of migration and problems of the southern border. This thing where it's like, oh, she's in charge of this problem. She will never resolve that. There's no humanly possible way she will resolve it. Now, do I think Harris still deserves some blame for Biden's policies? Well, yeah, she signed up for it. She signed up to be as vice president.

She publicly supported everything he did. She's part of that administration. She's the incumbent. She has to take that blame. But I could understand and if she wants to come out tomorrow and say, listen, the reason why this country's not doing well is because Joe Biden shunted me to the side. Here's all the things I do differently from him. She can come out tomorrow and do that. But she's not going to do that. She knows she can't or she

feels she can't. So this is the tricky thing is if you're gonna say, well, the vice presidential debate is sort of meaningless, I mean, how important is the vice president? Really? I mean, well, then now important is Kamala Harris? Really? What are we talking about? Then you can't out of one side of your mouth because Wall's got you know, the brakes beaten off of them. You can't say, oh, the vice presidential debate is meaningless because the vice president doesn't,

you know, actually set polishy or anything. Well, yeah, I mean the vice president is there supporting the president with the president's policies. You can't pretend like it's not important when your nominee is the vice president. And again, this is the problem. You have to either say she was intimately involved in everything, in which case she has to take the blame for everything that went wrong the last four years, or you have to say, oh, she didn't

have anything to do with all those things. And Democrats are finding it's it's really hard to have it both ways. And I think that might have been just, you know, to get back to the actual analysis of the debate.

I think that might have been the strongest points that Vance was making, which was bringing it back to Harris all the time that she's the incumbent, that she's the one who's done all these things, that she has to bear the responsibility for all of these problems that we're talking about that exist in the country, that her day one was. I think he had one line during the debate that you know, she keeps on day one, I'm going to fix X y and z no no, no, no.

Your day one was fourteen hundred days ago. I mean she's been vice president now for about fourteen hundred days since, you know, January twentieth of twenty twenty one. So I thought that was really strong from Vance. And again it sort of showed, you know, maybe there's no strong rebuttal that Walls can provide. But I just don't feel like Walls was set for that stage being And you see this kind of sometimes with other especially with Democrat governors.

I think in blue, deep blue states, you get elected as you win your primary for governor in a deep blue state, and your life is pretty smooth sailing after that. There's no real threat or challenge to your seat. The media will always back you. It will always be the wind beneath your wings. You're not ever really fighting for your political life. You're sort of just the guy in

charge and everyone's backing you. And I don't know that Walls is prepared for like this kind of a combative environment where you know it's him trying to duke it out with someone who has a real realistic chance of beating him. He's not made for the big canvas and and he's he's getting in trouble also because of his sort of serial stretching of the truth. He had a he didn't really have a good answer for his frequent claims that he was in Hong Kong during the Tianas

or Hong Kong or Taiwan. I can't remember. He kept making this claim that when Tianaman Square happened, that he was either in Hong Kong or in Taiwan. And all they records seem to indicate that people dug into this and and there's seems to be a decent amount of evidence reporting on it that actually he was in Nebraska, and he's oh, I was being dopey, I misremembered, misspoke.

He's got that he's got his kind of weird stolen valor things where he's you know, claiming at one point he is using weapons of war and that you know, sort of embellishing his military service, which is a big time no. No, he's you know, he And the thing is little crap like that you can get away with when you're the governor of deep blue Minnesota, when you know you've got you know, this ten point electoral cushion all the time, and that local media is really not

going to challenge you about it, not that hard, but on the big stage, he can't avoid that stuff, and I think he looked pretty weak. The only things I think he did let me close with this, the only points where I think it seemed as though he was doing better than Vance, because I don't think Vance had a great answer for it, was the January sixth stuff and democracy, which first, that stuff happened at least, gosh,

what time was that happening. Seemed like that was like about forty or fifty minutes into the debate, which I feel like probably half the audience had turned off the debate by that point. But it's also this, I don't get the sense that Americans really give a crap about January sixth anymore. For the most part, I just don't

think they do. And the Democrats had really put a lot of eggs into the basket of thro We got to protect democracy, we need to be protecting democracies about democracy, and I always thought that that messaging it just seems so vague that I just don't think it's going to work, And most of the polling indicates it hasn't worked. When you ask voters about who's the best for protecting democracy. It's about a fifty to fifty split, just like the

election overall. So I just don't think it is really working. The one thing where I think Walls probably did a little bit better than vance don't think it was working. When we return a little bit about tribalism, loving your own tribe and Tim Walls's visit to the University of Michigan and the Big House for the Minnesota Michigan football game next on The John Girardi Show, The big Tim Walls story was not the debate last night. The bigger Tim Walls story was the football game on Saturday. Tim

Walls went to Michigan. It's obviously spending a lot of time in Michigan. All the presidential vice presidential candidates, they're all spending a lot of time in Michigan. He goes to Ann Arbor, home of the stud of Michigan. He goes to the Michigan versus Minnesota football game the University of Minnesota. The Gophers are playing the University of Michigan in the Big House, playing the Wolverines. Now, before I discuss this, I have to preface this with my own

history with Michigan. I despise Michigan. I despise the University of Michigan football team. I hate it with the fury of a thousand suns. I despise them and all their works, and all their pomps, and all their empty promises. This is due to some PTSD from a couple of Michigan Notre Dame game, Michigan's kind of a long time on

again off again rival of Notre Dame. I had two games, in particular, the twenty ten and twenty eleven Michigan Notre Dame games, in which Michigan's quarterback must have thrown for three hundred yards and ran for two hundred year, must have thrown for basically half of a mile and ran

for another half of a mile against Notre Dame. Denard Robinson, that was his name, Denard Robinson, who was Michigan's quarterback during that time, And looks like they would always play Notre Dame early in the season, like maybe the second or third game of the season, and he would play Notre Dame and it's like he took football pills. He would look like the greatest college football player in the country.

He'd shoot up to the top of the Heisman watch list and then proceed to play incredibly mediocre football the entire rest of the year. So it was like, only against Notre Dame he looked like an absolute world beater. So I and he won two extremely close games against Notre Dame, where again he gained about one mile worth of yardage single handedly. So I despise Michigan. So many games we played against Michigan, so much heartbreak, anger, resentment, sadness, whatever.

So I despised Michigan. And I'd like to believe if I were running for president and I needed to campaign in Michigan, that I, as a Notre Dame graduate, if Notre Dame went to Michigan for a football game and I was campaigning, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that I would wear a Michigan jersey. I would sooner die than wear a Michigan jersey. Never. I don't care. If I'm campaigning to be the mayor of ann Arbor, I'm not going to root for Michigan. I hate Michigan.

I despise a Michigan so much. And this, this guy, Tim Walls, the governor of Minnesota, goes to Michigan for a football game, and whose jersey does he put on?

A Michigan jersey? Disgusting, despicable, outrageous. In the words of Jackie Childs, the Johnny Cochrane imitation attorney from Seinfeld, I cannot express how this, how much this revolts me, and I feel like it's a move that's gonna backfire on Walls because I don't think any self respecting Michigan fan would want a Minnesota fan to wear a Michigan jersey when they go to Michigan. Like, how does any Michigan

voter respect that? Like, wouldn't you respect it more if the guy was saying, Hey, I want your vote, but I got a room for my Gophers today. Sorry, Like wouldn't wouldn't that be your preference as a Michigan voter, Like, Okay, at least this this man is being authentic, Like I understand he's not from Michigan. He's got to support his guys when he comes to the big house. Okay, that's like a real guy. No, Walls is such a panderer that he would put on that jersey, that jersey of

all jerseys. Oh my god, just ah, that tells you all you need to know about Tim Wolson. I'm not sure what it tells you, but it tells you something about inauthenticity, possibly not really understanding football at all, which you know, old Tim Wallas is redefining what it means to be masculine. I'm not sure that that's true anyway. I'm Holly and I were so disgusted by that, Like

what a revolting thing to do. Like, I don't care if I'm running for mayor of Los Angeles or you know, if I'm running for governor of cal I'm never gonna run for governor of California. It don't be ridiculous. But if I'm running for governor of California, let me guarantee you one thing you will catch me. I would sooner die than wear a USC jersey. Never, never, in a million billion years would I wear a USC jersey. Like that's like what I might wear a presdent statee jersey,

given that President State has never played Notre Dame. Ever, they're not really rivals in any way. But Minnesota plays Michigan every single year. How they hate Michigan. How I cannot fathom the brain of someone who does that. So that is the most significant Tim Wall's story of the weekend was not his debate performance the fact that he stooped so low as to wear a Michigan jersey. The kinds of oh gosh, the kinds of moral compromises politics

forces on you is disgusting. When we return, Should the City of Clovis move to district based voting for its city council members? Next on the John Girardi Show. One thing some of you may notice is happening with different local election bodies differ different local government bodies, and you probably haven't noticed it unless you're a real local political junkie kind of the way I am, so I am

here to explain it to you. There's a huge push all up and down the state to try to change the groundwork for local elections and voting in local elections in order to advantage liberals, and the way that they are trying to do so is by using the California Voting Rights Act and the Federal Voting Rights Act to

manipulate things. Basically, to try to argue that the current setup of a given political entities, districts, given political entities boundaries, that they are set up in a way that violates the civil rights of minority voters. I am interested in this as a Clovis resident due to a letter sort of threatening this could turn into a lawsuit. Letter that was sent to the City of Clovis by a voting

rights attorney from Malibu named Kevin Schenkman. So on August twenty third, this guy, Kevin Shankman, sent a letter to the Clovis City Council arguing that its method of electing city council members is illegal. He asks for an October fourteenth date for a response. Now, how is it illegal? Let's see, the city of Clovis has five city council members.

Unlike Fresno, which has city council members plus a mayor. Clovis, like a lot of small town governments in the San Jauquin Valley, Clovis doesn't have a strong mayor who kind of functions almost like a president. So the way the president of city council works, it's almost like there's a city council that functions kind of like Congress, and the mayor kind of functions like the president. The president can

veto certain decisions by the city council. He's sort of the executive anyway, Clovis is not set up that way. Clovis basically just has city council. City council votes for proposed measures they oversee different they oversee as a council, various different city services. The city manager, et cetera, and city council members in Clovis are voted for in an at large process. That means Clovis is not divided up

into city council regions the way Fresno is. So. In Fresno, Gary Brettefeld, for example, is a city council member, and he's representing presidents who live in his district. I believe it's District six, which is most of North Fresno. On Lisa Perea, she's representing people who live more in the Tower district. Miguel Arius is representing more people. I forget exactly where his district is. I think he's kind of

more downtowny different. So different city council members represent different parts of the city, and the city is broken up into regions. So Gary Brettefeld is not. Nobody who lives in the Tower District is voting for or against Gary Brettefeld. Nobody who lives in Woodward Park is voting for or against Analisa Prea. They have their one city council member. Clovis is not that way. Clovi City Council members are

elected at large. All five of the city council members are subject to a vote by all of the voting citizens of the entire city of Clovis. So it doesn't matter where they live, where the individual city council members live. Everyone in Fresno, excuse me, everyone in Clovis gets to vote for all five of the Clovis City Council members. And they sort of stagger their terms of office, so I think every two years you're voting for either two

or three spots, so they're five spots total. Now, the argument that's being made by this attorney is that at large elections disadvantage minority voters in Clovis. At large elections disenfranchised minority voters in Clovis. And here's the basic argument. Most members of the Clovis City Council live east of Clovis Avenue. Most of the poor and minority residents of Clovis live west of Clovis Avenue. They're about thirty percent

of voters in Clovis are Latinos. Therefore, Latinos by having at large voting are structurally kept out of power and influence. If Clovis were to adopt a regionally based city council where you had different city council districts and people running within those different districts, then you would have more equitable

racial representation, all right. That's the argument, And the argument is that the California Voting Rights Act mandates basically it tries to mandate against historic racist practices that happened in

a lot of communities in the South. So in the South, there were a lot of different practices that were undertaken to lessen eliminate the political influence of African Americans, whether it was you know, taking you know, putting all the African American vote into one district so that none of the other districts would have any African American representation, or like almost dividing up the African American neighborhood like almost like twenty different pizza slices, so that all of these

different districts would have a very small number of African American voters and there would be no one district where African American voters had any influence whatsoever. Or basically African Americans would have very little influence in a lot of different districts. So there were a lot of ways in the South, in ways that were probably motivated by race,

where African American voters were in various ways disenfranchised. Now the problem is, though, when politics and the political art of redistricting, which has always been something that's reserved for the political process, where people do redistricting very consciously thinking about elections, and the party in power who's in charge of the redistricting thinks about politics and they think about, well, well, I want to create a safe Republican district here. That's

the advantage of winning, you know. And we're looking at voting trends. This neighborhood tends to vote Democrat, this neighborhood tends to vote Republican. And the problem seems to be when that overlay of which neighborhoods vote Democrat, which neighborhoods vote Republican, if that overlay is really consistent with racial demographics. And I think what Democrats have done is throughout California they are pushing for reforms on the premise that over here,

just we can't disenfranchise Latino voters. We can't disenfranchise the Latino community in this place this place. What they actually care about is they want more Democrats to win. Even if people are drawing these maps with no racial animus, they're drawing these maps based on political desires. Nonetheless, Democrats are trying to use these mechanisms to ensure that they

get Democrat outcomes. So what they want, what this guy is thinking is that Clovis could get a couple of Democrats on the Clovis City Council if they just split up the way they did the vote differently. Now, one of the things that hasn't been accounted for is that we've had Latino representation on the Clos City Council for a long time. The arguments made, well, there isn't a single Latino on the Clos City Council right now. Yeah, Jose Flores was on the Clovis City Council for like

over twenty years. And by the way, Jose had a statement in respond to GV wire at a piece on it. They interviewed Flores about it, who said, basically, he does not support breaking Clovis up into separate districts for city council members. He says it's not a formula for fairness. It's not a formula for equality, and it's not a formula for democracy. Flores now serves as the police chief

of the State Center Community College District. He basically is like, yeah, this wouldn't help and because a couple of things that will happen if this is adopted. One territorialism. Gary Bradefeld always gets hit with charges, well, you don't care about

people in South Fresno. You don't because you're just caring about you're a lily white North Fresno Woodward Park constituents, which I think has always been an unfair thing for Gary, and I think his record is indicated he wants to do things to help South presdo But that is, ah, that is the kind of thing that will naturally happen

when you have individual regional district voting. Also, it's sort of a thing of you know, Clovis is not that large of a city yet, I mean he's got one hundred and twenty thousand people, so it is it's gotten a lot bigger in the last twenty years. Maybe you can make the argument that at large voting made more sense when Clovis was the city of sixty thousand people rather than one hundred and twenty thousand people like it

is now. I don't know. I think the system makes sense now, and I think the only reason this challenge is being brought forward is because the closed City Council is pretty conservative, although I'd say it's not nearly as conservative as people think. I think Diane Pierce is a real conservative. I think Vung one to two is pretty conservative.

Not as sure about the other folks. So anyway, in short, I hate all of these initiatives by liberal some left wing attorney from Beverly Hills swooping in and he's making it well that he's got a couple of constituents who live in clothes. I won't reveal them names for fear of retaliation. Retaliation. Please, come on, you're filing a lawsuit about at large voting. This is not an issue that's going to inspire people to have pitchforks and torches outside

your client, your alleged client's house. Which basically what this guy is doing is he's trolling different cities all up and down the state of California, sending threatening demand letters on behalf of clients. So he'll find two or three people from some Democrat operative. Probably we're like, oh, will you be my client to represent me for trying to get the Clover City Council to change its representation? Uh? Sure, Do I have to do anything? No? To sign this paper?

Oh okay, and then he can collect attorney's fees from the lawsuit that likely follows. So I find the whole thing sleazy. This is purely a Democrat attempt to get more seats on the Clovis City Council. And I think a lot of the Clovis City Council members think we're doing a pretty good job with that. He serves as we're doing this pretty well run city as it is. It's good that all the city council members care about all of Clovis. They have to care about all of

Clovis because they're at large. They're all accountable to all the voters of Clovis. Speaking of redefining masculinity, which is what the left keeps saying about Kamala Harris's husband, some more shady stories about maybe Doug m Hoff forcefully slapping his ex girlfriend. Next on the John Girardi Show, so there was this barf worthy interview between Jen Saki, the former press secretary for President Biden, who immediately parlayed her

quick stint as press secretary into an MSNBC show. This bar for the interview between her and Doug m Hoff, where she said, Oh, you're like redefining our concept of what it means to be masculine by being a supportive husband to your wife. Kamala Harrinth and I've been laughing at this idea that like a liberal man exists and immediately liberals are like, oh, he's redefall I'm a fauci sexual. Oh my gosh, she's redefining the whole concept of what

it means to be masculine. So here's some of the ways in which Doug Hemoff has redefined what it means to be masculine. First, let's not forget he got divorced from his first marriage because he cheated on his wife with his daughter's nanny, got her pregnant, and it appears she had an abortion. I don't know the full details of all involved he was. Anyway, there's now this story

Kamala Harris's husband Doug m Hoff. According to dailymail dot Com the UK Daily Mail, Kamala Harris's husband Doug m Hoff forcefully slapped his ex girlfriend for flirting with another man in a booze fueled assault after a date to a star studded gallop. This was back in twenty twelve, before he was with Harris. Now this is kind of seems a little tabloidy, but they've got apparently three sources who asserted this not redefining my concept of masculinity. That'll

do it. John Gierlady shows you next time on Power Talk.