Speaking as a Midwesterner, let me give you my opinion of Tim Walz.
Walz needs to be seen in the context of the rapid fall of Minnesota, and particularly what happened to the Twin Cities.
The Twin Cities of Minneapolis & St. Paul used to be one of the nicest, safest cities
1/
in the United States. The Mary Tyler Moore show was set there for good reason, it was friendly, safe place.
Minnesota used to be purple and quite centrist.
The local Democratic party is called the DFL - the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party.
2/
That was how Minnesota politics worked - the cities in the metro area allied with the unions (primarily in the mining Northeast) who allied with the farmers. They went against the Twin Cities suburbs and businessmen, it was always polite, and the state was even.
3/
The big shift happened with the mass influx of Somalis, along with the Dems trying to bring in blacks from other metro areas. The "nice" Repubs being controlled opposition, they of course did nothing to stop this process.
4/
The demographics changed sharply, crime rates soared, and the political situation rearranged itself.
Along with much of the rest of the country, enough of the suburbs switched to the Dems, that along with the newly black metro areas, the Dems began to get a decisive margin.
5/
Polite and nice stopped right there, the new DFL played strictly hardball politics
They also turned on their traditional constituencies of the farmers and the Iron Range union workers. As soon as they didn't need the votes, it was slap across the face, and knife in the back,
6/
they had no need for those traditional white Americans, or there traditional values.
Minnesota rapidly became the most radical of the Midwestern states, even more so than Chicago-dominated Illinois.
7/
Walz is a snake & a chameleon. Yes, he hunts, does the fishing opener & sometimes wears flannel shirts - all of which are used by the entirely Democratic Minnesota media to portray him as something he is not, a folksy politician with a common touch.
8/
Walz is despised in the outstate regions where the hunting & fishing are primarily done. Those areas have flipped from Blue to solid Red, as they try to protect themselves from the radical in the Twin Cities - to no avail.
9/
The real Walz? He's the face of the Great Replacement, that is followed by the Marxists crushing the opposition.
That's exactly why they want him as VP. He brings no election advantages. They're not worried about the election, but what comes after.
10/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the biggest issues facing the US is that the "elite" groupthink / propaganda is so appallingly bad. Case in point, today's WSJ analysis of Iran trying to close the Straits of Hormuz (link follows).
By unanimous consent, the Houthis closing the Red Sea never happened.
1/
"The saber-rattling has conjured memories of the attacks on oil tankers traded by Iran and Iraq during their conflict in the 1980s. U.S. warships patrolled the region and eventually began escorting some commercial ships, in operations that turned deadly."
"McTigue’s ship returned fire with four of its own missiles, helping destroy the largest warship the U.S. Navy has sunk since World War II. “They called it a one-day war,” McTigue said of Operation Praying Mantis"
3/
I'm seeing replies addressing right or wrong in this & related threads. Yes, this is how the justifications are presented, but this can't be seen in isolation.
The adult framing HAS to be how to use limited resources to navigate a difficult world with many challenges. 1/
Because of decades of military, political and economic decisions, the US finds itself wanting to act a global military superpower, but without the defense manufacturing base to back it up.
2/
If the US wants to continue to be a global military superpower, then it must very carefully & strategically manage what resources it has while pursuing an emergency reindustrialization program that is particularly aimed at defense manufacturing.
3/
As I've written about in numerous threads, the US has some fantastic weapons that were only made in moderate numbers, and that it cannot currently manufacture at scale or quickly. If the US uses up too many of them too quickly, such as interceptor missiles, then the US loses.
2/
That is the irreplaceable strategic context that all major US military actions need to be evaluated from, one offs are propaganda for children.
The attacks were a gamble. They will be a success if nothing spreads. They will be a horrible error if things escalate.
3/
From today's WSJ: "U.S. Races to Defend Israel as It Burns Through Missile Interceptors"
"Short supplies of high-end defenses could lead to rationing as Iranian attacks continue"
2/
"The U.S. is racing to reinforce Israel’s defenses, sending more warships capable of shooting down ballistic missiles to the region as Iranian attacks drain Israel’s stocks of interceptors."
3/
The news from Israel is so good that it contradicts itself. Israel has total air superiority, and has devastated Iranian launcher capabilities. Also, Israel is intercepting 90% of Iranian missiles.
But - too many missile are getting through for both statements to be true. 1/
If Israel has devastated Iranian launchers then Iran isn't launching 100s of missiles daily - so a lot more than 10% are getting through.
If only 10% are getting through, then Iran must still have hundreds of active launchers, so Israel hasn't destroyed them.
Which is true?
2/
Resolving this contradiction is very important for Americans.
If Iran isn't near destroyed but still a snarling beast able to launch barrages of hundreds of missiles - we the people need to know that before getting directly involved.
3/
Reality beats the Narrative, and that is true even during the hyperventilating propaganda of a new Mideast war. As I've been writing about for years, the reality is the US doesn't have enough missiles.
Per the WSJ (video link later), Israel is running out of Arrow 3 missiles.
1/
Israel uses a four part layered antimissile missile defense, and the Arrow 3s are the "crown jewels" of their system, the interceptors for long-range ballistic missiles.
As covered in the video, the Israelis claim to have shot down about 90% of the 370 Iranian missiles shot.
2/
But the issue is what it has always been - the Iranians have more long-range ballistic missiles than the Israelis do interceptors.
If the interceptors run out, and the Iranians still have launch capabilities - it will be mayhem in Israel, just the simple numbers.
3/