Tim Walz and the GOP Response
Minnesota Republicans should draw policy distinctions with Walz…after they congratulate him
Tim Walz is a good person. The last time I spoke to him was a bit more than a year ago when he delivered a stirring and sincere eulogy for my friend and former boss, U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger. Durenberger, a Republican, and Walz didn’t agree on every policy issue. But they shared a commitment to good government.
There are many issues with which I disagree with Walz. Too often, Walz falls back on yesterday’s solutions to tomorrow’s challenges. Still I will vote for Harris-Walz in the fall because the alternative is a person who promises to ignore the Constitution. And that is far more unacceptable than any single policy difference.
I also hope, though, that Republicans in my state of Minnesota see the opportunity that has been given them. IF the Harris-Walz team wins, the Minnesota GOP will have the best opportunity to win the governor’s office that they have had in years. Think about this: the Minnesota GOP has endorsed only two candidates at its state conventions who went on to win the state’s top office since Harold LeVander - nearly six decades ago. SIX DECADES!
Minnesota and the nation need a credible conservative party that poses meaningful solutions for the future. Even if you disagree with the GOP, democracy and policy are better with legitimate competing ideas.
Minnesota Republicans should start tomorrow’s campaign today with their reaction to the Walz candidacy. The first responses to Walz’s candidacy from the state’s top Republicans have been strident and harsh. Certainly disagree with him on his record and his policies. But, acknowledge what most Minnesotans know about Walz. He is an affable and decent person. Lead with the positive. Walz is a Minnesotan through and through (even though he was born in Nebraska).
Republicans, start the 2026 campaign for governor today by being polite and respectful of the honor bestowed on Walz and Minnesota. Then tackle the legitimate policy differences. If Walz is showing anything, it is that politics don’t always have to be negative and politicians don’t always have to be on the attack.
Minnesota Republicans would do well to heed the lesson.
(Please subscribe and share this post. Subscriptions are free and email addresses never are shared.)
As my friend Randy Johnson points out below, the original post had an error in the third paragraph. It has been corrected to read, “Think about this: the Minnesota GOP has endorsed only two candidates at its state conventions who went on to win the state’s top office since Harold LeVander - nearly six decades ago. SIX DECADES!”
Tom, you and I might disagree on many policy questions, but I think we share a belief that politics is a worthy profession and that compromise is essential for doing things, especially big things. I really do mourn that "compromise" has become a dirty word, particularly among the more extreme elements of both parties (though this left-of-center political observer thinks the problem is more pronounced on your side of the aisle).
The MAGA wing of the party doesn't appear to be interested in policy debates as much as it is in demonizing "the libtards" and purging from its ranks everyone insufficiently loyal to the Mr. Trump. Today, the range of permissible thought on that topic seems to be the space between "greatest president ever" and "greatest president there ever will be." And the "ever will be" crowd is giving serious side-eye to their cousins.
I'm an optimist by nature but it's hard for me to see how we get back to the policy debates until either the MAGA movement burns itself out or there's a political realignment that will break one - or perhaps both - parties into two parties - a nationalist/nativist party on the far right, a more moderate party of what used to be called "business" or "country club" Republicans, a moderate Democratic party and a far left Democratic socialist party. Were that to happen, I think there's a decent chance a centrist coalition of the two moderate parties could be a stable governing model.
Far-fetched? Sure, I'll admit to that, but in the next breath, I'll also note that the current configuration isn't working for anybody except the "let's just blow it up" crowd.