Democrats bet his bonafides as a former high school teacher, veteran, and gun owner with folksy charm would help Harris, who has been criticized for being inauthentic and a flip-flopper on policy.

But for all of Walz’s midwestern “dad energy,” his record and penchant for tall tales will be in the spotlight on Oct. 1 when he faces Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) in a vice presidential debate. In what is undoubtedly the largest stage of his political career, Walz risks undermining Harris even further at a time when her campaign is desperate to capitalize on another inflection point.

Walz’s likability makes it difficult to land blows

Since becoming her running mate, Walz has been praised for his down-to-earth, “aw shucks” approach that has played well to Democrats. His ability to connect to everyday voters in a party that has traditionally come off as elitist was an early boon for the Harris ticket. Of the four candidates on the two-party tickets, Walz is consistently the only one whose favorability rating outstripped his unfavorability rating.

David McLaughlin, a Democratic strategist, told the Washington Examiner that he believes Walz’s amiable personality stems from being a career educator.

“When you have to lead groups of 25-30 teenagers throughout a school day you learn to connect with ALL types of people very quickly or you don’t make it in the classroom,” he said.

Republicans in Minnesota, where Walz won two terms as governor, have said his likability made it difficult to land punches on him even after some of his biggest political blunders. In March 2023, he signed a bill allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses. He also supported making his state’s low-income health insurance program accessible for all residents, regardless of immigration status. And, he’s supported “sanctuary” laws that prohibit local law enforcement from telling federal authorities the immigration status of people they encounter.

Walz’s unforced errors sow doubts

While Walz has moved crowds at rallies, there are a growing number of examples that show the Democratic governor has either exaggerated or outright lied about his past.

These unforced errors have sowed doubt in voters’ minds about whether they can trust what he’s saying. This comes at a time when Harris herself has been criticized for flip-flopping on several major policy items, including immigration, fracking, the Green New Deal, and the Zero Emissions Vehicle Act. Thus, Walz’s lack of credibility could exacerbate a key Harris weakness.

Republicans have charged that Harris’s reversals are evidence she can’t be trusted. Walz was supposed to be a stabilizing, reassuring factor, but his missteps have worked in the opposite direction.

Walz and Vance will make their pitches to undecided voters in battleground states on everything from immigration, to abortion, and the economy. Their face-to-face will come just weeks after the first, and likely only, debate between Harris and former President Donald Trump. 

National polls swing back and forth to indicate which candidate is ahead in the tight race. The RealClearPolitics national average has Harris on 49.1% and Trump at 47.1%.

During the vice presidential debate, it will be up to Walz and Vance to provide the next, and perhaps last, big campaign jolt. That could be hard for both of them. Vance has been bashed for being inauthentic and stiff, while Walz has racked up skepticism about his truthfulness.

Kathleen Parker, a Washington Post columnist, wrote, “There’s no reason to believe Harris picked Walz because of his avuncular antics or his image as a great father, the latter of which should be assumed as normal, not celebrated as something rare. As Harris’s repackaging team tweaked her record to make her seem like a moderate, she studiously selected as her running mate the country’s most liberal governor — a man who just happens to fudge reality, exaggerate his accomplishments and invent half-truths to burnish his resume.” 

‘Stolen valor’ claims will be at forefront of debate

Walz has been accused by Vance of “stolen valor,” a term for military imposters who lie about serving or padding their achievements. 

His flirtation with the truth began in 2016 when he participated in a CSPAN discussion about then-President Barack Obama‘s push to reduce troop levels overseas. He was incorrectly introduced by the host who said Walz “enlisted in the Army National Guard at 17 and retired 24 years later as Command Sergeant Major” and “served with his battalion in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.”

Despite Walz nodding in agreement, he served in Operation Enduring Freedom in Italy, not Afghanistan. 

These types of inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with. 

Harris’s campaign has referred to Walz as a “retired Command Sergeant Major,” one of the top ranks for an enlisted soldier. While Walz achieved that rank,  personnel files show he was reduced in rank months after retiring. That left him as a master sergeant for benefits purposes.

There was also an incident in 2018 where Walz claimed he carried weapons of war “in war.” 

The clip, which the Harris campaign circulated on X, was of Walz speaking out against gun violence, saying, “We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” 

The statement suggests that Walz portrayed himself as someone who spent time in a combat zone.

During a joint interview with Harris on CNN, Walz said he misspoke and that his “grammar is not always correct.”

“I wear my emotions on my sleeve; I speak especially passionately about our children being shot in schools and around guns,” he said. “So I think people know me. They know who I am. They know where my heart is, and again, my record has been out there for over 40 years to speak for itself.”

Despite Walz brushing off the incident as him having spoken inartfully, others, like Amy Koch, former Republican Minnesota senate majority leader, said his words cut deep. 

“I am a veteran,” Koch told the Washington Examiner.  “I’ve got a medal from the Gulf War because I was in the military at the time. And I never say that because it implies that I was in the theater of war. And I don’t even say that, even though it’s absolutely true, because I think it diminishes in some ways those that were in the theater of war, that faced down the enemy in war. I’m very careful about how I speak of that, and I think all veterans should be because there is a difference.”

Koch cautioned that “when speaking about what you did, you must never step on those that served and suffered and have sacrificed in going into the theater of war because those that do come back with psychological and physical wounds.”

“They face death and that was not my experience in the Air Force,” she added. “That’s not to say I’m not proud of my experience. I am very proud of it. And 24 years for Gov. Walz. That’s a big deal. But using those terms … it’s not inartful. It’s wrong, and it should be apologized for and moved on from.” 

‘Weird’ IVF issue ‘sticks in voters’ minds’

Walz also blurred the lines when it came to his struggles starting a family. He alluded to a journey through infertility with his wife, Gwen, and warned that conservatives wanted to restrict in vitro fertilization. 

“Mind your own damn business,” he said during a rally with Harris in Philadelphia. “Look, that includes IVF. And this gets personal for me and my family.” 

In April, before Walz was tapped to be Harris’s running mate, his gubernatorial campaign mailed out a fundraising letter in an envelope that read: “My wife and I used IVF. to start a family.”

The problem was, they didn’t. The Walzes used another fertility procedure called intrauterine insemination, or IUI. The procedure is a less-invasive route, which is also less controversial because no embryos are created outside the womb like with IVF. 

Koch, who has known and worked with Walz for the past two decades, called the governor‘s comments a glaring error and one that makes voters question his motives. 

“The struggle that he and Gwen had around starting their family… you can tell that story without also calling it IVF which is not correct,” she said.  “And then it’s like, are you trying to tie it into that so people understand it? Just talk about the struggle you had trying to start a family.”

GOP strategist Matt Wolking called the IVF controversy “the kind of lie that sticks in voters’ minds.” 

“It’s weird, and makes people think they can’t trust anything Walz says, especially after his misrepresentations of his military service have drawn so much attention,” he said. “You can’t just make things up about your life story because it’s better for your political narrative, but that’s exactly what Walz has done in multiple instances.”

Interview: ‘Mixed-up mess’

Walz didn’t get high marks for his joint interview with Harris on CNN earlier this month. 

He came under scrutiny for wavering on his answers, with Parker calling him “a mixed-up mess.”

“He answered none of the four questions he was asked, including whether he had misspoken when he said he had carried a gun ‘in war’ when he never was deployed to a combat zone,” she said. “A simple ‘yes’ might have sufficed, but instead he sputtered evasive nonsense and, to be rhetorically accurate, gobbledygook.”

Stephen Farnsworth, professor of political science and director of the Center for Leadership and Media Studies at University of Mary Washington, told the Washington Examiner that Walz doesn’t have to exaggerate his past to make inroads with voters. 

“I don’t think inconsistency or false information hurt candidates the way dishonesty or inconsistencies might have hurt them in the past,” he said. “In these highly partisan times, it seems like most voters will forgive any shortcomings on their side and view everything done by the other side as an abomination.” 

He added that evolution on topics could actually benefit politicians. 

“They should be able to change their mind in the face of new evidence or subsequent developments,” he said. “If a candidate’s policy position changes as a result of new information about what is working or not working now, that can be a good thing. Sticking with something that has turned out to be a bad idea simply because one does not want to be accused of flip-flopping doesn’t reduce the nature of a problem.” 

‘Attack dog’ Vance miscast

Walz’s vulnerabilities will be on full display Tuesday during the first vice presidential debate. Koch believes that in order to be successful, Walz must “be his authentic self.” 

“He needs to have good answers to [military, IVF] questions because I don’t buy the ‘inartful’ excuse,” she said. “I don’t. I think people will say ‘politicians say things a million times a day and will say something inaccurate’ but I just think it’s important to own that and not try to present yourself as something else.”

Vance is also facing an uphill struggle. 

He has been repeatedly knocked for being too aggressive and awkward and has done little to balance the Trump ticket.

“It’s kind of like a marriage,” Koch said. “If you’re too much alike, you don’t make up for the other’s deficiencies.”

Conservative strategist Sarah Longwell agrees. She told MSNBC’s Inside with Jen Psaki that the overwhelming response by undecided voters is that Vance has an authenticity problem.  

“The thing that is killing J.D. Vance is that voters, and I have listened to tons of swing voters since he was picked, and they don’t like him at all,” she said. “They think he seems like a phony… Voters can smell inauthenticity, and that’s what J.D. Vance reeks of to them.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Instead of trying to come off as an uber-aggressive Alpha-male, Koch said Vance should take a more natural approach. 

“He has got this beautiful young family, he’s got this decorated military career, where he has served in the theater of war, he has got this rags to riches story that is incredibly impressive,” she said. “Let him be that. But instead, he always has to be on the attack. Why do you need an attack dog? You have Trump. He’s the ultimate attack dog.”