The Harris campaign faced criticism for not adequately preparing for potential attacks on vice president's running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, regarding his military record. Critics accused Walz of making misleading statements about his service, including implying he served in a war zone despite never being deployed to one during his 24 years of service.
One controversial statement by Walz was about banning weapons he had 'carried in war,' which the Harris campaign later clarified as a misspoken remark. Walz also faced scrutiny for claiming to have deployed 'in support' of Operation Enduring Freedom to Italy, not Afghanistan, and for referencing a night at Bagram Air Base, where he did not deploy as part of his military duties.
Former members of Walz's unit accused him of abandoning his troops and retiring to avoid a planned deployment to Iraq. Additionally, claims surfaced about Walz being misleading about his rank, stating he retired as a command sergeant major when he did not complete the required coursework to retain the rank.
The Harris campaign was criticized for not catching these vulnerabilities during the vetting process and failing to adequately prepare for potential attacks on Walz's record. Republican strategist David Polyansky noted that such oversights put the campaign in a defensive position during the vice presidential pick's rollout.
Despite the controversy, Democratic strategist Julian Epstein suggested that Republicans should focus on Harris' record rather than engaging in a 'tit-for-tat' campaign. Epstein emphasized that Democrats aim to shift the focus away from the Biden/Harris administration's past four years and Harris' previous political views.
As the campaign progresses, the attention on Walz's military record may impact the public perception of Harris' decision-making, especially in comparison to Ohio Sen. JD Vance, a military veteran comfortable with his service record, who is set to debate Walz.
