Why are political fights over “stolen value” so intense | News, Sports, Jobs

While the adage might be true that vice-presidential candidates usually don’t make much of a difference in the ultimate success of presidential candidates, they give us plenty of arguments.

This is especially true for current competitors.

Vice President Kamala Harris appeared to take the name out of her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, before Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance of Ohio made accusations of “stolen courage” against Walz. “Stolen Veal” is a colourful, colloquial and yet often appropriate term for an old and sometimes illegal crime – false claims of rank, honors or service in battle by military impostors.

Carrying echoes of “fast boat” campaign against John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee who was accused of lying about his service and decorations in Vietnam, Trump’s campaign accused Walz of retiring from the military on Monday before his unit deployed to Iraq just to avoid the fight.

As Vance, who served as a Marine press officer in Iraq, campaigned in Michigan on Wednesday, he wondered if the timing of Walz’s departure from the military amounted to “garbage stolen valor”. “Don’t pretend to be something you’re not.” Vance said. “I’d be ashamed if I said I lied about my military service like you did.”

But Walz served a total of 24 years in various units and jobs in the Army National Guard before retiring in 2005. Republicans charged that he knew his unit could soon be deployed to Iraq. Walz was headed for a run for Congress that year. But even if he retired to run for Congress, he already had enough years on the job to legally make that decision.

Republicans also suggested that Walz inflated his credentials by calling himself a “Retired Command Sergeant Major”. Although he served in that rank for a time, he reverted to the rank of master sergeant when he left the Army because he had not completed training for the higher rank. A day after the story broke, the Harris campaign updated its online bio to correct the rank.

But now Vance was called too “an imperfect messenger”, according to a protocol, for using the correct title of the post of “combat correspondent” since, like Walz, he had not experienced actual combat.

This made Vance angry, and I can understand. As I performed similar duties in the Army as a “public information specialist”, I’m not going to talk about anyone who served honorably. In my opinion, both Walz and Vance fall into this category.

There’s a reason political campaigns fight these battles so intensely over military records. Americans have a long tradition of elevating their military leaders to positions of political power. Among others, Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy benefited from this effect.

Since I report and comment “stolen courage” controversial for years, I called a leading expert on the subject, Doug Sterner, a decorated Vietnam veteran and author who launched the website Home of Heroes to document real heroes and campaign against false claims . He was also a prominent proponent of legislation to end stolen valor claims.

“LEGALLY, there is no stolen value here” in the examples relating to Walz, he wrote in an email exchange. “When the Stolen Valor Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2012, the revised Stolen Valor Act only covered false claims of wearing CERTAIN medals (not all medals) and had to have a financial benefit to be prosecuted.”

This is not too surprising given the Supreme Court’s efforts to protect free speech. Of a person “stolen courage” it can be someone else’s “war stories” where fact-checking is almost non-existent.

Attacks on Walz and Vance, centered on what are frankly disputes, don’t seem worthy of that much air time and consideration. Walz served honorably for 24 years. He should be proud of that. Vance volunteered for military service in a time of war and should be proud of it. Let’s move on.