By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Governor Tim Walz emphatically stated he would “rather eat glass” than temporarily fill U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar’s seat should she win the Minnesota governorship. This declaration addresses the gubernatorial election scenario where, under state law, Walz would appoint an interim senator until a special election. The governor’s strong sentiment underscores his commitment to governing rather than stepping into a Senate vacancy, especially as Klobuchar emerges as a leading candidate for the governorship.
Read the original article here
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has made a rather stark declaration about his future aspirations, stating he’d “rather eat glass” than take on a U.S. Senate seat. This vivid imagery emerged when he was asked about the possibility of filling a vacancy should Senator Amy Klobuchar, a fellow Democrat, ascend to the governorship in Minnesota. The scenario, while hypothetical, touches upon the intricate succession laws in the state, which would necessitate an appointment followed by a special election.
Walz’s comment comes at a pivotal moment in the political landscape. It’s a high-profile election year, and with Walz himself not seeking re-election as governor, his future path, and that of other prominent Democrats like Klobuchar, are under increased scrutiny. Klobuchar has been a vocal presence and a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, which naturally brings attention to any potential openings in their home state’s congressional delegation.
The sentiment behind Walz’s “eat glass” analogy seems to stem from a deep-seated weariness with the current political climate, particularly the intense partisan animosity. One perspective offered is that Walz, like many, may simply be exhausted by the relentless and often “wildly-aimed ire” directed at Democrats, a dynamic reminiscent of the scrutiny faced by figures like Hillary Clinton. This exhaustion, coupled with the desire to retire from public service, appears to be a significant factor.
Another interpretation suggests that the relentless pressure and threats, particularly those attributed to “MAGA lunatics” and the ongoing “stochastic terrorism,” have taken a heavy toll. The idea that political figures, even those with good intentions, are being “chased out” due to the perceived danger and the risk to their families, is a recurring theme. The safety of loved ones is presented as a paramount concern, outweighing the allure of public office.
There’s also a sense that Walz might be strategically stepping back to alleviate pressure on Minnesota itself. The notion that his prominence, perhaps exacerbated by his past consideration as a VP pick, has brought “the wrath of the Administration” down upon his state, leads to speculation that his departure might draw the spotlight away. This suggests a selfless, or at least strategic, consideration for the well-being of his constituents.
Some observers feel Walz is “too good for politics,” describing him as modest and self-aware, qualities that may not be conducive to survival in the often cutthroat world of Washington. This viewpoint suggests that his idealism might be a barrier to navigating the system effectively, leading to a belief that he’s better suited for other roles, perhaps even a more administrative one like VA secretary.
The comments also touch upon the perceived dysfunction of the U.S. Senate. Several opinions highlight the lack of power within Congress, with the Senate being described as “absolutely useless” due to the filibuster, which prevents true progress. This critique of the institution itself might contribute to Walz’s reluctance to join it, as he might feel his efforts would be futile.
The experience of former Senator Al Franken is also brought into the conversation, serving as a cautionary tale. The “unceremoniously and unfairly excommunicated from office by his own party for the silliest of reasons” is seen as a potent example of the precariousness of political careers and the potential for swift downfall, even for those with a perceived positive impact. This precedent might reinforce Walz’s hesitance.
Interestingly, there’s a counterpoint that suggests people who *don’t* crave power are often the best suited to wield it. This perspective might view Walz’s reluctance not as weakness, but as a sign of integrity. The idea that political leaders are often chosen based on “vibes” and charisma rather than substance is also raised, implying a dissatisfaction with the current criteria for public service.
The idea of Walz retiring is met with a mix of understanding and disappointment. While some lament the loss of a seemingly good politician, others acknowledge the immense pressures and express no blame. The possibility of him seeking higher office in the future, like the presidency in ’28, is even floated, suggesting that his current stance might be a temporary respite rather than a definitive exit from public life.
Ultimately, the overwhelming sentiment surrounding Tim Walz’s “rather eat glass” comment points to a profound disillusionment with the current state of political discourse and the personal toll it exacts. His declaration, while dramatic, resonates with a broader frustration about the challenges of maintaining integrity and well-being in the face of intense partisan warfare and institutional inertia. It paints a picture of a leader who, when presented with the prospect of a specific type of political service, finds the alternative less unappealing, even if it involves significant personal discomfort.