Minnesota Governor Walz Walks Back Tesla Jibe, Admits "Smarta–" Tendencies

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a Democrat, has attempted to clarify remarks he made last week mocking Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk, admitting he was "making a joke" that was poorly received. The governor’s initial comments, made during an event in Wisconsin, celebrated the electric car company’s recent stock market struggles. Now, he claims to have been misunderstood and perhaps a bit too flippant.

During a town hall meeting in Rochester, Minnesota, Walz addressed the controversy head-on. "This guy bugs me in a way that’s probably unhealthy," Walz said, referring to Elon Musk, the often-controversial CEO of Tesla and other ventures. He acknowledged his tendency to be "a smarta–," and confessed, "I was making a joke. These people have no sense of humor. They are the most literal people."

Walz went on to say, "But my point was, they’re all mad, and I said something I probably shouldn’t have about a company."

The initial remarks that sparked the backlash involved Walz describing how he added Tesla’s stock to his iPhone’s stock app to "give me a little boost during the day," noting its plummeting value. "Some of you know this. On the iPhone, they’ve got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day — $225 and dropping," Walz said. He then joked, "And if you own one, we’re not blaming you. You can take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off."

The timing of Walz’s initial comments was particularly sensitive, given Tesla’s stock had dropped significantly, down 41.4% year-to-date as of March. The company has been grappling with various challenges, including production slowdowns, increased competition in the electric vehicle market, and concerns about Musk’s leadership.

Adding fuel to the fire, news outlets have pointed out the State of Minnesota benefits from Tesla’s stock performance. The Minnesota State Employees Pension fund owns over 1 million shares of Tesla, meaning the state’s pension benefits are directly impacted by the company’s financial successes and failures. This fact seems to further highlight the questionable nature of Walz’s comments on the matter.

Adding to the complexity of the situation, Tesla vehicles have recently been targeted by vandalism, reportedly as a form of protest against Musk’s involvement in former President Donald Trump’s administration and his policies. Some of these acts have been serious enough to warrant federal charges, with suspected arsonists facing accusations of "domestic terrorism."

Walz’s defense, however, extends beyond simply claiming a failed joke. He also took aim at Musk’s involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, an initiative to cut the federal workforce as a cost-saving measure. "They’re all butthurt about the Tesla thing, but they don’t care about the disrespect they have shown to employees at the Minneapolis VA who care for our veterans, and they fire them. They don’t care," the governor stated.

He further questioned Musk’s priorities, stating, "Maybe it’s just me. If I’m the richest man in the world, I’m like out on the streets handing out money. It’d be fun as hell just to help people out. Go help people out. Not this guy."

Walz’s remarks demonstrate a broader trend of political leaders engaging in public discourse, often via social media, where off-the-cuff remarks and jokes can quickly be misinterpreted and amplified. In an era of heightened political polarization, even seemingly innocuous comments can spark outrage and controversy, particularly when they target prominent figures like Elon Musk.

While Walz has attempted to walk back his initial remarks and clarify his intentions, the incident raises questions about the appropriateness of elected officials commenting on individual companies and their stock performance, especially when the state government has a vested financial interest in those companies’ success.

The controversy surrounding Walz’s Tesla comments highlights the challenges of navigating the complexities of public discourse in the digital age. It also underscores the importance of politicians carefully considering the potential impact of their words, especially when those words are directed at individuals and organizations with considerable influence. Whether or not Walz’s explanation will be enough to quell the controversy remains to be seen, but the incident serves as a reminder of the power and responsibility that come with holding public office. The situation also demonstrates the current political climate and the willingness to publicly disagree with corporate leaders. The intersection of politics, business, and public perception is now inextricably intertwined, and Walz’s comments serve as a tangible example of the implications of this complex dynamic.