I don’t know how any self-respecting journalist could work for FOX News. It offers a good job in a competitive industry, but why sell your soul to the devil? I have recently seen tweets by Megyn Kelly, viciously attacking Kamala Harris, and every time I do, I remember Trump saying of her in 2016, after the first GOP debate, that she had blood coming out of her orifices. Yet still she is his sycophant.
In The New Republic, Thom Hartmann writes that Tim Walz may be the perfect antidote to FOX’s vitriol. If you want to reprogram family members, introduce them to Tim Walz. He is a good man, a decent man, not a FOX liar.
Hartmann writes:
All across America families are in mourning: Their parents and grandparents, particularly the men in their lives, have been stolen from them by the right-wing hate and rage machine.
Jen Senko produced a movie—The Brainwashing of My Dad—about losing her own father to Fox “News”; it was also made into a book of the same title. She’s been a guest on my radio show a few times, and her story is one replicated across America millions of times. Her father—a totally normal Midwestern guy—began watching Fox “News” when he retired, and within a year had become withdrawn, bitter, angry, and filled with hate.
Jen and her family staged an intervention and locked Fox out of Dad’s TV with the child lock option built into her cable system; within a few months, back to watching normal TV news like CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC, Dad made a full recovery from the temporary mental illness Murdoch’s infamous hate machine had thrown him into.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’s vice presidential pick, is America’s intervention against the mind poison that Trump, Fox “News,” and right-wing hate radio have infected our nation with.
He’s a normal guy, who joined the Army National Guard right out of high school at 17, rising to the rank of Commander Sergeant Major and becoming a top advocate for America’s veterans during his decade in Congress.
He used the G.I. bill to go to college, getting his master’s degree and going on to teach high school social studies. He coached his school’s football team, taking it to the state championships for the first time ever.
He smiles. His students love him, as does his family. He’s a normal guy. He’s the father everybody who grew up in a dysfunctional family wishes they had. He’s the grandpa everybody who’s lost one to Fox “News” wishes could sit down with their own and set him straight.
He carved butter at the state fair. He helped start his school’s first gay-straight alliance back in the 1990s when homophobic hate was still widely accepted; he said the coach doing so would be a powerful statement of support. He loves his country, his community, his family, and his nation.
No purchased bone-spur X-rays for Tim Walz; he embodies the very definition of patriotism that I grew up with in the Midwest. He reminds me of my own dad, who joined the Army at 17 to go fight Nazis in World War II, an echo of the past that most Americans recognize.
His contrast with Trump’s infidelities, con jobs, and constant angry bitterness is a sunlight-like disinfectant for our body politic. He shows up J.D. Vance—with his creepy obsessions with women’s genitals and birth rates and fealty to his billionaire patrons—for the weird guy that he is. He even highlights jokes about Vance, saying: “I can’t wait to debate the guy. That is, if he’s willing to get off the couch and show up.”
Trump and Vance are riding a wave of hate, fear, and bigotry made acceptable and even viral by a multibillion-dollar media machine that emerged from the Reagan years.
To steal the minds of America’s grandparents, President Reagan fast-tracked citizenship for Australian billionaire Rupert Murdoch in 1985 so Murdoch could legally purchase U.S. media properties; Reagan ordered the Federal Communications Commission to stop enforcing the Fairness Doctrine, and Republicans in Congress later gutted the Equal Time Rule.
In this, Reagan knew what he and the GOP were getting: Murdoch had by that time already flipped both Australian and British politics toward the hard right using frequent and lurid stories featuring crime by minorities.
Writing for The Sydney Morning Herald (the Australian equivalent of The New York Times), former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called Rupert Murdoch and his right-wing news operations “the greatest cancer on the Australian democracy.”
Fox and Murdoch’s power in Australia came, Rudd says, from their ruthlessness.
It’s the same here. When Fox and Tucker Carlson set out to rewrite the history of the treasonous January 6 coup attempt at our nation’s Capitol with a three-part special alleging it could have been an inside job by the FBI, two of their top conservative stars, Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, resigned in protest.
Text messages released by Congresswoman Liz Cheney and the committee that investigated the January 6 attempt to overthrow our government show that the network’s top prime-time hosts were begging Trump to call off his openly racist and murderous mob while at the same time minimizing what happened on the air.
Even worse, revelations from the Dominion lawsuit show that Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham all intentionally lied to their viewers for over two years with the encouragement of Rupert Murdoch himself. While they were privately ridiculing Trump and acknowledging he was a “sore loser,” they said the exact opposite to their audience.
Along with its relentless attacks on America’s first Black president, Fox’s support of Trump’s Big Lie helped tear America apart and set up the violence and deaths on January 6—while also making billions for Murdoch and his family.
Steve Schmidt, a man who’s definitely no liberal (he was a White House adviser to George W. Bush and ran Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign as well as John McCain’s 2008 campaign), has been blunt about the impact of Fox “News”:
Rupert Murdoch’s lie machine is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, the poisoning of our democracy and the stoking of a cold civil war. There has never been anything like it and it is beyond terrible for the country. Bar none, Rupert Murdoch is the worst and most dangerous immigrant to ever arrive on American soil. There are no words for the awfulness of his cancerous network.
While Biden press secretaries Jen Psaki and Karine Jean-Pierre have been humorous in their dealing with Fox’s Peter Doocy’s attempts at gotcha questions in the White House press room, there’s nothing funny about inciting attacks on our country and then openly lying on the air about “antifa” to cover it up, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented that Fox “News” did.
Tim Walz is the antidote to the Fox “News” poison that is now so widely imitated across the right-wing media ecosystem, stealing the hearts and minds of millions. He’s America’s everyman, a welcome dose of sanity, and a wake-up call about how badly our country has been damaged by billionaire-funded right-wing hate.
So let the dad jokes begin!
As Liz Gumbinner points out, Seth Meyers’s head writer, Sal Gentile, summarized it brilliantly on X: “Tim Walz will expand free school lunches, raise the minimum wage, make it easier to unionize, fix your carburetor, replace the old wiring in your basement, spray that wasp’s nest under the deck, install a new spring for your garage door, and put a new chain on your lawnmower.”
And God willing and we all show up to vote, he’ll soon be vice president of the United States.

He put the lime in da coconut!!
LikeLike
That’s a bad idea, someone’s going to get a bellyache.
LikeLike
“self-respecting” — ay, there’s the rub
LikeLike
Tim Walz’s political success is extraordinary since he was unlikely to win seat in his district as The House was traditionally red. He also met with legislative success by building consensus with both Democrats and Republicans. Regardless of what job he takes, Walz has a reputation for getting along with people and getting the job done. Walz is a “straight shooter,” unlike Fox News that had to pay for a $787 million dollar lawsuit for false claims about Dominion Voting Systems.
LikeLike
The conservative nature of his district was part of the focus of the Times article that people seemed to think was a terrible hatchet job.
LikeLike
FLERP,
Walz’s district is historically conservative. The last time it elected a Democrat was 1892. What pissed me off was that the reporter concluded after talking to people at the county fair that Walz could not be re-elected in his old district. Her interviews are not the same as a poll or vote.
LikeLike
Well, a vote isn’t possible since he’s not running for the seat. It would be odd (and too expensive) to commission a poll for the sole purpose of one article about how the politics of that district have changed in the last 10 years or so. The article says he “might” not be able to win that district today, and that is a very reasonable inference from the fact that he won reelection by 30 points in 2008, won by only 1 percentage point in 2016, and then lost in 2022, all while Trumpism changed the dynamics of the rural vote.
That said, I was referring to the article about how Walz’s positions on gun policy have evolved over time.
I don’t see either article as a hatchet job.
LikeLike
I did see it as a hatchet job.
Along with the article that anytime Walz opposes vouchers, he’s doing the bidding of the evil teachers’ union.
As I wrote a few days ago, the MSM will turn on Harris and Walz in the name of being “even-handed.”
The manufactured flap about Walz’s retirement from the National Guard is one example. He served his country honorably for 24 years. He made a decision to run for Congress and retire from the Guard; he then became a champion for vets in Congress.
LikeLike
The MSM did not invent the flap over Walz’s service. MAGA did. And the Times didn’t parrot the MAGA attack. It reported the facts. The facts are that Walz served as command sergeant major, retired when his contract was up, but for technical bureaucratic reasons he did not formally retain that rank for retirement purposes. It is what it is, but what it isn’t is a bombshell. Nobody cares.
Meanwhile the news reporters at the Times are chronicling Trump’s increasingly desperate campaign and legal problems every day, while the opinion writers are writing daily that Trump is immoral, incompetent, and in cognitive decline.
We shouldn’t be so afraid of the New York Times.
LikeLike
And Walz said he turned against the NRA after the latest massacre. Made sense to me even though the Times preferred to imple that it was opportunism.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t necessarily equate changing policy positions based on the preferences of the constituents you’re running to serve with “opportunism.” It’s just a fact that a representative serving a small conservative district is going to need to take different, more liberal policy positions if he seeks to win statewide office in a fairly liberal state. Indeed, it’s his obligation to do so. I saw the Times story as just reporting that simple fact of life.
LikeLike
The Vice-President can’t pass ANY laws. Congress—both houses—pass laws. If the Media controlled the Houses, nothing proposed by a President (or VP) passes without Media support. Are we now governed by the consent of the Media?
LikeLike
The NYT seems to be on a mission to undermine Tim Walz by amplifying and legitimizing right wing narratives in their REGULAR NEWS coverage of Walz. (Some people do not understand that news coverage that becomes infected with amplifying and legitimizing false right wing narratives to undermine Democrats is dangerous because it is presented as fact, while opinions are just that – opinions – that are not presented as anything other than an opinion.)
In the last few days, these are the NYT headline stories, and check out the negative words used to gratuitously cast doubt on Walz (words that are NOT used with Republicans.) The NYT stretches to find a reason to inform the public that they should doubt Tim Walz’ integrity.
NYT August 15:
“Tim Walz’s BUMPY Road to Gun Control: The vice-presidential candidate wasn’t always tough on firearms. When he ran for Minnesota governor, he TRIED TO RECAST (???) a legislative record that had gotten high marks from the N.R.A.”
“tried to recast” is negative framing of the story, implying Walz tried to mislead voters to win an election, as opposed to being a person who responds to problems with an open mind about how to deal with them).
NYT August 14:
“Walz Faces NEW SCRUTINY Over 2020 Riots: Was He Too Slow to Send Troops?: Gov. Tim Walz’s response to the unrest has attracted new scrutiny, and diverging opinions, since he joined Kamala Harris’s ticket.”
(FYI, Walz opponent tried to make this an issue during his last run for Governor and Minnesota voters roundly rejected this false narrative, but it doesn’t stop the NYT from again using the passive voice to hide that the “new scrutiny” is a few right wing Republicans – the NYT says this MUST be amplified as very important news.)
NYT August 9:
“Walz in the National Guard: A Steady Rise Ending With a Hard Decision: In a military career that spanned three decades, Tim Walz achieved one of the highest enlisted ranks in the Army. SOME PEERS TOOK ISSUE with the timing of his retirement.”
“Some peers” leaves out the important information that these are right wing partisans trying to create a false scandal.
But the NYT reports that questions are raised by this:
“Republicans have accused Mr. Walz of inflating his credentials, reviving a dispute from his past political campaigns over which designations Mr. Walz should be entitled to use as his exit rank.
On the Harris campaign site, he is described as a “master sergeant.” But on his governor’s page bio, he has kept the mention of “Command Sergeant Major.”
OMG, how is this even worth reporting??? The NYT is obsessed with presenting Walz as shady and untrustworthy, by citing the most ridiculous things, because they believe “balance” can only be achieved by equally attacking those who constantly lie and those who constantly strive to be truthful.
LikeLike
Zzzzzzzzzzz
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
I agree. The NYT should give equal scrutiny to Trump’s daily barrage of lies.
LikeLike
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/12/us/politics/trump-musk-x-fact-check.html
“Former President Donald J. Trump repeated a number of inaccurate claims that have become campaign staples in a conversation on Monday night with the billionaire Elon Musk on X, his social media platform.
After describing at length the attempted assassination against him at a rally in Pennsylvania in July, Mr. Trump ran through familiar complaints about immigration — echoed by Mr. Musk — and attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris.
Here’s a fact check:
– He inaccurately claimed that a chart he showed at the Pennsylvania rally, which he has repeatedly credited with saving his life, showed that “my last week, we had the best illegal immigration numbers.” (The chart was highly misleading, and unauthorized border crossings were not the lowest when he left office.)
– He misleadingly described Ms. Harris as “the border czar.” (She was responsible for addressing the root causes of migration in Central America, not border security.)
– He said that 20 million people had illegally crossed the southern border under President Biden. (The number is overstated.)
– He claimed, with no evidence, that other countries take unauthorized immigrants “out of jails, prisons” and “bring them to the United States.” (Prison populations are increasing across the world.)
– He claimed that crime in Venezuela had declined 72 percent because of an exodus of criminals into the United States. (The decrease is overstated, and there is no evidence that Venezuela had “gotten rid” of criminals.)
– He asserted that Mr. Biden “shut down Keystone XL pipeline, which is our pipeline that would have employed 48,000 people.” (Mr. Biden did rescind a permit for the pipeline, which had a projected employment of 35 permanent jobs.)
– He falsely described climate change as “where the ocean is going to rise one eighth of an inch over the next 400 years.” (Under a worst-case scenario, sea levels could rise by as much as 10 meters by 2300, or nearly 33 feet, more than 3,100 times what Mr. Trump said.)
– He exaggerated grocery price inflation as high as “50, 60, even 100 percent in some cases.” (The index that tracks grocery prices is up by about 20 percent since early 2021.)
– He falsely claimed that inflation was the “worst inflation we’ve had in 100 years.” (Inflation reached 8 percent in 2022, the highest since 1981.)
– He falsely claimed that bacon now cost “four or five times more than it did a few years ago.” (The average price of sliced baconwas $5.83 per pound in January 2021 and $6.83 per pound in June 2024.)
– He falsely claimed that the 2017 tax cut was the “largest” in history. (At least half a dozen others are bigger.)
– He claimed, with no evidence, that the Biden administration orchestrated the criminal cases against him because it “went after their political opponent.” (At least two were brought by state or local prosecutors, meaning the Justice Department has no connection to the cases. Two others are overseen by a special counsel, specifically to avoid the perception of politicization.)”
LikeLike
The NYT did exactly that just a couple days ago for Trump‘s interview with Elon Musk. I have a comment in moderation that pastes in the text of that article. Perhaps nobody noticed the article because it’s not a very interesting story. I personally was a lot more interested in the stories about Tim Walz.
LikeLike
When Harris wins NYT will say it was despite Walz.
Headline will be Donald Trump Loses.
LikeLike
Well, the CONVICTED FELON is a loser, in both the presidential election vote counts and in the court room. Not to mention his failed business dealings, bankruptcies, cons, etc. . . .
LikeLike
The right constantly sends out messages of mistrust about public institutions and Democratic candidates. We should expect better from The NYT.
LikeLike
I thought the article was well-written and interesting. It did not make me mistrust Walz.
LikeLike
Somewhere I read that the greatest number of those donating to Harris were teachers who donated after she chose Walz. Mr Walz goes to Washington.
wouldn’t it be great if Harris chose to make support of public education, however vocal it might be restricted to, a part of her policy.
LikeLike
Walz is in Boston right now for a fundraiser. Tickets are $25,000 with a suggested donation of $100,000.
And, yes, I know that’s common. That’s the problem. The point is, Walz isn’t the antidote to anything. He’s just more of the same.
LikeLike
Dems have to raise many millions to compete with Trump.
If you prefer that they stick to events where the admission is $25, Dems will lose to well-funded Trump party. Someday when you complain about the plutocrat Trump, if ever, I will be stunned.
LikeLike
There was a time when you raged about money in politics. Now you just shrug – that’s the way it is. Sad that this democracy you’re fighting so hard for is one that costs $125,000 a pop to participate in. But, yeah, I know, But Trump.
I’ll see myself out.
LikeLike
I strongly believe in campaign finance reform, which was gutted by the Roberts’ Supreme Court (the Citizens United decision). Until that decision is overridden by law, it’s silly to expect only one party to limit donations. Trump has had many fundraisers where the price of admission was $100,000 or more; I don’t remember hearing you complain about it.
LikeLike
Yup, “But Trump”, right on schedule.
Anyway, what have the Democrats done in the way of correcting Citizens United?
LikeLike
Jeez, Dienne, take a civics course. The Dems can’t overturn a Supreme Court decision without a veto-proof majority. They haven’t had one since the Citizens united decision was released in 2010.
LikeLike
So, nothing. That’s what I thought. So funny (not ha ha) how you think it’s okay not to even try. In that case, Obama shouldn’t have promised to correct it.
LikeLike
Try in what way, Dienne. Can you elaborate?
LikeLike
I’m serious. I have some ideas about this, but I would like to hear yours.
LikeLike
Aren’t we always told we have to vote for whatever Dem candidate because they are able to “work across the aisle and get stuff done”? So that’s a lie?
In any case, trying would start with introducing bills and arguing for them in public and on the Congressional floor. But most of the time it’s Dem party leaders who prevent bills from being discussed or voted on. Public pressure could certainly be used to push things like healthcare which are overwhelmingly popular, even in red states. But Dems won’t push hard on issues like that because their donors include insurance companies, banks, oil companies, etc. the same as Reps, and those donors don’t want those kinds of policies. Republicans can get away with telling their people that those policies are “communist” but Dems have to pretend they really, really want them, but those dastardly Republicans….
So trying would boil down to serving their voters instead of their donors, but if they can keep their voters no matter what they do or don’t do, why on earth would they try? If people would condition their vote, I think you’d see a lot more trying. Bottom line is, you and I can talk until the cows come home about what they could do, but so long as they know they have your vote, they’re not going to do any of those things.
LikeLike
That’s a darn good reason to vote for Trump, not the evil Democrats.
LikeLike
Do you ever get tired of that same hackneyed line? You know perfectly well I’m not voting for Trump.
LikeLike
I agree with you that a great many–perhaps the majority–of Democrats are wind-up dolls and action figures for the insurance companies, banks, etc. But refusing to vote Democratic seems to me an utterly ludicrous option. Do you really think that if they lost the presidency and both houses in the next three elections, they would wake tf up and stop being stooges for the oligarchy? I don’t. At least with them, as bad as they are, we get some crumbs from the table–the Affordable (that’s a laugh) Care Act instead of Medicare for All, a cap on the price of insulin, etc. So, we almost always have a choice between bad and terrible, and no real fix for the problem that you identify seems achievable except via a grassroots movement to fix campaign spending to some dollar amount provided by the public treasury.
LikeLike
As just one example, if Democrats had actually wanted to pressure Manchin, they could have threatened his committee chair positions. They could have threatened to investigate him for well known corruption. Not only did they not do those things, Biden gave his wife a very plum job in his administration. Almost like he was rewarding him.
LikeLike
Getting Manchin’s vote would not get the Democrats to a 60-vote majority. They needed Republican votes.
LikeLike
That was a single example.
Anyway, Dems had a supermajority for a few months during Obama’s term. What did they do with it?
LikeLike
Wikipedia entry for 111th Congress:
In the November 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers (including – when factoring in the two Democratic caucusing independents – a brief filibuster-proof 60-40 supermajority in the Senate), and with Barack Obama being sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, this gave Democrats an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 103rd Congress in 1993.
However, the Senate supermajority only lasted for a period of 72 working days while the Senate was actually in session. A new delegate seat was created for the Northern Mariana Islands.[4] The 111th Congress had the most long-serving members in history: at the start of the 111th Congress, the average member of the House had served 10.3 years, while the average Senator had served 13.4 years.[5] The Democratic Party would not simultaneously control both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate again until more than a decade later, during the 117th Congress.
The 111th Congress was the most productive congress since the 89th Congress.[6] It enacted numerous significant pieces of legislation, including the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the New START treaty.
LikeLike
That still wouldn’t let the Dems overturn Citizens United. That would require a constitutional amendment or a new court, built over many years, that reversed the decision.
LikeLike
The money issue is structural. We have a two party, winner-take-all system for the presidency. Even if a credible third party somehow emerged, the system would still be winner-take-all—the third party candidate would either win everything or lose completely. To win, you need a ton of money. In theory one might imagine a system with laws that severely cap the money that could be spent in campaigns. But those laws will be invalidated as unconstitutional. One might imagine a world where the Supreme Court was extremely different than it is now. But that world is unachievable unless national elections are won under a two-party, winner-take-all system. Which requires a lot of money. It’s baked into the structure of our constitution, our laws, our political system.
LikeLike
“One might imagine a world where the Supreme Court was extremely different than it is now.”
And voters had a chance to vote for that in 2016, when the Supreme Court was tied 4-4 with an OPEN SEAT. I repeat, a freakin’ OPEN SEAT.
It is the height of hypocrisy for the people who chose NOT to vote for the Democrat in 2016 to whine about money in politics. The Dems had an excellent chance to overturn Citizens United. The Dems wanted a Supreme Court that did not preserve corporate interests and insure big money in politics — including HIDDEN big money in politics!
We had a chance in 2016 to make it possible for progressives to have a fighting chance to push for more progressive legislation. And the fake leftists said it didn’t matter and gave us the current right wing Supreme Court.
These fake leftists would be demanding Jimmy Carter’s head for the neoliberal agenda he was pushing when America would have had universal healthcare by 1980 if Carter had not undermined the fight.
I find it hard to trust the true politics of anyone who would rather scapegoat Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden as evil men looking to do what their corporate masters want (a lie as big as Trump’s) than the far right Republican party that ran “Harry and Louise” commercials decades ago and then realized that as long as they spurned the Constitution and owned the Supreme Court, they didn’t even need to use all their unlimited money to influence public opinion anymore.
They just have to win one more election to enact the 2025 project and silence the progressives altogether.
LikeLike
Yes, Dienne, & Walz is personally pocketing all these $$$$$ or using it to pay for his legal defense.
Your comment is nonsensical.
Read Diane’s reply.
LikeLike
Let there be more of the same!
LikeLike
Diane, Obama is the reason his Democratic majority drifted into oblivion. Obama had the nation and both houses in the palm of his hand. He threw it all away for the Penny Pritzker promise. If Obama had had more audacity and less self interest oh what could have been.
LikeLike