This one sounds very ominous as if he’s a Machiavellian manipulator.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/us/politics/tim-walz-kamala-harris-2024.html
Consider the source. I rate the NY Times right up there with Weekly World News and Bat Boy these days.
Nah … especially if you read through it all the way. Walz networked, built support, had people help him unsolicited – and then was in a position to be able to take advantage of a fortuitous moment. A reader has to work hard and come from a pretty oblique angle to take that as a Walz hit piece. Having political ambition beyond one’s current place is certainly no sin.
Makes him sound all sinister. Come on. That’s just normal political maneuvering. It’s not like Walz had some rich guy tell his friends to hire Walz, then tell someone else, then fund Walz’s own business capital venture, and when that went south, fund Walz’s senate campaign, before meeting with the Presidential candidate to cement Walz’s VP nomination. That would seem a bit creepy.
From the article:
“And few Democratic politicians, officials or members of the party faithful would see them coming because they would do it in a way that was, above all, Minnesota Nice.”
“But underneath that veneer of Midwestern politeness, Mr. Walz had angled to improve his political prospects.”
Those two lines in particular seem to contrast his outward appearance from his actual identity. Makes him seem underhanded, or insincere.
The rest of the article didn’t strike me so bad.
FWIW my immediate sense of him has been that he is much more politically savvy and capable than his Aw Shucks persona lets on. Not quite a Lyndon Johnson, but more aware of the game and how to play it than his nice forward face makes one think. It’s why I was expecting more kill shots during his debate performance.
Given his just okay performance maybe he really is just nice. Shame that. 
Most people read only the headlines.
I have always thought of him as described in that NYT article, genuine but much more politically savvy than he lets on. That is how I see Harris as well. She’s actually a killer behind the scenes. As a woman, she can’t appear as nakedly ambitious as a man but the way she absolutely took control after Biden dropped out impressed me. She had been cultivating supporters just in case something happened and otherwise looking ahead to 2028.
I read the NYT article and have to agree with others who said that there’s nothing in there that’s not just normal political maneuvering, if reasonably astute. It’s like, I don’t know, maybe you can’t become the governor of Minnesota without knowing a thing or two about politics…
I love how this quote implies that you can’t both be nice and an effective politician at the same time. I don’t think that’s true.
It’s probably true for New York politicians.
Perhaps we just don’t hear about the nice politicians very often.
I do think it’s true that you can’t succeed as a politician by being nice all the time. It’s a stressful, ruthless job, and you need to fight not only for your position, but for your constituents. You can’t be so nice you’re passive or ineffectual. You have to be decent and principled with a fire behind you.
Or a liar and a cheat with no ethics or empathy. That also nets results.
Walz is going to do an interview on Fox with Shannon Bream. That’s a bold choice. Maybe not the best use of his time.
I could not disagree more strongly.
One of Team Harris’s smartest moves is to not cede any demographic. Harris is spending time in rural PA, definite Trump county, for that very reason. She won’t win those counties but losing by less is a key to winning the state. That’s true in other possible tipping point states too.
Fox reaches demographics that other media does not. Including a few undecideds and those who aren’t sure if they will vote this time. And he is, if nothing else, likable. Not scary to Fox viewership as much as they try. Being openly hostile to him would backfire with the votes that decide. Preaching to the choir is necessary to be sure, but it is definitely not sufficient.
I don’t think that being effectual, fired, or even ruthless is incompatible with being “nice”.
This reminds me of the famous quote from Churchill after the British government sent its declaration of war to the Imperial Japanese government. It was a very formal missive, “His Majesty’s Government” this, and “the Emperor’s government” that. He was criticised for the formality of it.
His answer: “When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”
Tim Walz is on Jimmy Kimmel tonight. I am just now catching this on my DVR.
Kimmel says Walz showed up early to rake all the leaves off the porch and he is giving every member of the audience a pork chop on a stick.
I’m sure the NYT will complain about this being an overly “friendly” interview.
I think any exposure to the public is a good thing.
They’ll also fact-check him on whether the pork chops were on a “stick” or a “skewer”.
It was a very good interview. Walz was the friendly, affable guy we all want him to be. And he answered a few light weight policy questions.
It’s a late night chat show after all. He did what he needed to do and did it very well.
I’m hoping all Dopers, if they encountered these allegations about Walz (I have not) treated them with healthy skepticism until investigated further. I would hope I would do the same.