Katie Stallard ends her piece on Tim Walz with a typically banal & lazy journalistic sentence: "Certainly, Tim Walz offends no one, but the affable Minnesota governor will now need to show that he can win.” Why write this sort of thing, which seems to be typical of a certain kind of American journalist, hedging her or his bets? Walz has already taken the fight to the Republicans, and not merely because of his use of the word “weird”, as Stallard would fondly & falsely have us believe. He has made very direct and severe judgements on Trump & Vance, and the policies a Trump presidency would pursue in his interviews and in his speeches. Has Stallard listened to any of them. Walz is far from being merely affable. Cannot the New Statesman find something better than this tired stuff where extremely serious things are at stake, things that will affect all our lives, whether we are American or not (I am not, by the way)?
Katie Stallard ends her piece on Tim Walz with a typically banal & lazy journalistic sentence: "Certainly, Tim Walz offends no one, but the affable Minnesota governor will now need to show that he can win.” Why write this sort of thing, which seems to be typical of a certain kind of American journalist, hedging her or his bets? Walz has already taken the fight to the Republicans, and not merely because of his use of the word “weird”, as Stallard would fondly & falsely have us believe. He has made very direct and severe judgements on Trump & Vance, and the policies a Trump presidency would pursue in his interviews and in his speeches. Has Stallard listened to any of them. Walz is far from being merely affable. Cannot the New Statesman find something better than this tired stuff where extremely serious things are at stake, things that will affect all our lives, whether we are American or not (I am not, by the way)?
Indeed, and he has already shown that he can in. After all he did not become governor of Minnesota by royal appointment.