Incredibly and against all odds, the mainstream media is demonstrating that it is even more biased and determined to swing the 2024 election to the Democrats than they were in 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. Not only that, but its propagandists are being more obvious about it.
As a case study, let us examine CNN’s handling of the Tim Walz scandal. Walz has been falsely representing himself to the public as a combat veteran for many years and in many ways. In addition, he abandoned the leadership of the troops he had trained with as soon as they were ordered to deploy in Iraq. This isn’t even a matter of serious dispute, yet the Harris ticket’s promoters in the news media, aka “almost all of it,” have been furiously spinning, obfuscating and ignoring inconvenient facts. Under different circumstances (such as, say, a VP nominee on a Republican ticket), the news media would be all over this story like Jaws on Pippin. It would be a daily feeding frenzy.
In the past few days, more of Walz’s former almost-comrades-in-arms have come forward to condemn Walz’s conduct and character. For example, the chaplain of Walz’s field artillery regiment said there was no excuse for the him to have abandoned his National Guard unit before a critical deployment. “In our world, to drop out after a WARNORD [warning order] is issued is cowardly, especially for a senior enlisted guy,” retired Capt. Corey Bjertness, now a pastor in Horace, North Dakota, told the New York Post. This wasn’t even newsworthy to most news sources: it might take public attention away from the fact that Trump keeps claiming Harris is misrepresenting the sizes of her rally crowds.
CNN’s spin debacle regarding Walz’s “stolen valor” was special, however.
CNN news host Brianna Keilar began her dizzying spin-fest on August 8 when she dug up Joe Eustice, who had served in the National Guard with Walz. She interviewed him and on Twitter/”X” highlighted his statement that “I don’t think it’s fair to characterize his service the way they have…He was as good a soldier as you’ll find.” Keilar only learned about Eustice after the Washington Post used him to try to deflect criticism of Walz, essentially taking a “defend our candidate” hand-off from a fellow Axis member in good standing.
Keilar, like the Post, blurred the issue: one can honorably disagree over whether it was a betrayal and cowardly for Walz to quit the Guard as soon as he learned he would have to lead his unit into combat. There can’t be, or shouldn’t be, any argument over whether it was disgusting for Walz to claim combat experience when he had none, and in fact had actively avoided it. (Last week the Harris campaign finally admitted he “misspoke.” For 19 years…)
Keilar’s next tactic, probably outlined in one of her talking points memos from the DNC, was to attack J.D. Vance, the GOP VP pick, suggesting that his service record was somehow misleading and therefore he shouldn’t criticize Walz. A Marine, Vance served in an Iraq combat zone for four years but not as a combatant, since his role was as a war correspondent. He has never claimed to have engaged in combat, nor has he been deceitful about it, making it clear that he served without actively fighting. Vance called Keilar and CNN on its smear directly, tweeting,
Well, Walz” misspoke.” The next day, being caught “red handed” as the saying goes, Keilar tried a different approach. She devoted part of her show to admonishing anyone who questions J.D. Vance’s honorable service, oddly omitting the fact that she had done that herself as a way to deflect criticism of Walz. “JD Vance served honorably in Iraq, a combat zone where anything can happen and frequently does,” she said. (Keilar never responded to Vance’s tweet, though she owed him a public apology.) Then she tried to use her defense of Vance to excuse Walz, her real objective, saying “Many service members haven’t seen combat. That doesn’t make them or their service less admirable or less necessary. Nor does retiring from the National Guard after 24 years.”
She managed to omit “nor does saying you carried a gun into combat and falsely characterizing your military service on your official biography for two decades by claiming you retired as a Command Sergeant Major.”
Ethics Alarms 
We’re doomed. The Dems want one party rule, as do a substantial majority of the populace. And they’ll be able to pull it off. Socialists dominate the academy, the media the intelligencia, government employees and they are getting close to doing so even in the corporate world. I guess we should have seen this coming in the ’60s. The party’s over, so to speak. Harris will be installed, and the caravan will move on.
Jack, I don’t appreciate the spin any more than you do. There is, however, some disagreement about whether he knew they were to be deployed, as he retired before the formal notice came down. The pastor said he did. His former commander apparently said Walz did not know when he submitted retirement papers. One Guardsman said there’s no way he could not have known. And, of course, there’s the WaPo Guardsman. So, I consider that one “undetermined.” As for retiring as a Command Sergeant Major, it depends on what the definition of “is” is. He was, indeed, a Command Sergeant Major when he retired. He did not “retire as” a Command Sergeant Major as he had not completed a specialized course for Command Sergeant Majors. Again, I consider that one at least ambiguous. BUT carrying a rifle into combat? Nope, and a dope to provide that rope that allows opponents to cope with his nurtured image as a happy Pope.
I heard This Guy , Walz’s former immediate superior, interviewed recently, and telling basically the same story that he had previously, negating Walz’s claims.
Tim Walz was separated with honor, and only compelling evidence to the contrary will rebut the presumption that his separation was legally and ethically proper. I have not been presented with such compelling evidence.
I do not of course excuse lying about one’s service record.
Of course, a lot can happen in two and three fourths months. Who can tell if J.D. Vance will claim he took ten bullets to the head and torso while single-handedly rescuing a hundred Yazidi sex slaves from ISIS? /sarc
Comment from another blog:
“If you total up Walz”s actual active-duty time, it will equate to 4.25 years. Vance served 6 years active duty. THIS IS ANOTHER FARCE TRYING TO PORTRAY WALZ AS HAVING A 24-YEAR ACTIVE DUTY RECORD. The dems can lie all they want to, but he didn’t meet the requirements to be a CSM and he is a quitter.” (bolds/caps/italics mine)
PWS
As for his service record, he seems to have lied about his rank on:
At least 4 media interviews I have seen.
His official bio for governor.
His bio on the Harris/Walz site (I didn’t see that one, just reports)
His Congressional challenge coin (!)
He also has lied about being a combat veteran who deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq (or Afghanistan IN Iraq in one) in numerous interviews and suggested he had PTSD from overseas service in Congressional testimony (what happened in Italy?).
I wonder if he is keeping this scandal alive so people won’t find out about other things he has done.
Locked down his state. He issued a curfew that didn’t even allow people on their own porches or they would be shot with pepperballs or screamed at from helicopters.
He allowed pedophilia to be considered a sexual orientation.
He allowed riots to burn down a city in his state (just don’t sit on your front porch talking to the neighbor across the street on his porch).
He made his state a ‘sactuary state’ for children trying to get transgender procedures, even against a parent’s wishes. He extended abortion to birth. He banned any treatment of ‘gender dysphoria’ that didn’t fast track the child to gender transition.
I think they WANT to keep the conversation focused on his dishonesty about claiming combat veteran status and lying about his rank. These things seem to be the best parts of Tim Walz. I shudder to think what the background check on the other possible candidates turned up in their pasts to make Walz the best option.