Category Archives: 2022 elections

Dueling Visions for Minnesota: Scandinavia or South Dakota?

Posted on by

Elections in a purple state can give you whiplash. 

After red wave elections, we’re led by Republicans like Tim Pawlenty who push for low taxes, poor services, and culture wars.

After blue wave elections, we’re led by DFLers like Tim Walz who push for higher taxes, better services, and cultural tolerance. 

After elections with more mixed results, legislative stalemates cause us to keep the prevailing status quo frozen in place.

That makes every election cycle extremely consequential.

The South Dakota Vision for Minnesota

In 2022, a decidedly purple Minnesota – at the time, it was the only state in the nation with one chamber of the state Legislature controlled by Democrats and the other controlled by Republicans – held a particularly high-stakes election. 

If Minnesota voters had elected ultra-conservative former physician gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen and a Republican Legislature dominated by far-right Trumpers, Minnesota would have become a conservative promised land, much like its neighbor to the west, South Dakota. 

During the campaign, Jensen and other Republicans proposed a race-to-the-bottom on taxes, including eliminating the state income tax, which would have led to dramatically worse services.  Republican spinmeisters prefer to say “smaller government,” but the reality is that it would have meant much worse services. The anti-vaxxer Doc Jensen also pledged a South Dakota-like war on public health and culture war initiatives to force conservatives’ thinking on gays, guns, God, and gynecology on all Minnesotans. 

In other words, think Kristi Noem, with a stethoscope prop.

The Scandinavia Vision for Minnesota

Fortunately, 192,408 more Minnesotans voted for incumbent Governor Tim Walz than Jensen. More surprisingly, since it was predicted to be a historically horrible year for Democrats, Minnesotans also elected narrow DFL majorities in the state House and Senate.  The all-important Senate majority is especially razor-thin at 34-33.

Walz and the DFL-controlled Legislatures are armed with a $17.5 billion budget surplus and are offering a vision that is more like a social democratic-led Scandinavian country in the 1970s than South Dakota in the 2020s:

  • Paid family and medical leave;
  • An enormous funding increase for public schools;
  • A targeted child tax credit to dramatically reduce childhood poverty;
  • Free school lunches for all students;
  • An opportunity for people without employer-based health insurance to buy into public health insurance (MinnesotaCare/Medicaid), instead of only being able to choose private insurance;
  • Down payment assistance for first-time home buyers, homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and rent vouchers;
  • A huge package to save the beleaguered childcare sector and make child care free for poor families and more affordable for middle-class families;
  • Large subsidies for weatherization, electric vehicle infrastructure, and solar energy expansion to combat climate change;
  • A range of gun violence prevention reforms, such as universal background checks, red flag laws to prevent people who could be perceived as a threat to themselves or others from getting guns, raising the legal age for obtaining military-style rifles to 21, and banning high-capacity magazines;
  • Legalized marijuana and expunged records for past offenders;
  • Driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants;
  • Automatic voter registration;
  • Enfranchising felons who have served their time; and
  • A capital gains tax hike for the wealthiest Minnesotans.

The list goes on. Overall, think Bernie Sanders, with a Fargo accent.

This is the most dramatic swing of state policy in my lifetime, and perhaps in the history of the state. And if somebody you may have never heard of, Judy Seeberger (DFL-Afton), had received just 322 fewer votes in her state Senate race, most of those changes would never have been possible. Without Seeberger’s handful of votes in the eastern suburbs of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Minnesota would still be stuck in limbo between the South Dakota vision and the Scandinavia vision. 322 votes.

Time to Limit HOAs’ Solar Panel Policing Powers

Posted on by

Who stands in the way of the expansion of residential solar panel use?  You’ve likely heard about politicians who are protecting the dirty fossil fuel special interests in order to tap into huge campaign contributions. And then there are the people who spread false information that solar is more expensive than fossil fuels or will deplete the sun’s energy.

But you might not have heard as much about the barriers Home Owners Associations (HOA) present.

Home Owners Associations — those earnest guardians of neighborhood uniformity, conformity, and banality — are a substantial barrier for those who want to use solar panels to cut their energy bills and/or reduce their impact on climate change. 

Many HOAs have bylaws that directly or indirectly forbid the installation of rooftop solar panels. They apparently view solar panels as something that adds too much unsightly variation to their carefully planned cookie-cutter housing developments.

While solar panels are not works of art, they now blend in much better than in the past. We’re all much more accustomed to seeing them, and solar panel products are more attractive and unobtrusive than they used to be.



More importantly, the benefits of solar panel use — limiting catastrophic climate change and defraying significant household costs — greatly outweigh any slight aesthetic cost. It’s not a close call.

Still many HOAs are doing what they do, enforcing their rules. That’s substantially limiting the use of solar panels.

I have a personal story to illustrate how this works. For the first time in my life, I recently moved into a home governed by an HOA. Shortly after moving in, I emailed the HOA contact to ask if there are any limitations related to rooftop solar panels. (I should note that I had not yet secured the all-important spousal approval and appropriation, a daunting hurdle in itself, but I first wanted to see if this was even an option.)

The HOA contact swiftly emailed me to deliver a non-rejection rejection:

“…there are currently no specific restrictions on solar panel installations, other than they must not be visible from the public right-of-ways.”

About that “other than” clause: Since all pitched roofs are visible from public rights-of-way — streets, sidewalks, and alleys — the HOA is effectively telling me, in an indirect “Minnesota Nice” way, that there is no way in hell they are going to let me or anyone else install solar panels in their development.  So, I dropped it.

How many Minnesotans does this impact? According to Iproperty Management:

“There are 7,780 HOAs in Minnesota. Roughly 1.52 million people in Minnesota live in HOA communities. 26.6% of Minnesotans live in HOA communities. 13.7% of Minnesota homeowners are part of HOAs. An estimated 583,462 homes in Minnesota are part of HOA communities.”

This is not just a “woke” liberal issue.  Because homeowners with rooftop solar panels are saving thousands of dollars in energy bills, this is also a significant financial issue. It benefits the 20% of Americans who still somehow don’t believe climate change is happening, but want to save thousands of dollars in energy bills. Now that the price of solar energy systems has decreased significantly, and energy costs are skyrocketing, the payoff from solar panels has never been more lucrative.

I hope this is the year that Minnesota HOAs will be stopped from standing in the way of solar panel use.  Over the last two years, Minnesota legislators considered a bipartisan bill authored by State Senator Karin Housley (R-Stillwater) and Representative Ami Wazlawik (DFL-White Bear Township) to regulate the HOA regulators. The Housley-Wazlawik bill would have allowed the HOA to impose limits, but the limits could not decrease production by more than 20%, or add more than $2,000 to the cost.

 Since my HOA’s “not visible from the public right-of-ways” restrictions effectively decreased production for any pitch-roofed home near a street, sidewalk, or alley by 100%, it would seem to be an illegal restriction, if a bill like the Housley-Wazlawik bill passes.

With the Minnesota Senate controlled by Republicans during the 2020-2022 legislative sessions, the Housley-Wazlawik bill languished.  Moreover, last year’s partisan-divided Legislature ended in a stalemate that left most business undone. 

Now the Minnesota Senate, House, and Governor’s office will be controlled by DFLers. These are folks who promised on the campaign trail to address climate change and help Minnesotans “make ends meet” during a time of historically high inflation. Now they need to deliver on those promises. Therefore, it would sure seem that the legislation’s likelihood of passing have improved significantly. Here’s hoping.

Now, does anyone know a good lobbyist I can hire to persuade my wife?

With Enemies Like Scott Jensen, Who Needs Friends?

Posted on by

Up until this weekend, I haven’t been much of a fan of Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen.  But maybe I’ve been too hard on him. I wanted to give him credit for some really great work over the last few days.

I am sincerely grateful that Scott Jensen did DFL Governor Tim Walz a solid by holding a news conference that resulted in highlighting a credential that Walz too infrequently spotlights himself – the fact that Walz volunteered for National Guard service for 24 years. 

By holding that news conference, Jensen arguably delivered better front-page PR for Walz than Walz’s PR staff ever has.  In the process, Jensen exposed Walz’s opponent to be an incompetent hypocrite who refused to enlist as Walz did.  I hope Walz sent Jensen a thank you note and some nice flowers.

Here’s hoping that Jensen will continue to similarly publicize other Walz achievements.

Perhaps Jensen could hold a news conference exposing the fact that Walz only dedicated himself to the noble public service career of public school teaching for part of his life, instead of his entire life. 

Or Jensen could lambaste Walz for only coaching Mankato West High School to its first ever state football championship, while failing to win the championship every single year.

Maybe Jensen could publicly scold Walz for only being named Outstanding Young Nebraskan and Nebraska Citizen-Soldier of the Year, while totally failing to win those honors in any other state. 

Bring it on, Scott!  With enemies like Scott Jensen, who needs friends?

Scott Jensen’s Unanswered $15,000,000,000 Question

Posted on by

Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen proposes to eliminate the state income tax.  At first blush, that might sound good to inflation-weary taxpayers. But to balance the state budget, such a change would necessitate $15 billion per year in service cuts and/or increases in other types of more regressive taxes.

Quite irresponsibly, Jensen won’t say what services he would cut, or what taxes he would increase, to balance the state budget.  But make no mistake, serious pain would result.  Jensen’s plan would necessitate massive cuts in education and/or health care, and/or a huge increase in property taxes, or other types of taxes that are more regressive than the state income tax. 

Shifting from the progressive state income tax to the regressive property tax is popular among the wealthiest Minnesotans, because that change would greatly benefit them. The progressive state income tax requires that the wealthiest Minnesotans pay a higher share of their income in taxes than is paid by the poorest Minnesotans.  On the other hand, regressive property, sales, and/or excise taxes put more of a burden on lower-income Minnesotans compared to the wealthiest Minnesotans.

Wealthy doctors like Jensen, multi-millionaire professional athletes like his running mate Matt Birk, and the most financially privileged Minnesotans who disproportionately fund Republican candidates don’t want to pay their fair share in taxes.  This is a political payoff to them.

Jensen’s proposal not only is a grossly inequitable giveaway to the wealthiest Minnesotans, it’s also dishonest.  Jensen only discloses the benefits – no more income tax bill! – without disclosing the costs – crippling school cutbacks, slashed health care services for vulnerable Minnesotans, and/or crushing property tax increases. All of those costs are enormously unpopular with Minnesotans, so Scott Jensen simply refuses to answer that critical $15,000,000,0000 question.

Jensen isn’t explaining the downside of eliminating the state income tax, but reporters should be doing that. Unfortunately, it’s barely happening.  Compared to heavy front page reporting on Walz’s actions related to a nonprofit fraud prosecution and the debate over the number of debates, this hugely consequential policy proposal has received relatively scant coverage.

One exception is the Minnesota Reformer. Though the Reformer has relatively light readership, it has done thoughtful and constructive reporting, such as this: 

“Minnesota has a steeply progressive individual income tax, meaning households with higher incomes have a higher tax rate as a share of their income compared to lower income households. Eliminating individual income taxes would disproportionately burden low-income Minnesotans while giving huge tax cuts to the state’s wealthiest.

‘Progressive income taxes are integral to having budgets that can meet the needs of all citizens, and they’re also really important in ensuring racial and socioeconomic equity,’ said Neva Buktus, state policy analyst for the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. ‘Eliminating the personal income tax would completely throw that out the window.’

Each year, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy creates a ranking of state tax systems and how they foster income inequality.

The six least equitable in the U.S. are among the nine states with no individual income taxes. Minnesota’s progressive personal income tax makes it one of the least regressive in the country — 47th out of 50. That means our lowest income earners get a better deal than nearly every other American when it comes to state and local taxes. 

‘If you’re going to eliminate the income tax, there’s no way to spin it. It disproportionately benefits the wealthiest Minnesotans by a long shot,’ Buktus said.”

At other major news outlets, my best guess is that reporters are shrugging off the issue relative to other issues because they believe that elimination of the state income tax could never pass the Legislature.   

It’s not reporters’ jobs to gauge likelihood of passage.  After all, no one knows what the future makeup of the Legislature might be if voters sweep Republicans into office, as historical trends portend.  Instead, reporters are supposed to explain the candidates’ major policy proposals and analyze the consequences so voters can make fully informed decisions.

That’s just not happening as much as it should. Whatever the thinking in Twin Cities newsrooms about Jensen’s most radical and reckless policy proposal, their silence on the topic has been deafening. 

Tackling a Dummy

Posted on by

By Noel Holston

In gridiron in terms, what I am about to say would be called piling on. Many political writers nationwide have already weighed in on onetime football star Herschel Walker’s U.S. Senate candidacy and his staggering lack of qualification.

But I live in Athens, Georgia, home of the University of Georgia, where Walker won a Heisman Trophy in 1982 and became a celebrity, a Peach State icon, so here I go, jumping in. Throw a flag if you want.

If elected, Hush-uhl, as the good ol’ white alumni say, would be biggest dunce in the Senate. Maybe ever.  

His candidacy represents a new low for GOP cynicism and disregard for the larger public good. Everybody knows he’s as ignorant as a tackling dummy, but while Democrats and old-line Republicans find that alarming, the MAGA wing of the Grand Old Party doesn’t care as long as Herschel can win and flip the Senate red.

And he just might. 

In November 2020, the Rev. Raphael Warnock, primary minister at Atlanta’s Ebeneezer Baptist Church, once the home Dr. Martin Luther King, made history when he won a special election for the Senate seat opened by Republican Johnny Isakson’s early retirement for health reasons. Warnock narrowly beat a white, Republican woman, Kelly Loeffler, in a fierce, costly race to become Georgia’s first African-American Senator. 

But the prize he won was only the remaining two years of Issakson’s six-year term. Warnock is now running as an incumbent for his first full term.

The GOP turned to its dirty trick playbook. The bosses know that Warnock, only 53, is not just one of the most charismatic Democrat to emerge since Barack Obama; they know he’s already making a mark in the Senate and that his national recognition is growing. So they didn’t bother with another white candidate. They embraced Walker, a pigskin superhero in a football-crazy state, a Donald Trump-defending (and endorsed) black celebrity who is acceptable to white conservatives and could very well peel off enough black votes to trim Warnock’s winning margin. 

Walker is such a big deal in Georgia that his campaign signs don’t even show his last name. Like Prince and Adele, he’s mononymous: Herschel.

Photo by Noel Holston. Vandalism likely by the wind.

On the downside for Republicans, Walker has been accused of domestic abuse by an ex-wife and has documented history of exaggeration and fabrication with regard to his life and accomplishments. Here’s a man so oblivious to his own prevarication that he has claimed to be valedictorian at UGA when, in fact, he did not graduate. He left school early for the pros.

Walker has said things, not just unawares on hot mics but in public forums, that make his backer Trump’s incoherent word salads sound like a TED talk. 

After the horrible school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, for instance, Walker told an interviewer on Fox who asked about his views on gun control, “Well, you know, it’s always been an issue…People see that it’s a person wielding that weapon, you know, Cain killed Abel. And that’s the problem that we have. And I said, what we need to do is look into how we can stop those things. You talk about doing a disinformation, what about getting a department that can look at young men that’s looking at women, that’s looking at their social media? What about doing that?”

At a campaign stop, Walker said, “Warnock, I remember hearing him say, ‘America need to apologize for it whiteness.’ That’s not in a Bible I ever read. Our Founding Fathers already apologized for its whiteness. Because if you read the Constitution, it talks about every man being treated fair.”

I will wait while you, dear reader, scratch your head and try to figure out what the heck any of that gibberish means. And it typical of what Walker say.

This is why his campaign ads show him smiling his mega-watt smile, running with a football, mingling with adoring fans and reading simple sentences from a TelePrompter. It’s also why Walker’s handlers have so far avoided even scheduling a debate with Warnock, much less putting him on a stage with the vastly quicker minister. They know that in a clash of wits, intelligence and knowledge, Warnock is the Heisman-quality talent and Walker is a water ___.

You can fill in the blank. I won’t say the word because I am white and might be accused of making a racist remark even though I am just making another football analogy.

This, however, does underscore a serious potential flaw in the GOP’s strategy, the other side of a double edge. Warnock can say things to and about Walker that a white Democrat could not. 

So far, though, Warnock has mostly stayed above the fray. TV ads in which he’s featured on camera focus on who he is and things he’s already accomplished, such fighting for help for American soldiers ill from burn-pit exposure. 

Warnock ads that don’t feature him hit Walker hard. One spot, culled from a 2008 CNN interview, shows Walker’s ex-wife, Cindy Grossman, tearfully claiming Walker put a pistol to her temple and threatened to blow her brains out and, another time, threatened to cut her throat.

Walker hasn’t quite denied these allegations. He’s has, however, attributed past misbehavior to his suffering from dissociative identity disorder, or DID — what we used to call multiple personality disorder.

Comforting, no? I mean, we’re used to politicians being two-faced, but Herschel may be taking us into Three Faces of Eve territory. He could be a Sybil servant.

I am hoping and praying Georgians of the right-ish persuasion have a come-to-reason moment and either stay home on election day or vote for the preacher from the Savannah projects.

As for Herschel, well, I agree with what the Auburn cheerleaders used to chant:

Push him back, push him back, waaaayy back.

Note: Noel Holston is a freelance writer who lives in Athens, Georgia. He serves as Georgia Correspondent for Wry Wing Politics. He’s also a contributing essayist to Medium.com, TVWorthWatching.com, and other websites. He previously wrote about television and radio at Newsday (2000-2005) and, as a crosstown counterpart to the Pioneer Press’s Brian Lambert, at the Star Tribune  (1986-2000).  He’s the author of “Life After Deaf: My Misadventures in Hearing Loss and Recovery,” by Skyhorse.

Walz Cooperation With Law Enforcement Deserves Praise, Not Punishment

Posted on by

In the past, one thing that Democrats and Republicans could always agree on is that “cooperating with law enforcement” is a good thing.  As near as I can tell at this stage, that’s what the Walz Administration and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison did when they learned of Covid relief funding being misused. 

As an aside, this is much more than I can say about Republicans like gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen who apparently has absolutely no problem with Governor Ron Desantis (R-FL) using millions of dollars Covid relief funds to shamelessly abuse vulnerable asylum-seekers for political purposes.  The Washington Post reports:

“Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) appears to have turned to an unexpected funding source to help pay for his plans to fly migrants to liberal-leaning communities: the interest earned on his state’s federal coronavirus aid.

A little-noticed part of Florida’s recent budget dedicated about $12 million to the relocation campaign, an escalating effort that saw the state send two planes filled with dozens of migrants — children included — to Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., on Wednesday.

When Republicans learned about DeSantis’s fraudulent use of Covid funds, they not only didn’t notify the FBI, they cheered on Desantis.

But I digress.  Let’s recap the basics of what seems to have happened in the Minnesota case.  When the Walz-appointed education officials suspected misuse of funds, they reported it to the FBI. They cooperated with law enforcement.

When the FBI reportedly asked the state education officials to not tip off the investigation by cutting off funds, the Walz education appointees and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s staff again cooperated with law enforcement.  Pioneer Press:

“’The FBI repeatedly made it clear to the Attorney General’s Office and MDE that it should not disclose the existence of the investigation in Feeding Our Future’s state court lawsuit so that it could proceed without tipping off Feeding Our Future and the target of the investigation,’ Ellison’s office said Monday.”

(Note: At this point, the FBI can’t publicly verify that they asked the state officials to not cut off funding. As we’ve seen in dozens of cases over the years, the FBI won’t comment on an ongoing investigation. Still, there is no reason to believe that all of these state officials are lying, knowing full well that the FBI could eventually expose them as liars.)

Likewise, when the judge reportedly said that cutting off funds during the investigation could be a problem for the investigation, the education officials didn’t create such a problem for law enforcement.  The Pioneer Press’s Dave Orrick explains:

Judge John Guthmann never ordered the state to make payments, according to the court record and Guthmann himself. However, he did, in at least one court hearing held over Zoom, tell an attorney for the state that they could have a “problem” if they didn’t keep making payments.

Why would the FBI not want the Walz Administration to immediately cut off funding?  That’s a very fair question. But there is a perfectly reasonable answer. Former federal prosecutor and current University of St. Thomas law professor Mark Osler explains:

“Think about a drug network,” Osler, who prosecuted cocaine rings in Detroit, said in an interview with the Pioneer Press. “Often, if we want to take down an entire drug network, you have to wait. It’s better to take it down with the whole story known and the key players identified. … I think pretty much anyone who’s worked in law enforcement at a higher level will say that fast isn’t always good and sometimes you do need to hold.”

And yes, Osler said, speaking generally and with no direct knowledge of the Feeding Our Future investigation, that can included allowing money to keep going out the door to suspected criminals. “A lot of the time, that’s done with the confidence of trying to get the money back later, and they’ve begun that process,” he said.

Indeed, federal authorities have said that of at least $250 million they’ve alleged to have been stolen, they’ve recovered some $50 million.

Despite all of this, Walz’s increasingly desperate gubernatorial opponent Scott Jensen, who is consistently trailing the polls, wants to convince Minnesotans that this is the equivalent of the Teapot Dome scandal or, like, you know, “BENGHAZI!” or “HER EMAILS!” 

But to me it looks like, yawn, Walz’s education appointees “cooperating with law enforcement” to do what they were told to do in order to prosecute some pretty extensive fraud that they initially uncovered. 

As such, the Walz Administration deserve praise, not punishment.

If You Think Republicans Can’t Ban Abortion in Minnesota, Look No Further than Iowa

Posted on by

Though Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen told anti-choice extremists that he would work to ban abortion, he has since been busily telling more moderate general election voters that he can’t, due to a Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling which held that the Minnesota Constitution guarantees a right to get an abortion. 

But here’s how quickly Minnesota’s current reproductive health care protections can disappear. 

  • Step One: A few weeks from now, Minnesota voters elect Jensen and a GOP Legislature.
  • Step Two: The GOP majority appoints anti-abortion judges, who overrule the state constitutional right to abortion at the first opportunity.
  • Step Three: Republicans enact legislation banning abortion, which the far-right U.S. Supreme Court now empowers states to do.

Bam, reproductive health freedom could be gone in Minnesota that quickly. 

If you think it can’t happen, look no further than Iowa. Planned Parenthood’s Tim Stanley explains in the Minnesota Reformer:

Much like current abortion protections in Minnesota, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that “a woman’s right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution.”

Reynolds and her predecessor have appointed five Supreme Court justices, building a strong conservative majority on the bench.

Fast forward to June 2022, the Iowa Supreme Court didn’t think twice about “stare decisis,” fulfilling the role they were put there to do: They overturned past judicial precedents and reversed the decision that purported to secure a right to abortion in the state constitution. 

Now, with nothing protecting abortion in Iowa, the Iowa Legislature can completely ban abortion, which it is unfortunately expected to do.

As the Iowa example clearly proves, an abortion ban is on the ballot in Minnesota. Elect Republicans and it will happen pretty quickly.

Scott Jensen’s Dramatic Fall Shows Ads Still Matter

Posted on by

Among campaign professionals, debates continually rage about whether to invest in field organization or advertising. 

Advocates for organizing – phone-banking, door-knocking, yard sign placement, volunteer recruitment, helping voters vote, etc. – say that the best way to persuade and activate someone is one-on-one, preferably face-to-face.  They make the case that saturation advertising is increasingly tuned out by ad-weary voters and therefore is largely ineffective and a massive waste of limited campaign resources.

Those folks need to pay attention to the Minnesota gubernatorial race between incumbent DFL Governor Tim Walz and challenger Republican Scott Jensen.  KSTP-TV explains:

“There could be many explanations for why Republican challenger Scott Jensen has fallen so far behind incumbent Democrat Gov. Tim Walz two months before Election Day, but Jensen’s initial position on abortion and the resulting millions of dollars of TV ads on the issue is likely the biggest factor.

According to our exclusive new KSTP/SurveyUSA poll, Walz leads Jensen by 18 points, 51% to 33%. In our May survey, Jensen trailed by just 5 points.

“The results of this current poll are nothing short of stunning,” says Carleton College political analyst Steven Schier, citing the barrage of TV ads criticizing Jensen about abortion and education funding as difficult for the Republican to overcome. “The Jensen campaign has no money for messaging compared to the Walz campaign and the Walz campaign allies.”

As of late July, Walz had 10 times more cash on hand than Jensen, nearly $5 million compared to just over $500,000 for Jensen. Plus, a special interest group supporting Walz, Alliance for a Better Minnesota, pledged millions to run TV ads attacking Jensen.

Walz and his supporters have used advertising to put Jensen in a deep hole with only two months to go. The ads frame Walz as a unifying Governor who managed the state well during a difficult pandemic and is now presiding over a booming economy. They describe Jensen as an extremist whose own words show he wants to ban abortion and cut school funding, which are both unpopular positions in Minnesota. 

During the time those ads have been running, there has been a massive 13-point change.  Even if that poll is off by half, which is possible but unlikely, that still would be a very significant shift. 

Just as importantly, the pro-Walz ad campaign also frames the abortion issue as being about respecting doctor-patient relationships, and difficult, highly personal choices that women face. That is in stark contrast to the “baby-killing” arguments that anti-abortion candidates and groups have used to good advantage over the years.

In other words, progressives are, for once, using their advertising budget to play offense on this issue. It’s working, particularly with women voters who would be most affected if Jensen were elected and was able to ban abortion in Minnesota.

The race in this purple state — the only state in the nation with a divided state legislature — is sure to tighten over the next couple of months, in part because the cash-strapped Jensen will eventually start advertising his own charges and defenses at a time when inflation is high and the Democratic President is unpopular. But the last three months are a strong case study illustrating the power of advertising.

So yes, community organizing warriors, continue to knock on those doors and make those calls! (Just not at this crotchety introvert’s house.)  But campaigns also must continue to invest in repetitive messaging through carefully targeted, multi-media advertising.  As the beleaguered Scott Jensen will tell you, that still matters, a lot.

Why Is Doc Jensen Still So Obsessed With His Long-Disproven COVID Claims?

Posted on by

Minnesota GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen has one huge advantage over DFL Governor Tim Walz – rural voters.  If Jensen wins in November, and he might because of frustration over crime and inflation, it will be because he successfully energized rural Minnesota. Rural areas have gotten reliably Republican, so yesterday’s FarmFest debate was the Twin Cities resident’s big opportunity to close the deal by stressing his rural development ideas.

Photo credit: Dana Ferguson, Forum News Service

But instead of using all of his time to make that case, Jensen apparently spent quite a lot of time emphasizing what he always seems to emphasize — COVID-related cray-cray.

I just don’t understand why Jensen is convinced that this is such a winning political issue for him.  Early on, when little information was available, Jensen became a star on conservative news outlets like Fox News recklessly speculating about how the pandemic might turn out. But now that actual research has emerged, it’s clear that Jensen’s early guesses have turned out to be spectacularly, embarrassingly wrong.

Still, Jensen just can’t stop himself from going there:

  • Quite incredibly, Jensen, a physician by training, still remains unvaccinated. Keep in mind, over 95 percent of physicians are vaccinated, putting Jensen in a very small minority of extremists in his profession. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans made a different decision. Seven out of ten (3.946 million) of them have gotten them fully vaccinated. Among the states, Minnesota has the second best rate of residents that have been boosted.
  • Jensen also still expresses skepticism about vaccine effectiveness. But the facts are now in. They show that the vaccine has been highly effective in reducing hospitalizations and deaths, and have enabled Minnesota’s society and economy to return to normal. Despite all of this, Doc Jensen apparently still thinks preaching anti-vax myths to the small group of holdouts is wise political strategy.
  • Beyond Jensen’s incessant vaccination nonsense, he somehow continues to recommend Minnesotans use the antiparasitic drug ivermectin. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved ivermectin, because a number of medical studies have proven it to be ineffective and dangerous. But apparently Team Jensen is convinced that pushing this discredited quackery is going to get him elected.
  • And then there is public health. Jensen maintains that Walz’s public health measures to limit COVID spread were unnecessary and ineffective.  But the facts are now in, and Minnesota under Walz had one of the region’s best rates of COVID deaths per capita. If Walz had adopted the conservative hands-off public health approach used in neighboring South Dakota, 5,000 more people would have died, according to an analysis done by Dane Smith.  That’s roughly equivalent to the population of Minnesota towns like Circle Pines, Luverne, Redwood Falls, Lindstrom, and Morris. Still, Jensen apparently is convinced that championing the demonstrably deadly South Dakota model is the best path to victory in November.
  • Finally, Jensen claims that Walz protecting Minnesotans during the deadliest pandemic in a century destroyed the Minnesota economy. Again, the facts now tell us a very different tale. Minnesota currently has the lowest unemployment of any state in the nation (1.8 percent), a historic low.  Minnesota’s state budget outlook is strong enough that it also recently had its bond rating upgraded to AAA for the first time in nearly 20 years.  But Jensen remains convinced that Minnesotans will buy his contention that Walz’s pandemic response made the state into a dystopian economic hellscape.

Stop, Doc, just stop! Take it from fellow Republican Bill Brock: “Let me tell you about the law of holes: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

The next time Jensen gets in front of a group of farmers and rural residents, he should abandon his stale, disproven COVID kookiness. Instead, he should try focusing on things that actually impact his audience’s lives, such as drought relief, broadband expansion, education investment, paid family and medical leave, health coverage affordability, and road and bridge improvements.

Minnesota Legislature, What Are You Chewing?

Posted on by

For years, Minnesota legislators from both political parties with puritanical and law-and-order instincts have fought hard to preserve the prohibition of marijuana, a plant that is much less addictive and lethal than already legalized alcohol. 

But marijuana prohibition in Minnesota is now effectively over, kinda sorta. The Star Tribune explains one of the most surprising and senseless moves the Minnesota Legislature has made in my lifetime:


“A new state law took effect July 1 that allows Minnesotans 21 and older to buy certain edibles and beverages containing small amounts of THC, the ingredient in marijuana that produces the high associated with the drug.

The new law allows the sale and purchase of edibles — such as gummies, hard candy or chocolates — and beverages that contain up to 5 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per serving and 50 milligrams per package, and no more than 0.3% THC by weight. Products containing THC, as well as those containing cannabidiol (CBD), must be clearly labeled and can only be sold to those 21 and older. Edibles must be in child-proof and tamper-evident packages and carry the label “Keep this product out of reach of children.” Serving sizes must also be clearly defined.

THC products sold in Minnesota must be derived from legally-certified hemp containing no more than 0.3% THC by weight, according to the law. Marijuana flower and all THC-containing products derived from it remain illegal in Minnesota for recreational use.

The law places no limit on how many CBD and THC products can be purchased and does not regulate who can sell them.”

This shocking development is at the same time encouraging and frustrating.  Legislators have lots of high-minded (sorry, couldn’t resist) explanations about how they were merely trying to keep Minnesotans safe from low-THC hemp with new regulations. But regardless of actual intent, the Legislature has legalized intoxicating THC products. That’s great for those who partake and don’t want to go to jail, but bad for those who care about sensible public policy.

The Legislature, wanting to show their constituents that they’re being prudent with “low and slow” dosing, essentially created the THC equivalent of 3.2 beer, or beer with no more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight.  Anyone who came of age in the 3.2 era knows that past generations of Americans did street research and discovered a clever workaround for that law:  Consume more weak product, and get as wasted as your heart desires.

Similarly, there is a fighting chance that today’s Minnesotans will make a similar discovery about the Legislature’s new half-baked model. Obviously, Minnesota’s relatively low-THC gummies can get you every bit as high as the higher-THC gummies available in states where marijuana is fully legalized. More bites begets more buzz.

Equally stupid, the Minnesota Legislature is also requiring that companies produce the THC-containing gummies in the least efficient, most expensive way possible.  In Minnesota, companies are required to make THC-containing gummies out of relatively low-THC hemp plants, instead of high-THC marijuana/cannabis plants.  

This is like requiring that companies produce sugar from tomatoes rather than sugar beets.  It’s feasible, because tomatoes have a relatively small amount of sugar in them, but why do it that way? The massive inefficiency of this hemp requirement ultimately causes huge additional growing and processing costs to be passed on to inflation-weary Minnesota consumers, for no good reason.

But that’s not all. Because legislative hemp regulators quietly snuck into the back door of THC edible legalization without wanting to wake sleeping prohibitionists, they didn’t include any taxation provisions in the new law. As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars in THC product taxes will not be collected to fund badly needed public services, such as education, early learning, or environmental protections.  That’s a huge missed opportunity.

Worst of all, the Legislature didn’t expunge the criminal records of Minnesotans whose lives are being needlessly harmed because of past marijuana-related convictions.  As of July 1, 2022, Minnesotans can now legally get high as the IDS Tower at the same time their fellow Minnesotans — disproportionately people of color, because of shameful racial bias in Minnesota’s law enforcement and judicial systems — continue to be harshly punished for having consumed the very same chemical.  That’s layering an outrageous new injustice on top of the outrageous old injustice.

To summarize, Minnesota’s THC edible legalization framework offers a good buzz, but no consumer cost-containment, public improvements, tax relief, or justice. We can now “get stupid,” but we will never get as stupid as this regulatory framework.

Despite all of those flaws, THC edibles are now finally being enjoyed by Minnesotans of all political stripes.  Because of that, this product will quickly get more normalized in Minnesota society. As a result, bringing back prohibition, as some Republicans propose, will be more unpopular than ever.

Ultimately, that normalization should pave the way for the future passage of a more thoughtful, comprehensive legalization framework, presuming a wave of extreme marijuana prohibitionists aren’t swept into office in the 2022 midterm elections. That could happen because of voter frustration over crime and inflation, but it won’t be because of this issue. Minnesotans support marijuana legalization by a 14-point margin.

The Minnesota Legislature will probably eventually get to a sane legalization framework that produces lower consumer prices, better funded government services, and justice for thousands. Winston Churchill famously said that “The United States can always be relied upon to do the right thing — having first exhausted all possible alternatives.”  Unfortunately, marijuanaphobic Minnesota is currently in the process of exhausting a particularly ludicrous alternative on its path to the right thing.

Jensen Blocking Improvements for Education, Nursing Homes, Roads, and Mental Health

Posted on by

GOP gubernatorial nominee Scott Jensen says he wants a special session to address public safety. 

Great. Despite the GOP insistence that DFL candidates support “defunding the police,” DFL Governor Tim Walz has proposed $300 million in public safety improvements. DFL legislators have some other ideas of their own for improvements.  For his part, the Trump-supporting Jensen hasn’t proposed any funding, saying he would leave such minor details to the Legislature. But Jensen does have a brief fact sheet which makes it seems as if he supports a lot of the same general approaches as Walz.

So, here is a rare case of bipartisan common ground, right?

Nope. Despite the fact that Minnesota has a massive $9.25 billion budget surplus that can help Minnesotans in multiple ways, Jensen is stubbornly insisting that public safety be the only issue addressed in a special session. Everyone, including Jensen, knows that such an insistence is a deal breaker when dealing with a bipartisan representative body that has broad-ranging responsibilities to the Minnesotans it serves.

To be clear, Jensen’s narrow-minded demand that the Legislature have an anti-crime only special session means the party that claims to be all about tax cuts is effectively blocking the largest tax cut in Minnesota history. Stop and think about that for a second.

And that’s not all.

The Republican party that insists it isn’t anti-education is blocking $1 billion in improvements for a struggling e-12 education system.

The party that historically relies on large majorities of seniors to get reelected is blocking a massive amount of funding that is needed to keep struggling nursing homes open.

The party that claims to be best for the economy is blocking a huge amount of investment in transportation and infrastructure that economists say is necessary for economic efficiency and growth.

The party that calls for improving the mental health system after every tragedy that is enabled by easily accessible guns is blocking a $93 million mental health package.

And the party that is opportunistically running a “tough on crime” campaign is demanding a “my way or the highway” legislative approach that is serving as the death knell for a sweeping anti-crime bill pending at the Legislature.

When Jensen made this announcement, the headlines in numerous publications were variations of “Jensen Pitches Public Safety Plan.”  That’s accurate, but incomplete.

It would have been just as accurate, and more complete and illuminating, if the headlines had said something like “Jensen Blocks Improvements for Education, Nursing Homes, Roads, and Mental Health.”  That’s an equally important part of Jensen’s extreme right-wing candidacy that is currently being under-reported.

Why Did Minnesota GOP Legislators Effectively Quit Their Jobs?

Posted on by

In your career, imagine that you faced a deadline to deliver on an employers’ assignment — a report, a construction project, a patient treatment, a classroom unit, a research paper, a production goal, a sales pitch.  Then imagine that despite your best efforts, due to factors beyond your individual control, you run out of time. 

It happens to all of us all the time. Do you double down on effort and finish your assignment, or point fingers, declare defeat, quit your assignment, and refuse to return to it? 

If the latter, I’m guessing you probably have been fired at least once, or denied advancement.

Well, the Minnesota Legislature had an assignment from their employers, the constituents they are sworn to serve.  The promise each of them made to their bosses on the campaign trail was to make life a little better for them during challenging times.  But the legislators encountered challenges that were outside their immediate control–principally disagreement from the opposition party, which is to be fully expected. Because of the challenges, they ran out of time.

So, they walked away from the job, and say they’re not coming back to work until 2023. See ya!

So Close

Quite remarkably, legislators actually appeared to be very close to at least partially delivering on the assignment that their constituents gave them.

Tax deal? Done. It’s not everything that Democrats wanted, and not everything that Republicans wanted. But it was agreed upon and done.

Overall fiscal deal? Done.  It outlines how much in tax cuts and supplemental spending would be acceptable to both parties. Again, the compromise agreement was equally satisfying and disappointing to both Democrats and Republicans.

Those two parts of the task are arguably the most difficult that legislators faced. That’s where past Legislatures often have failed.  But to their credit, this 2022 Legislature got that difficult work done, along with deals related to unemployment insurance, health reinsurance, farm disaster aid, and other items.

But by the time the legislative clock ran out, this year’s Legislature hadn’t agreed on the specifics for how to divvy up already agreed upon sized budgetary pies for public safety, education, and health and human services.  To be sure, those are challenging assignments for two parties with fundamentally different values.

But this Legislature got other difficult tasks done this year, so this final task is imminently doable. 

Why Quitters?

If you try, that is.  Democrats are willing to keep trying in a special session. Republicans apparently are not. 

For now, Republicans are saying they won’t give one more second of effort to help those who clearly will be hurt by their refusal to come back to work – taxpayers, renters, seniors, children, parents, child care providers, nursing home operators, police officers, and crime victims.

Minnesota Republicans looked at those struggling constituents, shrugged cavalierly, and walked away before the assignment their employers gave them was done.

Why? I’m speculating here, because I’m not a mind reader. But I suspect it’s not because Republicans are lazy or incompetent.  They seem industrious and competent bunch, at least when it comes to things they care about, such as campaigning. 

I’m also guessing that it’s not a negotiating ploy. I hope I’m wrong, and that they’ll be back. But right now it doesn’t look like that’s what they’re doing.

I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect worse. I suspect they just don’t care about their job assignment.  That is, at their core they don’t really think that making their constituents’ lives better as soon as possible is sufficiently important to merit the extra work and headaches associated with a special session.

Sure, these Republican legislators love much of what comes with the job — the title, office, public platform, power, and respect.  That’s presumably what keeps them running for reelection year after year. But the work assignment itself? I’m just not convinced.

Worse yet, a few who are disproportionately influential on their caucus actually seem to feel that their work assignment is, in the name of conservative or libertarian ideology, to prevent the government from helping  taxpayers, renters, seniors, children, parents, child care providers, nursing home operators, police officers, and crime victims.

That’s not what they tell those groups on the campaign trail, but it’s too often how they govern.

Do Voters Care?

Back to the opening analogy. After failing to complete your task on time, how do you suppose this would go over with your employer?  “Yeah, I just don’t really believe in this job assignment, and it got really difficult, and the time clock ran out, so I quit and I’m not going back to the assignment you gave me.”

Yeah. Maybe it’s time Minnesotans reacted the same way.

Lying in political ads is legal. Really.

Posted on by

Guest column by Noel Holston

Athens, Georgia — Throughout the day, and especially around evening news time, Atlanta’s commercial television stations are bombarding viewers in the greater metro area with paid political advertising. The primaries for Georgia governor, U.S. Senate and other races are just three weeks away.

One spot in particular jumps out. Former President Donald Trump, in a voice-over, endorses David Perdue for Georgia governor over incumbent Brian Kemp. Trump derides Kemp for refusing to find him the votes to overturn his loss to Joe Biden in 2020 and for failing to exercise his supposed authority to simply throw out the ballots.

This is, of course, a bald-faced lie — indeed, part of the “Big Lie” that is even now being investigated by a U.S. House select committee.

Mainstream media ads also amplify The Big Lie.

Even as a grand jury convenes in Atlanta to determine whether Trump criminally interfered in the election when he phoned Kemp and pressured him to alter election results.

Kemp and Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Secretary of State, both Republicans who themselves had voted for Trump, simply declined to exercise powers that didn’t have. They refused to ignore recounts and facts. They refused to cheat.

But still the ad runs and runs, with Trump kvetching about what was “stolen” from him and his supporters.

How can this be? How can these TV stations keep showing attack ads that make claims that their own news anchors, both local guys and their respective network counterparts, routinely mention only with the modifiers “false” or “baseless”? Is there no “truth in advertising” requirement?

Short answer: No.

At least not where political advertising is concerned.

I emailed my concern about this a couple of days ago to WXIA-TV, the NBC affiliate in Atlanta that I most often watch for news. What can I say? I have a crush on Andrea Mitchell.

A WXIA representative got back to me this afternoon. Here’s the reply. I’m guessing you did not know this:

“The Federal Communications Commission’s political broadcast rules actually prohibit television stations from refusing or altering political advertising from any legally qualified candidate,” WXIA’s spokesperson said.

“More specifically, the FCC says that a person who has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office, is qualified to run under the appropriate federal, state or local laws to run and has met all of the other necessary qualifications to run for and hold the office they are seeking, is permitted to purchase political advertising time within 45 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general or special election in which that person is a candidate.

“Additionally, television stations cannot censor or alter the content of political ads being run in any way. The ads must be run in their original form — even if their content differs from the ordinary program content that the station would regularly air.

“A station is also prohibited from rejecting a political ad from a candidate, despite its content. As a result, broadcast stations are not responsible for the content of those particular political ads, even if the content may be demonstrably false or defamatory in nature.” (bold italics mine)

So, even if Trump accused Brian Kemp of sheep shagging or Kemp said Trump and Perdue are having an affair, the Atlanta stations would be obligated to televise their ads uncut. And so, in similar situations, would all other federally licensed commercial TV stations in other parts of the country, including yours.

And we worry what Elon Musk is going to do with Twitter.

Note: Noel Holston is a freelance writer who lives in Athens, Georgia. He regularly shares his insights and wit at Wry Wing Politics. He’s also a contributing essayist to Medium.com, TVWorthWatching.com, and other websites. He previously wrote about television and radio at Newsday (200-2005) and, as a crosstown counterpart to the Pioneer Press’s Brian Lambert, at the Star Tribune  (1986-2000).  He’s the author of “Life After Deaf: My Misadventures in Hearing Loss and Recovery,” by Skyhorse.