Images - disjointed, or contiguous? (Ones with text - click on image to read)

 

Look at what the world thinks. Surprisingly better than one might have expected. Yet, clearly, the world knows that healthcare in the U.S. of A. is exploitative, and ain't worth shit.

 Pew Research -

 

click the image to enlarge and read

 From Strib, recently -

 

Minnesota’s largest companies are bigger this year. The top five on the Star Tribune 50 each had double-digit revenue gains in 2021. As in past years, UnitedHealth Group dominates the field. Last year, its revenue grew 11.8% to $287.6 billion, accounting for 41% of the total revenue for all 50 of the largest public companies headquartered or operationally based in Minnesota.

 

UnitedHealth Group

Worthless

Blood

Sucking

Privateering 

Insurance

Leech!

Money to politicians gets zero healthcare reform which is totally congruent to what the health/pharma industrial complex is intending to buy via money to politicians. 

The people of the U.S. of A. are being screwed by the complex, and the whole world sees it and has a low opinion of the leeches. Properly so. As low, almost, as do each and every thinking American who is not a politician, a politician buyer, nor a denizen of the health/pharma industrial complex. 

Those not a leech. Not bought by leeches. Hate leeches.

 

MEDICARE FOR ALL IS THE ANSWER. 

TODAY. NOW. 

SOONER, LATER, WE GET IT. THE PEOPLE OVERWHELMINGLY WANT IT. VESTED INTERESTS STAND IN THE WAY.  

SOONER, LATER, THEY ARE VANQUISHED.

 

_______UPDATE_______

Readers are encouraged to follow the Pew link. The screen capture was only from its beginning, and much worthwhile detail of what the world thinks follows. 

In particular the most jingoistic in our midst most need to see the reality of world opinion. It would educate them. However, surely, naked excessive jingoism is a trait almost totally absent in Crabgrass readers. No matter -- the Pew item stands as a presentation of much beyond the above opening excerpt. Have at it.

Donald John Trump does not have total exclusive intellectual property rights to being a stinking phony bloviating worthless talking whore.

 Rafael "Ted" Cruz here and here. 

Put that face on a three dollar bill.

Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, criticized Biden's plan — a $10,000 write-off for those making less than $150,000 per year, according to The Washington Post — on Twitter. Johnson suggested that the plan does not address a meaningful amount of debt, especially for Black borrowers, who are typically burdened by more of it. [...] Johnson cited a 2016 Brookings Institute study that found Black borrowers have, on average, $53,000 in debt after graduation — nearly twice as much as their white counterparts.

The headline is language from within a Business Insider post, which also states: 

Wisdom Cole, NAACP's national director for the youth college division, previously emphasized the significance canceling student debt would have in helping close the racial wealth gap.

"If we are trying to level the playing field in the future, and folks are disproportionately taking out more debt than their white counterparts or their peers, that doesn't sound like a level playing field to me, right?" Cole told Insider in a recent interview.

Insider has previously reported on the burden student debt has on communities of color, and specifically, how the student-loan industry was created to give everyone an equal shot at a higher education but ended up doing the opposite, shouldering minority borrowers with huge debt loads they cannot afford to pay off.

The Education Trust, a nonprofit, launched the National Black Student Loan Debt Study last year and found that 51% of Black borrowers have yet to see positive returns on their debt, and 66% of them regret ever taking out loans, deeming them "unpayable," "not worth it," and a "lifetime sentence."

The unstated ugly question in these truths, Does Joe Biden really care to level the playing field and make black (and white) poor more empowered than they are? Or are we seeing another ugly dimension of Status Quo Joe? Liking it as it is? Fine with Joe, if they get piled on with onerous impossible payments? Less uppity that way? More pliant.

Then, the really big question - wtf can we make of Clyburn having made the move that launched Biden's then faltering campaign into Biden being "the one" instead of Warren or Bernie to get the opportunity to gain from the inevitable ouster of that sick joke in office that was Donald John Trump?

If black "leadership" wanted a foot-dragger they surely got one. Now what might make black "leadership" think to want a foot-dragger? Ask instead, who is bankrolling Clyburn's campaigns to ensure his continued incumbancy, i.e., who is the man's main constituency when it comes to power and status and the paycheck?

Ugly questions. But they have to be asked. 

The Insider item ends:

Data recently obtained by Warren's office and provided to Insider found that $50,000 in relief would zero out balances for 76%, or 30 million, borrowers and would reduce the share of Black people with student debt from 24% to 6%, narrowing the Black-white gap.

The Congressional Black Caucus recently called for "broad-based" cancellation, following the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus' calls for meaningful action on the growing student-debt crisis.

"In order to reduce the racial wealth gap and advance a just and equitable economic recovery for all, we must alleviate the burden of student debt," Black Caucus Chair Joyce Beatty said in a statement. "Nothing is off the table, except inaction."

If Clyburn is anywhere near taking "leadership" of such debt fairness effort it surely has gotten no publicity. Has Clyburn been a politician inartful in gaining publicity? When it is something he wants about something he pursues? He got one damned whole hell of a lot of publicity when he wanted to anoint Status Quo Joe as his Messiah to replace Trump.  Seems as if wanting to is the telling factor.

In that context, Beatty's judgment sings, "Nothing is off the table, except inaction."

And, in that context, where's Nancy?

__________UPDATE_______

Pramila is in there pushing.

FARM SUBSIDIES: There is talk of the rural-urban divide. There is too damned little attention paid to rural welfare queens. Taking big money. Carping about urban family assistance.

 Ag. Dept. link.

This is not to say helping agriculture is not in the national interest. We need farms.

However, an educated populace is in the national interest. We need student loan debt relief.

We need balance. We do not need to be at one another. Common good is best.

PLEASE NOTE: The headline, using the term of that bastard Reagan (Lee Atwater assisted). Because it is such a mean usage, put it in the context of helping boost agriculture, via welfare payments, and it shows how flat out dumb and mean the welfare queen term is. (Dumb and mean --- Two qualities Reagan epitomized.)

SO - The headline was intended to strike irony to show something else. 

And yes, many farmers taking subsidy payments are not mean spirited toward others being assisted. Most are basically kind hearted, more or less likely so. The loud, ignorant. doctrinaire and bombastic ones are the problem. They are the ones who concentrate toward Republican political rhetoric. They are the ones against a living wage for the working poor. Against educated poor people under a debt burden arising from gaining an  education - against their also being assisted while happily getting Ag. benefits.

And, big surprise, FOX is counterproductive in our becoming a better nation. 

Consider

Food stamps? Link. Food Assistance Welfare goes where it is needed. And that is good. Yet Reagan sold urban-black-welfare-queens and used the meme against doing good by helping needy people. Why? 

Another post, similar data equivalence.

A rural-urban study with findings, but no ability to answer, "Why?"

The susceptibility to propaganda and the tailoring of propaganda seem well honed truth, rural vs urban, but, again, WHY?

Try this. Similar but differing; here, here. For now, leave it there. At a still simplistic level. To be UPDATED in all likelihood. The thought here is that educated people cannot help but be more sophisticated. And that sophistication can see each of the two parties as flawed servants of Mammon; but are willing to tolerate lesser evil compromise, while knowing precisely what it is and hating it greatly. Simple folksy bullshit probably sells better with less educated, e.g., Reagan, Trump, FOX.

Yes, that seems both condescending and smug, and depressing. Perhaps Pew Research might have helpful content.

Looking at Presidential candidates, 2016 and 2020. Subjectively: People knew the Clintons and how they'd adversely impacted the Democratic party, Trump was an unknown; and make the test less egregious, more egregious; rather than greater or lesser evil. We all knew how galling and egregious the Clintons are. Then, after seeing Trump, it seemed Biden was more flat out mean and as duplicitous; while Trump was dangerously narcissistic and unhinged, and lazy. Neither a cultural giant. Biden less egregious. Yet education and consequent sophistication could see that, while among uneducated, some even liked Trump! Does anyone like Biden? If you do, see a shrink. Trump was a litmus test but Reagan was the real litmus test of discernment between educated and uneducated. For those whose memories do reach "back that far," But the two, Reagan then Trump, are twin sons of different parents. Each with a simple and genuine message, in the sense a rattlesnake has a genuine message.

 

Let's go Brandon. Progressives have a GIANT cause to agree. The young, facing what nefariously is being done to them, excuse the grammer, have a GIANTER cause.

 AOC Video.

Ten grand is tokenism. Insulting tokenism. Be moral, Joe. YOU CAN DO IT.

Else, watch this November, it will be on you. 

Ten grand will not move the needle. We know what's being done to the poor young. We know why. We don't like it. And, yes, we wanted Bernie, NOT YOU!

BELOW: Screencapture from AOC's floor speech, during floor speech time.

The presumptiousness of an editorial board can be a surprise. [U0DATE: But with it, you can learn things.]

 With no indication of having contacted anybody at the State Deprtment, and citing only one reach out to a Brookings scholar, the "editorial board" of Strib opined about Biden's recent unambiguous statement about defense of Taiwan. There is no indication of contact with any Taiwanese representative, nor with Biden staff, prior to publishing. 

From the item:

Biden's clarity on Taiwan is risky - "Strategic ambiguity" has long been effective in U.S.-China relations. - By Editorial Board Star Tribune - May 26, 2022 

"Strategic ambiguity" is what U.S. diplomats call America's policy on Taiwan and China. The strategy is to keep the peace by maintaining ambiguity over the degree the U.S. would go to defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion.

To date, that intentional vagueness has met its objective of keeping Taiwan from declaring formal independence, which would incense China, and from China invading what it considers a renegade province.

On Monday, however, President Joe Biden was unambiguous about U.S. policy. During a stop in Japan, Biden was asked by a reporter, "Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?"

"Yes," Biden answered simply, later adding: "That's the commitment we made."

Publishing "likely" in the next paragraph in the absence of contact with State or White House staff hangs "likely" on a few locals, together, guessing, disinclined to pin something down.

He was likely referring to the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which actually does not commit the U.S. to militarily defend Taiwan, but to provide self-defense capabilities. Biden apparently believes otherwise in a view that's also shared by several respected foreign policy experts.

But Biden's approach, if that indeed reflects U.S. policy, may not be as effective a strategy, according to Ryan Hass, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Hass, an expert in East Asia, told an editorial writer in an e-mail interview that "there are few issues in the world where words matter more than on the question of war in the Taiwan Strait" and that "in this respect, the inconsistencies in the Biden administration's responses to questions about whether the United States would intervene in a cross-Strait conflict is troubling.

"America's abiding interest is in preserving peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait," Hass continued. "Preserving this objective requires standing in the way of the two paths that could lead to conflict, either a Chinese military invasion or efforts by Taiwan to declare de jure independence. The more that President Biden locks the U.S. into a specific response to a future hypothetical conflict, the less room for maneuver he leaves for himself or his successors."

China, Hass said, already assumes U.S. intervention if it attacks Taiwan. Accordingly, he believes that "there is not deterrent value for any U.S. president to say out loud that the U.S. would intervene in any future conflict. There is risk, however, that such a statement could prompt Beijing to take visible responses to register displeasure."

[...] 

"He believes," as used by Strib's editors means the one guy they contacted by email at Brookings, is a good usage. Reliance is on one guy's belief. And there is an unstated presumption that deterrence value is the only, or overriding factor to weigh. The editors say in a clear statement that much of the editorial is grounded on one outsider's belief in conjunction with board biases,  if any, among Strib editors. Yes, one beltway pundit said this and that, but so what? 

The editorial goes further:

More constructively, Biden used his trip to introduce a 13-nation pact called the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity. Along with the U.S. and regional leaders Japan, India, South Korea and Australia, the agreement includes Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam (but notably, not Taiwan). Together the 13 countries represent about 40% of the global economy.

But unlike Biden's unambiguous statement on Taiwan, there's more ambiguity to the new arrangement, as it's designed to address issues like supply-chain resilience, digital trade, corruption and clean energy. Unlike a more muscular free-trade agreement, it does not address issues of market access, which will make it not only less economically meaningful but less of a geopolitical counterweight to China.

Had Biden really wanted to blunt Beijing's increasing influence, he would have advocated for the pact his former boss, President Barack Obama, negotiated, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which went forward without the U.S. after it was irresponsibly demonized during the 2016 campaign by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

[...]

Get that. Based on a local consultation among "editorial board" folks, TPP was "right" and both party candidates running on a policy against it was "wrong." 

Not attributing the Brookings agent a role in such judgment suggests it was the editors alone calling that shot. 

Who are they to second guess better people? There was much dislike among a host of union people for TPP, and its secrecy in negotiations and ultimate content was galling, while some fretted over U.S. sovereignty arguably being subjugated to dispute resolution mechanisms among corporations, not courts, where policy could be set outside of an accord among national governments via an accord among involved commercial corporations. Presumably the two candidates consulted a number of advisors, not a lone individual, (if that Brookings scholar was consulted about the TPP subpart of the editorial, we do not know).

Who are they to judge TPP as better than a looser trade understanding? Their approach - In one case, wrong to be unambiguous, in another, too ambiguous. Moreover, second guessing in saying the last (failed) TPP idea seems better to us, with no basis explained for thinking it better, and also further characterizing disagreement over the wisdom of candidate judgment of its terms and conditions as "demonization?" Come on.

They wrap up:

Biden is right to not let the long-delayed "pivot" to Asia become derailed due to the Ukraine crisis. But "strategic ambiguity" has maintained peace in the region — peace that can be undone if not carefully maintained.

Strategic ambiguity was policy prior to abandonment of the Afghan mistake, prior to use of surrogates in Syria, and prior to a firm line, arming Ukraine but declining to engage militarily in the Russian - Ukranian situation. To ignore that Taiwanese leaders might per such recent historical facts yearn for something definite, a reassurance in light of those foreign policy facts of U.S. conduct, was the gravest mistake this editorial board made. 

The editorial never mentioned Taiwan's uncertainty and possibly its greater current cause for trepidation and need for reassurance as a factor. 

The editorial instead dismissed any grounded Taiwanese cause for enhanced trepidation out of hand. That dismissal of concern is strange in light of the U.S. track record in recent times. Taiwanese leaders should be suffering enhanced uncertainty of how supportive our nation would be and remain, by how others were addressed in recent events; together with how in four year's time Donald John Trump disastrously deviated foreign policy with the notion he knew better, (much as this editoral board believes it knows better). With that combination as recent history a policy believed by the editors to have been best before that simply might no longer be best. So explain the favoring of continuing "strategic ambiguity" in current context, please. The editors surprisingly declined to publish any acknowledgement much less mentioning and resolving of how recent history fits their thinking. 

C- 

__________UPDATE_________

Strib does link to Brooking's summary of Ryan Hass' background. He is learned and experienced. He served in the Obama administration, on China and Asian regional policy, and likely had a role in TPP negotiations. It is almost inconceivable that he would not have had a role.

Trump did not keep him on his National Security Council, and it appears Biden declined to add him to the Biden team. Perhaps Haas felt favorable to his prior work and policy efforts, and had a role in influencing Strib editors' view of TPP. Perhaps not. Strib incredibly declined to clarify such an obviously relevant factor. They maintained their "strategic ambiguity" about any Haas input into TPP opinion they published. We just don't know.

One further point. The understanding here is that TPP declined to impose climate and environmental uniformity among affected/affiliated nations. Others might not have needed to cover costs of climate/environment diligence comparable to operations in the States, when corporations located operations in other nations. 

We don't know. The secrecy with which TPP was shrouded blocked out public awareness and discourse. But whether location of corporate facilities might have been biased in favor of other nations over location in the U.S., with U.S. labor, would have been nice to know. 

Such knowledge might even, with many people, influence opinion of how good or bad, superior or inferior, TPP terms and conditions were, relative to leaving "strategic ambiguity" in a present, preliminary Biden administration alliance pact.

FURTHER: Labor skepticism and outright opposition to TPP was real. To consider the common dissatisfaction of both 2016 candidates with TPP as "demonization" when either or both candidates might have weighed labor outlooks in setting strategy aimed toward gaining a majority of votes in the contest; that seems a reach.

It would have been wrong for one aiming to represent the people to not weigh things the people might favor or dislike. That's common sense. Not demonization. Anyone can see that is so. 

What insiders may have thought (or still think about TPP) may well have differed from popular opinion, to the extent popular opinion could form under the questionable level of secrecy with which TPP matters were handled by Obama's people. 

Corporations had access. Regular people were kept in the dark. Almost as if corporations wrote the deal, regardless of what popular reaction might have been. 

BOTTOM LINE: There was cause aplenty for Trump and Clinton to have cautiously regarded TPP as a 2016 election issue. Reasonable cause is not demonization. Calling it that is a failed, biased, narrow point of view.

_________FURTHER UPDATE_______

It was error in excerpting to omit this second to last paragraph of the editorial:

"China has sought aggressively to sell the idea that the U.S. is an anxious, declining power retreating into greater isolation, while China is the new core of Asia's economic growth story," Hass said. "If the U.S. were to return to its seat at the trade table in Asia through CPTPP [the renamed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership], it would render obsolete China's efforts to present America as a fading power and itself as the growth engine of the future."

It was not mere error, but manifest error to omit that.

This "CPTPP" a/k/a " Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership" beast needs Sunshine (the greatest disinfectant).

There should be a major public outcry -

CPTPP. Who 'dat? What 'dat? Why 'dat?

Rational explanation and analysis of this CPTPP proposal, free of demonization, but without any pom pom squad diverting attention, will be in everbody's best interest.

Prior to the 2022 midterm voting, labor should be consulted to learn the full nature of the proposal in order to publicize express outlooks which might aid in informing the voting public. Hiding things under a hat (or within the closing sentence of a second-to-last editorial paragraph) is never good conduct.

To duly aid a beginning of Crabgrass reader awareness:

Wikipedia.

Websearch.

Enjoy.

And a closing apology to Crabgrass readers. In among all the shootings and auto or motorcycle death coverage Strib's featured and published I overlooked their parallel and extensive coverage of this overriding long-term policy issue affecting the lives of US, the children, and the children's children. Affecting the ongoing economy of our nation into future decades, indeed, into the next century. My bad.

Price gouging? Real or fancied? Ignored, "Look over there. Nothing to see here." Stories to sell, or bills drafted to fix price gouging? What's your "belief system"choice?

 Playing the devil's advocate, Republican posting two links, with embedded content from, where else, FOX talking head punditry - embedded FOX stuff, to convince you. A/k/a to sell you a story. You can read the text, but it's based on FOX -

Kudlow wallowing in words, saying what, exactly?

The talking head authority? What's his name, saying "Hunter Biden," then saying "Whoopie Goldberg," as if picking easy punching bags is journalism.

Authoratative?

Consider - Common Dreams:

Poll Shows Majority of US Voters Blame Corporate Profiteering for Inflation

New Warren Bill Would Empower Feds to Crack Down on Corporate Price Gouging

Ahead of House Vote, Analysis Details How Big Oil Price Gouging Rewards Wall Street 

From that first item's closing paragraphs, links you can follow -

The new survey data was released after several high-profile corporations—including Starbucks and Amazon—announced plans to hike prices on goods and services even after reporting rising profits.

To start the new year, the New York-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer hiked prices on 125 of its products—from its pneumonia vaccine to a treatment for people with cardiovascular disease—even after raking in huge profits from its coronavirus vaccine in 2021.

Overall, amid a devastating pandemic and ongoing economic pain for low-income households, top U.S. corporations saw their profits surge to record highs in 2021.

"Take a look around the economy today," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, wrote in a Twitter post last week. "McDonald's: profits up 59%. They're raising prices. Starbucks: record profits. They're raising prices. Amazon: record profits. Shock of shocks! They're raising prices!"

"Maybe—just maybe—we've got a corporate greed problem," Sanders added.

Believe what you will.

 

Traders. "'Nobody with power is looking at what they’re doing,' he says. 'There’s no cop on the beat.'"

 A reader emailed this Guardian link. The title to this post is from it. Read it.

It fits an earlier comment in an earlier post: "Oil is oil. Price is price. Demand is demand. Manipulation is manipulation."

Is a "free market" one insufficiently regulated that it can be manipulated? What then is meant by "free" beyond free from manipulation, free from shaping via government policy, or other non-market forces?

A market wholly controlled by wealth/stealth manipulation is not "free" in any sense except "free for the taking if wealthy and sneaky enough practices and practitioners are able to get away with borderline crime." And who are our friends doing such stuff?

Scum buckets.

The Guardian item names some names. 

__________UPDATE_________

Another dimension of interest in considering price at the pump, AND price at the grocery check-out counter, touches upon a post by Dan Burns last weekend,

Facts about the food price crisis

Dan's insight is that concentrated production and distribution of basic agricultural products allows any player in such a concentrated situation to have a heavy thumb on the scale, as well as the even greater point - there being vulnerability when major producers are upset by war. Add to that the fact that industrialized agriculture, mega-farming, is highly dependent on energy input. Ammonia synthesis takes energy. Mining and transport of other fertilizer takes energy. Machinery concentrated agriculture is subject to impact of changes in energy prices. RoundUp is a petrochemical. Hence, agriculture as done today cannot be independent of oil prices. 

It is a brief post, primarily a quote/link Dan published. Worth a look. 

And worth remembering, price at the pump and price at the grocery store move in lockstep, not in contrary directions.

In the post beneath this one, from this morning, Florida Republican opposition to reconsideration of the scope of Trump's embargo against Venezuela was noted. Republican opposition to possible pump price relief via Venezuelan oil imports goes beyond Florida.

Venezuela has more oil reserves than any other nation. Trump during his single term in office imposed Draconian embargo terms on the nation after its leader, Maduro, was reelected. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, crude oil prices have skyrocketed, with opportunistic jacking up pump prices charged Americans being a consequence.

Biden is looking at Venezuelan oil as a way to help citizens against inflation in everything arising from basic increases in energy pricing, which affects other commerce because energy is the key input.

Republicans, beyond Floridians in fact are positioning to counter this effort to help American citizens under inflation burdens.

Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a May 17 statement, went a step further and said the administration should “reverse course and increase pressure on the Maduro regime and its enablers.”

“Instead of increasing energy production here at home, our president is turning to #Venezuela – an authoritarian regime with a history of egregious human rights violations,” Risch said in a May 18 tweet. “We should be producing oil here at home, not begging autocracies for bailouts.”

House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers, in a statement referencing “the Biden administration easing energy sanctions on Venezuela,” argued that the US “did not need to import oil from Russia, and we do not need to turn to Venezuela now.”

Rather, she called on President Joe Biden “to unleash American energy,” and end policies that are standing in the way of the domestic production of “millions of additional barrels of oil per day.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican-Alaska, similarly asked the Biden administration to realize that “domestic supply matters” and “reverse its anti-supply actions,” during a May 18 GOP press conference on record-high gasoline prices.

The Biden administration “needs to restart our development programs, it needs to start approving crucial projects that deliver greater supply,” she said. “It’s a pretty simple choice here. We can pick Alaska over Iran. We can pick Wyoming over Venezuela.”

General License 8

The Trump administration imposed sanctions on PDVSA in January 2019. Those sanctions cut off flows of Venezuelan crude to US Gulf Coast refiners and others. The Biden administration last year reportedly came close to allowing crude-for-diesel swaps to restart on humanitarian grounds but ultimately decided to keep the ban in place.

The Treasury in November extended a waiver until June 1, 2022, that allowed Chevron to continue limited operations in Venezuela. That waiver, known as General License 8, was extended on the argument that the presence of US companies would be necessary to prevent the collapse of Venezuela’s oil sector and ease an expected recovery once Maduro was forced out of power.

However, Maduro has held onto power despite US pressure, with his party sweeping the country’s local and regional elections last year.

These are leadership Republicans re energy policy, not less. This clarifies a point in the earlier post where the question of how widespread is a Republican will to counter pump price relief. It is unavoidably so, with the suggestion that the U.S. be pumped dry first, (and damn the higher per barrel cost of such a policy going unmentioned), being a red herring. 

Venezuela has the reserves. We do not.

No amount of environmental havoc, fracking, offshore, whatever, will change that blunt fact. 

The Republican position is frivolous hand-waving; while they've postured for decades about letting free market forces hold sway. They are being wholly disingenuous. 

Questionable and costly oil extraction in our nation is not nearly as promising a relief to citizens who need to be gassing their cars and trucks as is letting a nation with world-leading reserves compete to force the market to a new and more favorable supply-demand balance. 

Whether Trump had an eye on helping Putin and the Koch family prosper by embargoing Venezuela as his main or secondary motive can be debated, but his action resulting in higher pump prices is in the past, and that action is not cause at this time to look away from what is the economically most sensible and justifiable course of short-term relief. 

Long term, climate change must be addressed and renewable energy must be fostered. But that is not cause to be hosing consumers so drastically, short-term. While making Russia richer.

 Take the Trump embargo off the market, let the market adjust, and thus help cash-strapped Americans fight inflation arising from artificially hiked energy pricing. 

Or be a Republican, and oppose helping the people.

__________UPDATE__________

Trump not only impacted the oil market favorably to Russia and the Koch family via putting a squeeze on Venezuela, he did an additional squeeze on Iran. Having two big players impacted meant the market adjusted in a way that also benefited the Saudis, substantially, to where after Trump was voted out the Saudis benefited Jarad. 

Substantially. 

Saudi-Jarad clearly dwarfing via two billion anything likely to arise from GOP mucking in Hunter's laptop nastiness, should they take Congress. 

And what all was Rudi doing in Ukraine, for whom besides Trump, in light of Ukraine now invaded by its energy exporter neighbor? 

Curiosities abound. Yet Jarad's Saudi deal seems to have been severely under reported. Throughout Mainstream media. Nothing to see, I guess.

Jarad's sorry track record with the 666 Fifth Ave. property as proof of his money handling skills; the Saudi two billion seemingly on direct order of MBS, overriding the judgment of sovereign investment fund general management; curious, at best.

Why do I see this by going to Greg Palast, but not in Strib, Pioneer Press, nor MinnPost? Then, doing a websearch, there is coverage, but local outlets seem mum.

 First the follow-up search. Then what Palast wrote which caused the questioning.

Search targeted = past month Search = https://duckduckgo.com/?q=venezuela+oil+gas+prices&df=m&ia=web

It is as if Biden's sensible policy move away from Trump's anti-Venezuela squeeze which is the cause of runaway gasoline/diesel pricing and flowing money to Russia in the process, is somehow not newsworthy. Why not? Get real.

Palast -

When you corrode and corrupt democracy, it has consequences -How an axis of awful is blocking the oil we need from Venezuela to replace Russian oil and stop Putin

• by Greg Palast
• for FlashPoints
• March 24, 2022

Venezuela has the largest reserves of oil on the planet. If you look at OPEC, they put Saudi Arabia as number two. Venezuela’s producing very little oil, not even enough for its own needs at this moment, when it was producing 3.2 million barrels of oil a day — 2 million barrels a day for export. If we unleash oil from Venezuela, then Putin’s profit from the invasion evaporates.

Putin is earning roughly, by my calculation, a billion dollars a day windfall from the sales of oil and gas, at prices which today hit about $118 a barrel, with natural gas going up an equal amount. So, Venezuela is the way to stop Putin’s tanks, it’s that simple. Chevron say that within three months they could bring 800,000 barrels of oil a day to the US from Venezuela, all they need is Biden to lift the Trump embargo. That 800,000 barrels a day, by the way, equals the maximum amount of oil that the US gets from Russia.

This deadly embargo of Venezuela was imposed by Donald Trump. Why is Biden continuing with Trump’s policies, which right now are enriching Putin, by keeping 2 million barrels of oil a day off the market? Keep in mind, Venezuela has invaded no one, attacked no one, and they’ve got a president that was elected, even if our State Department isn’t exactly a fan of Nicolás Maduro.

And while Biden is celebrating the fact he got Europe to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which wasn’t in operation anyway, they’re still taking 1.9 trillion cubic feet of gas a year from Nord Stream 1. That 1.9 trillion cubic feet a year, which Russia provides through Nord Stream 1, can be replaced 100% by Venezuela, which according to the US Energy Information Administration is capable of over 2 trillion cubic feet of gas production a year for export. They could send this as liquid natural gas to Europe, and completely replace what they get from Nord Stream 1. But we’re not doing it, and here’s why… It’s being blocked by an axis of awful, which includes two powerful Democrats.

One is Bob Menendez, the Senator from New Jersey who’s the only sitting senator who’s ever had unanimous censure by the Senate Ethics Committee for corruption. And the other is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was deeply involved in an illegal scheme to move Democratic National Committee money to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Meanwhile Charles Koch is refusing to shutter his operations in Russia, and is using his power and influence to stop any oil flowing out of Venezuela — while refusing to support any economic sanctions on Russia. And, by the way, the Kochs also funded the Clinton administration, which helped put Putin in power. Here’s the thing; when you corrode and corrupt democracy, it has consequences.

 [bolding added] Investopedia -

A Potential U.S. Oil Deal with Venezuela Faces Hurdles
By - John Kimelman

Published March 18, 2022

In 2019, the U.S. imposed a ban on the importation of Venezuela oil shortly after president Nicholas Maduro won reelection in a vote widely seen as fraudulent. 

But the Biden administration is reconsidering that decision in the wake of another major oil sanction: the U.S. ban on the importation of Russian "crude oil and some petroleum products" last week following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The Biden administration enacted a series of sanctions following Russia’s invasion. However, in the early days of the of the confrontation it had refrained from imposing a ban on Russian oil out of concern that such a move would only cause oil and gasoline prices to rise further in the United States. But as the war continued, the administration announced a import ban on March 8.   

Still, the Biden administration is faced with the challenge of making up for the roughly 670,000 barrels a day in lost Russian oil and oil products as well as to alleviate concerns about rising gasoline prices in the U.S. On March 5, the Biden administration sent a delegation to the Venezuelan capital of Caracas to discuss the possibility of allowing Venezuelan crude oil back into the U.S.

Shortly after the weekend meeting, Venezuela released two jailed U.S. citizens -- one of them a Citgo oil executive -- in a goodwill gesture toward the Biden administration.

Such a rapprochement, however, faces resistance from political leaders of both parties as well as from Juan Guaido, the leading political opponent of Maduro in Venezuela.

Last Friday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis held an event in Doral, Fla. against ending the embargo of Venezuelan oil. And U.S. Senate Republicans introduced a bill that would prohibit the U.S. from importing crude oil from both Venezuela and Iran. 

But Democrats including Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, have also criticized any effort to end the sanction on Venezuelan oil.  

Moreover, some Republicans have alleged that Venezuela's prisoner release amounts to a "quid pro quo" in connection with the possible easing of oil sanctions. But on Tuesday, a State Department spokesman denied this, adding, "there was absolutely no quid pro quo. We have been working to secure the release of those Americans...since the very start of this administration."

Meanwhile, Chevron Corp. is reportedly planning to take operating control of its joint ventures in Venezuela should Washington allow trade in Venezuelan oil.

[...] Currently, Russian oil and petroleum product exports to the U.S. represent about 8% of all the U.S.’s imported oil, and less than 2% of the total U.S. supply.  

Ending the U.S. sanctions against Venezuela would add to the U.S. oil supply and could lower prices of oil and gasoline. It would also help to revive Venezuela's place in the global oil market.

 A Venezuela’s petroleum official recently said that the country’s oil output could rise by at least 400,000 barrels per day to a total of 1.2 million barrels if the U.S. ends the embargo. [...]

 The Wasserman Schultz congressional webpage - 

Washington DC – U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23) released the following statement after the recent negotiations surrounding the release of American hostages Gustavo Cardenas and Jorge Fernandez from Venezuela, and on the prospect of lifting oil or other sanctions on the Maduro regime:

“The Biden Administration’s effort to globally isolate Putin has been swift, remarkable and may save thousands of lives. However, rewarding the Maduro regime in Venezuela by swapping out the oil imports of one murderous kleptocrat for another in our own Hemisphere would be wrong and shortsighted. America’s moral standing, and the lives of countless murdered, displaced, and suffering Venezuelans, should not be sacrificed to access a trifling supply of oil that could aid a dangerous regional tyrant.

The recent negotiated release of American hostages ends a torturous chapter for these prisoners and their families at the hands of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro. I am confident the Administration will continue fighting to bring home the seven Americans still being held unjustly in Venezuela.

While this is welcome news on the hostages, the underlying reality in Venezuela is that its citizens live in extreme poverty and are denied basic human rights due to a corrupt and repressive dictatorship. Critically, neither this hostage release, nor Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, warrant allowing the murderous Maduro regime to quickly stockpile petrol profits as Venezuelans still starve for food, medicine and basic human rights under his autocratic rule. Sanctions relief should only be considered when there is a clear and irreversible commitment to restore free and fair presidential elections and cease attacks on the rule of law.”

 She's full of shit. Whoring to wealthy Venezuelan and allied Cuban emigre-voters and advocates who've settled in Florida, with her apparent aim being to solidify her seat in Congress, never mind that her BS spiel is hurting the entire population of the US via pump price stratospheric escalation, and never mind that her entire party facing November elections has to suffer because energy price gouging is happening, Her seat, prestige, and paycheck is what matters most. To Debbie. You can suffer. Her seat is more important. Back to the beginning sentence of this paragraph.

BOTTOM LINE: Lady, get out of Biden's way. 

Biden is doing right by the citizens of the U.S. of A. Surely one can say that Biden's motives are political. But it is a politics of decency to the populace, even if aimed toward better November results for his party. 

But wait. There's more. Debbie dances with Republican Senate and House leading voices toward hounding Venezuela 

 Consider the evidence - 

U.S. [REPUBLICAN] Sen. Marco Rubio and [REPUBLICAN Assistant party house whip] Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, among other politicians, criticized on Tuesday the easing of economic sanctions on Venezuela by President Joe Biden's administration.

The U.S. government announced that it would allow oil company Chevron to negotiate with Venezuelan state-owned PDVSA, as long as it doesn't drill or export Venezuelan-origin oil. The move is aimed at encouraging the resumption of negotiations between the Washington-backed opposition and the Nicolas Maduro regime, two senior officials told The Associated Press.

Sen. Rubio rejected the measure on his social media and claimed that "Biden continues his effort to appease anti-American communist dictators."

"Yesterday it was Cuba, now today Biden will announce removing sanctions on the Maduro regime in Venezuela," he added.

Biden continues his effort to appease anti-American communist dictators

Yesterday it was #Cuba, now today Biden will announce removing sanctions on #MaduroRegime in #Venezuela

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 17, 2022

Rep. Salazar warned that "Biden has officially surrendered to the dictators of Latin America" to buy "blood-stained oil."

Biden se ha rendido oficialmente ante los dictadores de América Latina.

Ayer, permitió que negocios americanos beneficiaran al régimen de Castro/Díaz-Canel. Hoy, quitó sanciones a Maduro en Venezuela para comprar petróleo manchado de sangre.

¡No lo olvidaremos este noviembre!

— María Elvira Salazar 🇺🇸 (@MaElviraSalazar) May 17, 2022

U.S. Republican Sen. Rick Scott, also from Florida, condemned the move. "Joe Biden's decision to ease sanctions against Nicolás Maduro and his evil thugs is UNCONSCIONABLE."

[bolding added] These Republicans are as eager as Debbie to fuck the United States consumer public, over their precious seats, and their unique voter base.

As with Debbie, these selfish pigs have an overbearing focus upon keeping their seats, prestige, and paychecks secure. Screw everything and everybody else.

Other Republicans? Readers should research that. However, the GOP benefits in November if they can make Biden appear responsible for the trickle down inflation arising from kited energy prices, which Biden is not at all responsible for, and in fact is moving to ease. 

Republican and DWS selfishness is hurting YOU. YOU should be pissed. 

Really, really pissed. As in voting against the SOBs in November. Not only because of the Alito crew's killing Roe v. Wade, but because the SOBs don't give a fuck how much you suffer in their hope they can sell you the idea that Biden is responsible for the suffering. Oil price gouging is the cause. Not Joe. Not the Dems. 

And take DWS out too, as part of putting out the garbage.

 

 __________UPDATE_________

Saudi oil. Russian oil. Venezuelan oil.  --  No free unfettered market? You pay.  -- Oil is oil, price is price, demand is demand. Manipulation is manipulation.

Threads come together, when oil is the game. Trump's little son-in-law, and MBS have gotten really cozy. After Trump has left office - Money in billions flowing Jarad's way, while we must remember the Venezulan oil embargo helps - who?

Damn right. The Russians. That is the story, above.  Also - It helps MBS as to his personal wealth and his tight dictatorial grip on the Saudi nation. And if there is a quid, there is a pro quo. 

Websearch, yielding hits:

NY Times - Before Giving Billions to Jared Kushner, Saudi Investment Fund Had Big Doubts -- Before committing $2 billion to Mr. Kushner’s fledgling firm, officials at a fund led by the Saudi crown prince questioned taking such a big risk.

Yahoo - Jared Kushner's firm got $2 billion from Saudi wealth fund run by crown prince, despite board's objections

Bloomberg - How Did Jared Kushner Get $2 Billion From the Saudis? -- Hint: It’s not because of his track record as an investor.

BusinessInsider - Jared Kushner's PE firm secured $2 billion from Saudi Arabia despite objections he was too inexperienced to manage the money, report says

RawStory - Saudi Arabia gave Jared Kushner $2 billion — but MBS discussed giving him $10 billion: report

Vanity Fair - Report: Saudi Arabia Concluded Jared Kushner’s Investment Firm Was a Joke, Gave Him $2 Billion Anyway

even, with a backhand spin 

Republican tainted NY Post sees outrage - Jared Kushner gets $2B Saudi investment, drawing Hunter Biden comparisons

So, the party of Trump, the son-in-law of Trump, Trump gleefully controls? Both so controlled, as money flows, Saudi to son-in-law. And then what?

You vote Republican, then that means you vote for Trump, and Saudi money to his kin.

You vote Republican, than that means you vote for Trump, and that means you don't have any cause to piss and moan over pump price shock. Nor over all prices inflating because basic energy costs are being artificially inflated. Inflated - While an oil plenitude exists, this hemisphere, sanctioned away, by Trump.

You vote Republican, then your support pump price shock being done to you, so please, quietly suffer the consequences. Consequences Of Trump. Of resultant inflation across the board arising from artificially escalated energy pricing that a free market would not entail! 

You caused it all. You voted dumb.

Live with it or vote Dem as soon as you can.

_________FURTHER UPDATE_______

Reuters, March 9

Check it out. Learn more. Know more.

 ________FURTHER UPDATE_______

What the hell. Two more Greg Palast posts, here and here.

Check it out. Learn more. Know more. End with an image -

Let's put it this way, Kim Crockett , she's not from Norway.

 

SOROS - troubling my mind

  

Not only not from Norway. Not Somali either. (If Somali, wouldn't it be visible?)

- photo credit: https://www.kimsos.com/ [text altered from original] -

 

UPDATE: Troubling Steve's mind.

 

FURTHER UPDATE: For this I could link to either Minnesota Reformer or Bluestem Prairie. You could read either. 

Sorensen gets credit for my discovering the item on her site, per her republishing the original in her post, so my link is there. "Kim Crockett Must Be Shunned."

The Archbishop of San Fancisco sent Nancy Pelosi a letter.

 Seattle Times:

“I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically [sic] repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance,” [Archbishop] Cordileone’s letter said.

Nancy should write back:

Give up celibacy. Fuck yourself.

__________UPDATE__________

Actually, Pelosi should turn that letter over to the IRS. If the Catholic church wants to get into the secular politics of abortion rights, it should pay taxes. That Archbishop is pushing the tax-exemption into question, by being a cosmic asshole. He should stop.

Sorensen posts at Bluestem Prairie about Kim Crockett using the George Soros meme against Steve Simon.

 Sorensen's title

GOP SOS candidate we scolded for racism, incompetence gets antisemitism added

Early excerpt:

On May 18, J. Patrick Coolican reported for the Minnesota Reformer in Minnesota GOP secretary of state candidate Kim Crockett is getting famous — in Israel:

Kim Crockett, who won her party’s endorsement Friday to become the Republican nominee for secretary of state, is being condemned for campaign imagery she used at the state GOP convention showing George Soros as a puppet master, an old antisemitic theme.

The headline in the Jerusalem Post reads “GOP-backed Minnesota politician: Jewish incumbent is controlled by Soros.”

Jacob Millner, Upper Midwest regional director for the American Jewish Committee, issued a statement:

“Criticizing George Soros and his politics is one matter. But portraying him in a video as a puppet master controlling elections is a vicious antisemitic trope … It’s made worse by the fact that the puppet strings appear connected to Steve Simon and Mark Elias, both of whom are Jewish. Kim Crockett must immediately apologize and repudiate this bigotry.”

Crockett did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This isn’t the first time Crockett has been called out on allegations of bigotry. She previously apologized for comments she made to a New York Times reporter about East African immigrants coming to Minnesota.

“These aren’t people coming from Norway, let’s put it that way. These people are very visible,” she said in 2019, in an article that led her to leaving her post at the local conservative outfit Center of the American Experiment.

However, in a recent video posted by former GOP operative Michael Brodkorb, Crockett disavowed earlier apologies. “I would say everything today that I said in 2019,” she said. Her comments were merely taken out of context, she said.

The Soros meme fits the Charlottsville tiki torchers, where Trump saw good people on both sides. Those torch carrying people aren't people coming from Norway either. The GOP has its desire for all the votes it can get, and some in the GOP will openly show it. 

What I am waiting to see is the first GOP clown who asserts Ellison is Haim Saban's puppet because of all the love Saban shed on Ellison when Ellison was seeking the DNC chair against Tom Perez, Buttigieg, and others. It may take some time but in my heart I know at some point it will be said. It is doubtful that either of the 2022 GOP primary candidates for AG would go there, but somewhere, some time, somehow, it will happen.

Some Republicans such as Crockett just speak their minds.

Minnesota Republican AG wannabes. What to make of their going into a primary? One the devil we know, the other, "Who 'dat?"

 There can be such a thing as a fencing match where each contestant looks amateur.

That said - Recently endorsed GOP candidate for the AG office, Jim Schultz, whoever he is besides a newcomer, hits the ground sniping. 

 https://jimformnag.com/  - this:

 

click the image to enlarge to read

  Trashing Doug Wardlow, first thing after a feeble predictable issues banner. 

Then - https://www.facebook.com/JimForMN/  - 

 

 Same trash talk.

Wardlow has the right to run in the GOP primary as a GOP candidate, past and present. He currently says he will -

Political newcomer Jim Schultz on Friday, May 13, won the Minnesota GOP endorsement at the party's state convention in Rochester. Typically, Minnesota Republican candidates honor their party’s endorsement and do not run in the August primary election.

Wardlow, who is general counsel for Mike Lindell’s MyPillow company, had pledged to step aside if he did not get the endorsement, but in his statement claimed he had been denied the nomination by political insiders and “Republicans in name only.”

“When I got into this race 15 months ago I knew we would face opposition from the swamp within our own party,” Wardlow said in the video. “Unfortunately at our Republican state convention on Friday the RINO swamp got its way and the people lost out.”

 Schultz was able to gain an edge over Wardlow after receiving the support of Tad Jude, who dropped out of the race after failing to gain a commanding number of delegates in early voting at the convention. Wardlow in his video characterized this as unfair as he had gained a lead in the initial rounds of voting.

Schultz shot back at Wardlow’s “swamp” comments in a Tuesday statement.

"Through a hard-fought campaign, I always stated that I respect Doug Wardlow. With his announcement, Doug has lost my respect and that of the hundreds of thousands of Republican Party faithful who took him at his word,” Schultz said. "There is nothing more representative of the establishment swamp than a career politician who fails to honor his promises.”

[italics added] Schultz well knows there were no "hundreds of thousands" at the inner party shindig. You need to get into voter sentiment to reach such a number. Which Wardlow is doing.

(Which one gets choice of weapons?) One has to speculate whether Schultz knew Wardlow intended a run, but posted a consistent snotty web put-down anyway. (That's the guess here, consistent with the final above quoted paragraph.) 

Wardlow, as quoted, has some fight in him, hence, it will be interesting to see each doing product differentiation. 

Republican voters, not party insiders, will be able to see vigorous campaigning to judge which of the two they like best. It is why a primary exists.

Party insiders ganged up against Wardlow because he failed to beat Ellison even with all the mud-slinging Wardlow/Parker did last cycle. That was their decision, go with the untested man. Voters are a different audience and may react differently

Whichever advances via the primary will have to face Ellison. Ellison is an appealing candidate with a decades-long history of local city service, multi-term Congressional service, progressive appeal, rooted neighborhood pupularity and activism, and successful time as AG since he took office.

..............................

In fairness to the new candidate, Crabgrass opinion of Wardlow is dismissive, but that is not from somebody in Wardlow's party slinging early, snotty mud. It is an opinion from the progressive side of the regular DFL moderates, a long-standing and consistent opinion. 

Hopefully once the two are engaged in the primary both will take the high road so that each can hone in on where they depart on issues. But each also needs to show some fire in the belly, looking passionate about issue stands, and not merely calculating to score debating points or a name-calling advantage.

Whether Wardlow and Parker again join forces, in the primary where the old Karen Monahan pile of crap will be entirely irrelevant, is another wait-and-see dimension.

BOTTOM LINE: it will be informative to see how Schultz distinguishes himself as different from Wardlow. Schultz clearly looks to be the brighter of the two. How that plays with Republican voters will be interesting to see.

 ____________UPDATE__________

Wardlow had Bob Kroll in his pocket last time, or vice versa.

It looks as if the newbie went to smoothly undercut that. 

Bio stuff here:

Schultz, who grew up in the small town of South Haven, Minnesota, practices law with a Minnesota company, specializing in business, regulatory, and compliance law. He previously worked at Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Minneapolis. He currently serves on the board of The Front Line Foundation, a nonprofit supporting police and other first responders. This is his first run for elected office.

Schultz announced his campaign in a video emphasizing his focus on public safety, saying Minnesotans deserve communities where our kids can grow up safe, where the rule of law is respected, and an Attorney General who puts victims first and criminals in jail.

“For 50 years, Democrats have owned the Minnesota Attorney General’s office, and what’s it got us?” Schultz asks in the video. “I’m Jim Schultz and as a fifth-generation Minnesotan, I’m taking a stand. I’m not a politician, I’ve never run for office. I’m a father, a husband, and a conservative who, like you, is fed up.”

So, a good connivance.  You are a corporate practices lawyer, no criminal prosecution or defense work to tout; so suck up to a cop organization and cut Wardlow off at the knees. And run bellowing outsider for law and order.

Ignore that Ellison requested the legislature to allocate the money for him to put a bigger footprint into criminal AG assistance to small county attorneys with complex litigation or deep pocket criminals involved - and it was the Republicans who cut Ellison off at the knees on the effort to precisely expand AG criminal law work.

Simply put: Ellison asked for the budget to be "an Attorney General who puts victims first and criminals in jail" and, whatever the politics, Ellison got a silent unhelpful stonewall from the GOP legislative players. Needing funds - a pay to play situation - Ellison got an unexplained shunning by Republicans holding the purse.

They don't want you to hear that part of truth. That they fucked Ellison over to be able to go into November keening over law and order necessities. And saying Ellison has no such priorities; that being a total lie. Truth will out.

Back to Wardlow/Schultz -

Wardlow is an insider Republcan, rejected. The politics of that might come to the surface in the primary, some cause or conspiracy; or the insiders simply on Friday the 13th, full moon, whatever, decided Wardlow is a loser, so try a new flavor. 

That is also possible.

A neat dividing line - Schultz is Catholic, Tad Jude too, both U. St. Thomas alums, birds of a feather hanging together with Jude throwing his weight to Schultz after balloting showed Jude had no chance; Wardlow ending up undercut, whining.

Wardlow has a rabid evangelical stripe to his history, while seeing two Catholics seemingly conniving, so is a wedge being driven between two Roe v. Wade hater camps? [update - this might be wrong - Wardlow went to Georgetown, undergrad and law school, grad. cum laude - so he might be catholic and while extreme in views, no dummy]

At a guess they have their primary, then join hands boosting the winner while calling Ellison evil incarnate, singing Kumbaya, with each carrying a sign, "I never met an embryo I didn't like."

____________FURTHER UPDATE__________

It is hard to find voluntary statements online about how many trials Schultz has done as lead attorney, ditto for Wardlow. Experience matters! Size of the nut of money at risk in such trials matters too. There's little stuff. There's the Epstein's of the world getting off with a wrist slap, first time, by Acosta as U.S. Attorney who made it to the Trump Cabinet. There is much in the experience arena where a laser sharp focus might be helpful to Republican voter decision making.

Hopefully each will confront the other during the primary to expose either's lack of actual, meaningful litigation and/or administrative experience. Full inquiry into a spectrum of work and issues. 

Pop the popcorn.

___________FURTHER UPDATE___________

Linkedin info for Schultz -

Experience

• 
  

  Candidate for Minnesota Attorney General

  Jim Schultz for Minnesota Attorney General

  Dec 2021 - Present6 months

  Minnesota

• Counsel

  Värde Partners

  2017 - Dec 20214 years

  Greater Minneapolis-St. Paul Area

• Attorney

  Two Harbors Investment Corp.

  2016 - 20171 year

• Attorney

  Dorsey & Whitney LLP

  2013 - 20163 years

• Attorney

  Kirkland & Ellis

  2011 - 20132 years

Education

• Harvard Law School

  Harvard Law School

  J.D.

  2008 - 2011

• University of St. Thomas

  University of St. Thomas

  Bachelor of Arts (B.A.)Philosophy

  2004 - 2008

[Not a Tea Party resume] 

Readers are invited to research the two latest employments. The firms, what they do. Shifting money, not policing the streets nor putting dangerous criminals behind bars. A business lawyer? Not a litigator??

Schultz is not touting any litigation experience, nor administrative work managing a large staff. Nor appellate practice. Smart, but where's the experience one expects of an AG?

Schultz and Wardlow should lock horns in the primary over experience.