Amy Klobuchar legendarily abusive to staff


#41

A quick google search reveals that Klobuchar supported the Libya invasion, and voted to extend FISA spying powers while Trump was already president.

Either of those, much less both, would keep me from supporting someone for any political office. The Dems really need to stop with the warmongers if they want to get any support outside of their party loyalists, but they seem determined not to learn anything from last time.

This stuff is all a lot more important and basic than whether they happen to be a jerk to their staff.


#42

I have no interest in defending Klobuchar. However, this post demonstrates the destructive nature of modern politics. Dozens of Democratic hopefuls are lining up to run against Trump, but each of them will spend all their energy attacking fellow party members. You fools will spend the next year tearing them apart. This is the exact reason Trump was able to beat Hillary, so please continue to do the hard work for the Republican party in the name of progressive politics.


#43

Which is why a fair number potential candidates are holding back announcing their run in the hopes that jumping into the process late will subject them to less attacks and make them appear fresher to the electorate after a fair amount of blood has been spilled. Who knows if it will work but I wouldn’t be surprised if it does.


#44

You seem to be forgetting how the Republican primaries were a headline-grabbing series of inter-Republican vicious attacks, that kept Trump’s name in the news for months.

Ted Cruz attacking Rubio attacking Jeb attacking…

Before that, the Obama vs. Hillary marathon kept everyone invested and interested for much longer than if it had been a tidy coronation. That helped Obama and Democrats in general, even if it was irritating to live through.

If all the Democrats did sit on their differences for months, what is more likely to happen is Trump sucking up all the media air-time, pundit-time, attention of voters making up their mind… If the media is temporarily consumed by weighing the merits of different leftish approaches, that’s time not spent on Trump non-issues.

Drama in a democracy is not inherently destructive.

People look to the primaries to see who can weather political attacks and shenanigans, not to find an untested candidate at the last minute.


#46

When you misuse or misplace an Oxford comma then you deserve to be berated at 3 am with expletives, obscenities, and all-caps emails.

(/s for those that cannot recognize I am being snarky about grammar grinching)


#47

#48

I proofread legislation for the Texas House of Representatives a few decades ago. It was a hell of a job. I had pity for the legal reviewers, up the chain, and more.

While I do not know the circumstances that were the source of Senator Klobuchar’s abusive communications with her staffers, I will say this:

a misplaced comma can change the meaning and terms of the legislation, and if the legistlation is ratified, the law.

And of course, contracts and other legal instruments are likewise vulnerable to the issue.

It’s a thing.

https://www.languageconnections.com/blog/legal-grammar-rules-and-translation/

Yes please, thank you.
I am not defending the senator’s behavior. She probably wants perfection from her staff. Humans make mistakes.

I am saying that unless you are acquainted with the kind of meatgrinder that lawmaking truly is, please try to consider the context.

I can’t even imagine what it must be like, being a non-Republican senator in federal government right now. The toxic, cynical, treasonous, corrupt, complicit way the U.S. Senate is run would drive me straight to the insane asylum for relief.


#49

I don’t think they stay for very long. This reminds me of old stories about Martha Stewart. Maybe some of this behavior comes from being sleep-deprived.


#50

I was looking, and I can’t find the part where she fired people on television to humiliate them.


#51

AKA Catch-22 for all the Heller fans out there!


#52

according to someone who saw it happen, though the staffer said the senator did not intend to hit anyone with the binder when she threw it.

Neither does a toddler, but most people grow out of being a toddler sometime before their 50’s. I don’t know if these abusive bosses think they’re being “tough” or they just lack impulse control, but they come off like overgrown spoiled brats throwing temper tantrums. You’re not impressing anyone with your lack of self-control, you’re just throwing away your dignity.

If these allegations are true, she should not be the Democratic nominee. We don’t need another damn overgrown child in the White House.

Ah, yes, that excuse also works when you’re three.


#53

I agree, abusive bosses are soft. A truly tough person doesn’t need to throw temper tantrums in lieu of good leadership.

If these allegations are true - and she absolutely deserves an impartial investigation, but I refuse to simply ignore the staffers making allegations of abuse - she’s unfit for office. Shit-canning Al Franken was the correct move in every way. Double-standards are unethical and perpetuating bully culture is toxic. Everyone who commits abuse needs to be held to account.

Emulating Republicans’ lack of standards of character is not the way forward. Nor is rushing to judgement. If Senator Klobuchar really does abuse her staff, she is the wrong nominee.


#54

#55

I don’t like all of her policies, and people should definitely sleuth out what’s happening there.

But it should also happen for the jerks responsible for here:


#57

(Images From The NY Times) we have a lot of choices. I wouldn’t freak out too much at this point about one of them being kind of a jerk.


#58

It’s totally de rigueur for Democrats in the congress to support any war initiatives of a Democrat in the WH. Klobuchar is no different.

Wake me when we get some Democrats who are interested in taking the war powers back from the Presidency. It’s pretty damn irritating to have to give a half hearted cheer for Rand Paul for occasionally mentioning this.


#59

Adults learn to keep a supply of Snickers Bars handy.


#60

Now step back and ask what possible value is there is following the example set by the recent Republican nomination process? I reject your thesis based on real world results, it has only been shown to be destructive for the Republican party and our government institutions. If this didn’t work for their party, why on Earth should the liberal institutions copy the model? There is absolutely no good reason to continue the norm. We do not need to tear each other down in order to win, this simply gives in to our worst base instincts.

As I stated I have no reason to defend any particular candidate. But if all this site has to add is amplifying negative stories about progressive politicians, then there needs to be serious thought about the common mission. While I understand the need for news sources reporting on candidates suitability, I do not see this media platforms value in simply amplifying negative stories directed towards progressive candidates.

Put simply, if you’re the guy in the scene that has nothing more to add then negative opinions on everyone else, then frankly you aren’t adding anything of value. This wasn’t interested in starting or continuing a discussion, it simply amplified a (clearly) political hit piece. It’s simply destructive by nature, and therefore has limited value to the collective movement. If this is all we have left to add then it’s time for a real conversation about our objectives.


#61

Yep. The senate has effectively given up its veto with the ongoing AUMFs, and The house gave up its veto a lot longer ago. Up until WW2, the US maintained a peacetime standing army of 3-5% the manpower it would use in a war. This core would train a new army when a war was started, but the President had to get funding from the house before he could put the army on a wartime footing. We’ve been on a constant wartime footing since then, so the House gave up its veto to the eternal war party.


#62

No one has to do anything special to follow their example. The process is already set up to be horse-racey. If Democratic candidates don’t show any public fight, then groups of voters won’t see them as good proxies in the fights they want them to have.

Evangelicals backed godless Trump, because they knew he was a good attack dog who could bloody the noses of the people they don’t like.

Progressive voters will ultimately show up for anyone who looks like they can get a good thing done, and that will be someone who has gotten in the news enough for the voters to recognize them passing challenges. People didn’t challenge Lincoln Chafee very much. I don’t think that helped him.

…the common mission…
…the collective movement…
…it’s time for a real conversation about our objectives.

It’s people considering candidates. A policy of “no hard criticism of our candidates” has never been a political winner ultimately. Hagiography and ignoring problems only soothes egos before an election, it’s not a winning habit.

Put simply, if you’re the guy in the scene that has nothing more to add then negative opinions on everyone else, then frankly you aren’t adding anything of value.

Okay, great, don’t be that guy. I have no idea what positive suggestion you are making. Contesting ideas and candidates in a public forum is currently hard-baked into the system.