A-Klo Belches, Calls It “Chanel Number 5”

Senator Klobuchar, fresh off having a third-place finish in a decreasingly important primary hailed like the victory march in Paris by a local who has acted like her personal PR firm ever since they were all getting pass-out drunk with her father, has this to say about gun control:


During the first 2020 Democratic primary debate, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said if there is a mandatory buyback, it would not involve gun confiscation.

“Gun confiscation, right, if the government is buying back, how do you not have that conversation?” moderator Chuck Todd asked.

“Well, that’s not gun confiscation because you give them the offer to buy back their gun,” Klobuchar said

Oh. It’s just a buyback.

OK. Not selling.

Now what?

They never answer this one directly, do they?

I may have to go to one of her “town halls” and ask her directly.

Oh, yeah – she said this:

“I look at these proposals and I say, ‘Does this hurt my uncle Dick and his deer stand?’ coming from a proud hunting and fishing state? These ideas don’t do that,” she added.

If her “Uncle Dick” is stupid enough to believe they won’t be coming for his precious dear rifle when, not if their current round of “gun safety” laws fail to make anyone safer, then Dick might just be a lifelong DFLer anyway.

28 thoughts on “A-Klo Belches, Calls It “Chanel Number 5”

  1. I’ve encountered Democrats like Uncle Dick who are just that stupid.

    PS that link doesn’t go where you think or else UX-UI design is far more political than I knew.

  2. Sanders has at least three negatives—his age, his support for Medicare for All and single payer, and lack of support from other federal and state elected Democrats. Existentially, the Sanders’ candidacy puts the Democratic Majority in the House at risk because suburban voters have existing health insurance plans and will be troubled by upending their circumstances for a pig-in-the-poke called single payer and Medicare for All. A crucial point is that Warren’s candidacy collapsed when she went for Medicare for All. The only Democrats who support this are already for Bernie; it is an utter delusion to believe that other Democrats are going to flock to his banner.

    Buttigieg also has at least three negatives—his youthful age, his lack of top-tier resume, and an out-of-the-mainstream lifestyle and unconventional family circumstances that are unlikely to play well with the middle of a general election electorate — and will be a source of extreme anxiety to party regulars such as super delegates. As the primaries progress, moderate Democrats will make a business decision about electability. For now, Buttigieg is a bridge too far.

    Klobuchar has no appreciable negatives and lots of journeyman political experience as an elected representative from a pretty representative state. She also has a life story that may have some resonance with both African American and Latino voters. For sure she should be a winner in the suburbs upon which the House Democratic majority is completely reliant for its majority.

    The question for a lot of Democratic donors — both small and large—is just what is the alternative to Klobuchar? Who can rally the party behind a solid mainstream Democratic party platform — one that a majority of the country is anxious to accept and support. The majority is out there; the Democratic party just has to show up!

  3. Emery/

    Re: Senator fluff; Despite having been in congress for 14 years and getting there only because of her left wing columnist for the Red Star father, she has no significant achievements and no signature legislation. Well, unless you count her brave stand against power station copper thieves that she sponsored in 2009. During what her party constantly touts as the worst economic mess in the history of the U.S. for which they shared most of the blame, she though that was so important. Funny! That crime has its’ own punishment in that anyone dumb enough to commit that crime, will probably be electrocuted.
    And of course, there’s that little problem of her illicit actions while she was a county attorney.

  4. Remember the three Minneapolis city council members who served time in prison in the mid-2000’s? One of them was Gary Dean Zimmerman, who was the first elected member of the Green Party.

    They were all prosecuted by the Federal Attorney, not the Hennepin County Attorney. Can someone explain why that was?

    Did Amy refuse to prosecute her own?

  5. You’re referring to Dean Zimmerman and possibly others, right, Greg? I would be surprised if Minnesota didn’t have any laws prohibiting bribery, which is what he was convicted of. Gosh, why didn’t Amy prosecute? Hmm…..

  6. Emery on February 13, 2020 at 7:01 am said:

    Sanders has at least three negatives—his age, his support for Medicare for All and single payer, and lack of support from other federal and state elected Democrats.

    There is also Sanders’ consistent support of communist tyrannies around the world, and his desire to impose communist tyranny on the US. Lots of voters have problems with that.

  7. Buttigieg has low levels of support among Blacks, a critical part of the Democrat coalition. This is because he is openly homosexual and because, as mayor of South Bend, he bulldozed Black neighborhoods to build condos for yuppies.

  8. Sen. Vanilla Fluff has no legislative record to speak of, because her career has been managed to keep anything from sticking to her. You can get away with that as a Democrat in MN. It is, however, a political machine better at producing Vice Presidents, rather than Presidents.

    Sen. Granny Pants’ legislative record isn’t any less impressive than Obama’s, though. Few Dem voters will look at the record once the “package” has been tied up with a nomination bow. Whether that will be enough, who knows?. Stranger things have happened.

  9. Sanders is the textbook definition of a populist. A leftwing populist in his case. Calling out the problems as people see them and then pretending to have a magical solution. In essence he’s proposing to build from scratch a welfare state that worked in tiny Denmark of the 1960s but no longer works and has been significantly dismantled in 2020’s Denmark, due to changing demographics. How on earth could it be done in the infinitely more complex 2020’s US? One has to be young and naive to believe in this man.

    George McGovern had an even larger grip on this age group in 1972. That’s why the Democrats adopted the practice of having super delegates after the 1972 debacle — to keep youthful enthusiasm from capsizing the party.

  10. Some time during the next dem debate, I would like to see the candidates asked a simple question: “Are you proud to be an American?”
    They can take as long to answer as they want to. The longer, the better, in fact.

  11. George McGovern had an even larger grip on this age group in 1972. That’s why the Democrats adopted the practice of having super delegates after the 1972 debacle — to keep youthful enthusiasm from capsizing the party.
    Not true — super delegates were created by the Dems after Reagan’s 1980 win.
    After their loss to Nixon in ’68, the Dems decided that they wanted to co-opt the “youth movement,” so they changed their delegate selection rules to get rid of the “smoke-filled room.” Delegates selection by primary voters was emphasized. This resulted in the selection of McGovern (’72) and Carter (’76). Although Carter won in ’76, he lost in ’80, and was never popular with the people who run the Democrat Party.
    “Superdelegates” are not Democratically elected. They are chosen by party insiders. Approximately 20% of Democrat delegates are “superdelegates.”
    There is no equivalent on the GOP side.

  12. One of the ways our media fails us is that they do not tell us much about the delegates themselves. My own investigation shows that GOP delegates tend to be a mix of businessmen and social activists. Many of the social activists have a religious background.
    Democrat delegates, on the other hand, are subject to a variety of quotas based on skin color, sex, and gender identity. Most work in the public sector or in NGOs, and are union members. Public school teachers are over-represented.

  13. It’s interesting see both Klobuchar and Buttigieg’s campaigns having garnered so much traction in so short a time. Clearly the greater sentiment is with the centrist candidates, which bodes well but really none of this amounts to mucoh until we see what having Bloomberg on the ballot means in practice.

    Trump regularly won by double digit figures in 2016 with far more competitors than Sanders has, so the relatively narrow victory should make the Sanders camp a little wary.

    This is also coupled with the gap being considerably closer than the NH polls in the lead up, which predicted a comprehensive win for Sanders. Not to mention the battle for the moderate ‘standard bearer’ becoming increasingly important with the demise of Biden and rise of Buttigieg and now Klobuchar.

  14. I like Emery’s notion that Klobuchar has no appreciable negatives. Well, aside from no real record except possibly hounding an innocent man into jail while ignoring real criminals of her own party, standing for abortion on demand, standing for gun confiscation, and having no discernible positions other than what the Democratic Party left wing feeds to her, I guess.

    Memo; Emery, that’s enough for most of us to vote “no” on her.

  15. Anyone who believes that women sometimes have a penis and that they can impregnate men is not a moderate.
    Progressives fear and hate the truth like a vampire fears and hates the light of dawn.

  16. I am more concerned that Bloomberg is a faux moderate.He has disavowed the pro law enforcement, social-liberal, fiscal conservative policies he championed as NYC mayor. His new persona, as shown on his Bloomberg for prez web page, is woker-than-woke.

  17. I wonder which of Bernie’s policies the more “moderate” Dem candidates disagree with? Someone should ask them.

  18. Buttigieg a centrist? Emery, the guy couldn’t even come out against infanticide! Honestly….

    Or really, what MP says. Let’s see which of Bernie’s policies the others won’t endorse. I’m not guessing it’ll be a very long list, to put it mildly.

  19. Bloomberg has been pretty smart to not attend the debates. No one really knows what he’s about, and there’s nothing to pin him to. If he somehow gets the nomination, he can do pretty much whatever he wants in a presidential campaign, he can go wherever there are votes, he has no tribal following that’s going to be disappointed. And Bloomberg might just be able to dent the reality distortion field around Trump, if he can really hone the competence/liar message.

  20. Over the past two weeks, Bloomberg spent an average of more than $1 million per day on Facebook.

    That’s five times what Trump spent in the same period, and three times what Trump spent per day during his fall 2016 campaign.~ Axios

    For the 2020 election, it’s pretty sensible to regard the online campaigns as the place where the real swing-voter battles will be. The Trump digital campaign run by Brad Parscale is a mammoth enterprise, and any putative Bloomberg digital campaign will need to be too.

    Despite the rise of ‘data journalism’ it is shocking how little empirical analysis goes into how Bloomberg (and maybe others, but definitely Bloomberg) are spending their money. The data is out there; there is a real story buried somewhere about how he will surgically use data driven targeting to win hearts and change minds in key districts where African Americans, centrists and other key constituents live. That’s the secret to his silent confidence.

    This race will be won by the candidate that can apply lessons from Cambridge Analytica in the most legal way possible.

  21. Emery, you’re not getting it. Trump won despite spending far less than Hilliary, and the key issues are precisely those that Bloomberg gets wrong; guns and abortion. Those dynamics don’t change with Bloomberg’s money.

  22. Now change the question to “do you think that your government ought to be able to prevent you from owning or carrying a gun at all, as has been done for decades in New York City?” What do you think the poll will say?

    Besides, gun owners, unlike low information voters, show up on Election Day. 30% of voters have won every election since I was born, Emery.

  23. “A majority of Americans say gun laws should be stricter.”
    This may be true on some poll, but it is not a good poll question. It is downright dishonest, because it is intended to produce a certain result (a plurality in agreement).
    Most people could not tell you what current “gun laws” are in their jurisdiction. There are educated people, some who are elected politicians who believe that any person can go into any gun store and walk out with any kind and number of guns that they want.
    This is why you have pluralities that answer “yes” to these kind of questions, but the actual “stricter gun laws” proposed do not pass or are found to be unconstitutional.
    “Universal background checks”? You gonna put someone in jail because grandpa started getting forgetful so his kids (all unpermitted) took his guns & locked them up? You gonna jail someone for letting his buddy (a permitted firearm instructor) take his gun to a range & site it in for him? Or jail someone for letting a permit-holding friend borrow his 12 gauge for duck hunting?
    Because universal background checks would make all of these things illegal.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.