Senator Hawley’s Futile Protest Prompts A Senator And A Corporation To Expose Their Ethics Deficits

Secretary Mnuchin Testifies In Senate Hearing On CARES Act Implementation

Well, that’s something.

GOP Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri announced yesterday that he would object to Congress’s certification of the Electoral College results on January 6 as “an effort to highlight the failure” of states “to follow their own election laws as well as the unprecedented interference of Big Tech monopolies in the election.” “Millions of voters concerned about election integrity deserve to be heard,” he said in a statement. “I will object on Jan. 6 on their behalf.”

In other words, this is symbolic political theater, nothing more, nothing less. The Constitution requires that challenges to the certification process, which are completely legal, be approved by majorities in both the House and Senate. That;s not going to happen, obviously, and Hawley’s statement makes that clear.

And yet here is Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, whose status as a favorite of my Democrats friends among the contenders for the Presidential nomination highlighted just how awful that field was, tweeted this:

“This is how you run for President on the Republican side in 2024. You join a coup attempt. Democracy will prevail. As lead Dem on Rules Committee, I will guarantee it. There’s a bipartisan group of electeds who will put our country first. See you on the 6th!”

That’s pretty shameless coming from a Democrat whose party tried one soft coup attempt after another since 2016, including a contrived impeachment without evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and a relentless investigation designed to undermine trust and support of the President. Then there’s the fact, revealed in the New York Times, that in the last three decades, every time a Republican won the election, Democrats in Congress challenged the certification of that election, and when a Democrat won the Presidency, Congressional Republicans did not challenge the certification. Does Klobuchar believe that her party attempted coups in 2000, 2004 and 2016? She’s deliberately mischaracterizing Hawley’s action, but then that’s Amy.

And there’s this:

Walmart tweet

Walmart took the tweet down, and a spokesperson apologized, saying,

“The tweet was mistakenly posted by a member of our social media team who intended to publish this comment to their personal account.We have removed the post and have no intention of commenting on the subject of certifying the electoral college. We apologize to Senator Hawley for this error and any confusion about our position”

Back in the good old days of The Ethics Scoreboard, EA’s predecessor, I had a regular feature called “The David Manning Liar of the Month.” This was to recognize a particularly annoying species of lie, one that is so obviously a falsehood that it insults the intelligence of everyone who reads or hears it, in addition to being dishonest. Who could possibly believe that the staffer who tweeted to a US Senator from an account that says “Walmart” on it “intended to publish the comment to their personal account”?

I don’t trust companies, politicians or anyone else who casually make ridiculous and inherently unbelievable public excuses like this. It means they will lie even when it’s hopeless to lie, and rely on the proclivity of so many people to literally believe anything. Walmart should have written, “Unfortunately, we hire minimum wage kids withe judgement of puppies to run our social media accounts, and this is the kind of thing that happens as a result. I guess it’s time we actually started paying attention to who we allow to represent the Walmart name on the web.”

Hawley’s grandstanding is a waste of time, but at least he helped us learn more reasons not to trust Amy Klobuchar and Walmart.

13 thoughts on “Senator Hawley’s Futile Protest Prompts A Senator And A Corporation To Expose Their Ethics Deficits

  1. Heh. The WalMart tweet reminds me of something similar that happened to Chrysler eight or ten years ago. They had contracted out their twitter stream to a social media agency. Same thing happened: an employee of the agency meant to tweet to his own stream, and instead sent the following out under the @Chrysler handle:

    I find it ironic that this is the Motor City, and yet nobody here knows how to fucking drive.

    That employee was cashiered out by noon that day. The agency was sacked by Chrysler the following day. Appropriate consequences in both cases. But it still produced one of the all-time funniest tweets ever.

      • Well, that would obviously be a gig requiring no attention to detail, no ability for thoughtful analysis, a capacity for snark and efficient writing. All of which would leave….

        Hey – who knew Brian Stelter used to work for Chrysler’s social media agency?

  2. “Unfortunately, we hire minimum wage kids with the judgement of puppies to run our social media accounts” should probably read, “Unfortunately, we hire recent college graduates to run our social media accounts.” The hilarious but tragic “judgement of puppies” modifier would be implicit.

  3. “Who could possibly believe that the staffer who tweeted to a US Senator from an account that says “Walmart” on it “intended to publish the comment to their personal account”?”

    Me. 100%. o/ o/ o/

    Never underestimate the ability of people to say and do stupid things on the internet. Jeffrey Toobin Toobined.

    Not only did I believe this before it happened to my company in March of 2020, but the situation was almost identical. The one saving grace was that our social media presence is relatively small and it happened at 4AM, so we were able to delete it before it before anyone noticed or cared. We ended up firing the marketing/social media clerk over it.

    • How do you know that’s what really happened in your company? A “professional” social media staffer can’t distinguished between accounts? Nope. I don’t believe it. Whoever it was knew that a tweet from some guy wouldn’t get the Senator’s attention, so he abused the Walmart account. He probably had another job lined up. This is Occam’s Razor all the way.

  4. This ranks right up there with the NTSB allowing a summer intern to give out fake crew names of an Asiana flight that crashed at San Francisco International Airport in 2013 as “Sum Ting Wong,” “Wi Tu Lo,” “Ho Lee Fuk,” and “Bang Ding Ow.” They said “appropriate actions were taken,” but what they really should have said is “we let a college kid with the judgement of a jellyfish and a sense of humor derived from watching reruns of Beavis and Butt-head have access to our communications with the news media.”

    • Ah, yes… I remember that. Hilarious, and another fabulous example of “we don’t understand how this whole social media thing works, but our kids do, so we’ll give the job to someone the same age as our kids.”

  5. Several days ago I posted this comment but I think this is more relevant here. Ordinarily, I would agree that futile grandstanding is a waste of time and should not be undertaken. However, in the era of historical cleansing of information that may make some uncomfortable a debate on the House floor cannot be erased by the Tech media giants may not be unethical, foolish or a waste of time when it forces the American people to hear the allegations and defenses without the media spin from our elected officials in real time.

    Without a legitimate forum that provides both sides to present their arguments we are left with no opportunity to have either side prove their case with evidence; leaving the American Jury hopelessly deadlocked along partisan lines.

    DECEMBER 29, 2020 AT 4:40 PM

    It dawned on me today that in keeping with my premise that winning can be defined by exposing the irregularities and manner by the 2020 election which was “stolen” it would be necessary to have the public be given the opportunity to judge the validity of such claims by Trump and his legal teams.

    If the courts are unwilling to permit such a hearing of the evidence as they have demonstrated by finding a variety of procedural reasons for dismissing all complaints then it would be necessary to publish the evidence in form that cannot be censored by private interests. The only legitimate forum to disseminate information, which is also outside the abilities of Google, WAPO, NYT, YouTube, and others to quash such information is the National Archives which maintains a verbatim account of all debate in the House and Senate.

    This brings me to the issue of why Trump’s unwillingness to concede may have ethical grounds. Given that the founders established a method of challenging the electors who were sent by their states to cast their votes for President, they must have foreseen the need to be able to challenge such electors. This makes Trump’s use of the Constitutional measure both legal and ethical. If such a challenge does occur, debate will ensue on the floor of the House and Senate which will be recorded for posterity. Had Trump conceded when it became obvious that his ability to win based on the certifications by the states was virtually nil the evidence that has yet to be vetted by the electorate could be erased by the private keepers of the preferred history of the U.S.

  6. Apparently 140 GOP legislators are joining in on the objections.
    That’s not just a lone grandstander.

    I don’t think they’ve read the 12th amendment. While a majority of house state delegations can select a President in case there’s no majority, it requires a 2/3 quorum.

    Lacking that, they just install President Pelosi.

    Incidentally, the Republic falls.

      • So..how’s the Putsch going?

        Remarkably nonviolent, I thought. Even the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 had far more deaths, though this one did manage to derail the Democratic process of peaceful transfer of power.

        Lee never managed to have the Confederate Battle Flag fly in the Capitol. Trump’s followers have.

        If a President says repeatedly that he won every single state in the election, without exception, in a complete landslide, enough idiots, including dangerous idiots, will believe him, regardless of the impossibility.

        “We will never take back our country with weakness!”

        So as PATRIOTS!!! they will match words with actions, no matter how utterly insane.

        • So..how’s the Putsch going?

          False characterizations to facilitate advocacy is an argument fallacy.

          Remarkably nonviolent, I thought. Even the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 had far more deaths, though this one did manage to derail the Democratic process of peaceful transfer of power.

          Didn’t derail anything, which made it even more stupid. The formal vote is a just that, a formality. It was a pointless protest that derailed a pointless protest.

          Lee never managed to have the Confederate Battle Flag fly in the Capitol. Trump’s followers have.

          If you want Civil War analogies, that would be like Gen. Armistead reaching the Union line at Gettysburg after Picket’s Charge.

          If a President says repeatedly that he won every single state in the election, without exception, in a complete landslide, enough idiots, including dangerous idiots, will believe him, regardless of the impossibility.

          He never said that. He may be right that the election was stolen, but if you can’t prove it, eventually you should just shut up.

          “We will never take back our country with weakness!”

          Nothing wrong with that sentiment.

Leave a Reply to Chris Marschner Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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