Skip to main content

Livin' on Tulsi time

By



I didn't pay much attention to Tulsi Gabbard until after the second Democratic debate.  She has  since become the darling of the conservative media, having won over Tucker Carlson, Meghan McCain and many others for openly clashing with her Democratic rivals and claiming she has been frozen out of the third debate.  Gabbard hasn't fared so well among liberal political pundits and comedians.

The Hawaiian US representative has taken some odd positions, notably her support of Assad in Syria, which has led many to wonder who she represents exactly?  This is the same guy Putin has been propping up ever since Obama drew his infamous red line in the sand.  Assad continues to use chemical weapons to this day.

Gabbard has drawn the most attention from conservatives.  She has done very poorly in generating support among the Democratic base, and failed to qualify for the September debate.  She's not alone.  Marianne Williamson also failed to reach the prescribed benchmark for participation and will have to sit this one out as well.  Their campaigns are all but dead because they simply don't appeal to Democratic voters.

This leads to an interesting quandary for Gabbard, should I stay or should I go?  She was a longshot candidate to begin with and now that we have learned more about her Libertarian views, she doesn't seem to fit the party at all.  The Libertarians are hoping to make inroads into the Democratic Party.  They had a lot of success with Ron Paul in the Republican Party a few years back, who left his son Rand to keep sowing discord.  These guys basically want to take down government as we know it.

The Libertarians have long served as "useful idiots" for Putin, especially in regard to their rejection of US foreign policy in Central Asia and the Middle East.  Gabbard believes her one-year stint in Iraq makes her an expert on the subject.  In her mind, Assad is not an enemy of the American people so we should leave him alone.  It's the kind of dangerous simplistic thinking that abounds in the Libertarian mind, and which Putin readily exploits.

One can argue, as Noam Chomsky has done, that our foreign policy has failed, but even he feels the US should stay in Syria if for no other reason than to protect the Kurds.  Unlike Tulsi, he sees all the forces at work in the region, not just the US and Russia.  He is equally appalled by the way Turkey has historically treated the Kurds, and without a counter balance the Turks may very well carry out another genocide on the Kurds.  He also has no sympathy for the Assad regime, whose authoritarian rule has dated back two generations.

Tulsi appears to be in the race for no other reason than to break someone's leg.  She successfully did this to Kamala Harris in the second debate.  I suppose turn about is fair play after Kamala blindsided Joe Biden in the first debate on busing, but Tulsi made it look purely like an act of retaliation as if she was angling for the number two spot on Joe Biden's ticket.  In that sense, it was a lot like what Chris Christie did to Marco Rubio in the lead up the New Hampshire primary in 2016, apparently for no other reason than to endear himself to Trump, as Christie dropped out soon thereafter.  Kamala Harris is still hobbled, but unlike Tulsi has qualified for the third debate, sitting a distant fourth in the polls.

Endearing herself to no one in the liberal media, Tulsi now turns to the conservative media to air her grievances.  She seems more comfortable on the Tucker Carlson show than on a Democratic stage.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see her pitch up at the Republican National Convention next summer, endorsing Trump, especially if Kamala bounces back to take the Democratic nomination.  No love lost between these two.  Of course, Tulsi would put her own House seat in jeopardy, but then she can earn a place at the White House table, should god forbid Trump be re-elected.  If not, she can always go on Fox, where I'm sure she would be warmly welcomed.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

By
  Welcome to this month's reading group selection.  David Von Drehle mentions The Melting Pot , a play by Israel Zangwill, that premiered on Broadway in 1908.  At that time theater was accessible to a broad section of the public, not the exclusive domain it has become over the decades.  Zangwill carried a hopeful message that America was a place where old hatreds and prejudices were pointless, and that in this new country immigrants would find a more open society.  I suppose the reference was more an ironic one for Von Drehle, as he notes the racial and ethnic hatreds were on display everywhere, and at best Zangwill's play helped persons forget for a moment how deep these divides ran.  Nevertheless, "the melting pot" made its way into the American lexicon, even if New York could best be describing as a boiling cauldron in the early twentieth century. Triangle: The Fire That Changed America takes a broad view of events that led up the notorious fire, not...
230 comments
Read more

Team of Rivals Reading Group

By
''Team of Rivals" is also an America ''coming-of-age" saga. Lincoln, Seward, Chase et al. are sketched as being part of a ''restless generation," born when Founding Fathers occupied the White House and the Louisiana Purchase netted nearly 530 million new acres to be explored. The Western Expansion motto of this burgeoning generation, in fact, was cleverly captured in two lines of Stephen Vincent Benet's verse: ''The stream uncrossed, the promise still untried / The metal sleeping in the mountainside." None of the protagonists in ''Team of Rivals" hailed from the Deep South or Great Plains. _______________________________ From a review by Douglas Brinkley, 2005
293 comments
Read more

The Age of Roosevelt: The Crisis of the Old Order

By
A quarter of a century, however, is time enough to dispel some of the myths that have accumulated around the crisis of the early Thirties and the emergence of the New Deal. There is, for example, the myth that world conditions rather than domestic errors and extravagances were entirely responsible for the depression. There is the myth that the depression was already over, as a consequence of the ministrations of the Hoover Administration, and that it was the loss of confidence resulting from the election of Roosevelt that gave it new life. There is the myth that the roots of what was good in the New Deal were in the Hoover Administration - that Hoover had actually inaugurated the era of government responsibility for the health of the economy and the society. There is the contrasting myth (for myths do not require inner consistency) that the New Deal was alien in origins and in philosophy; that - as Mr. Hoover put it - its philosophy was "the same philosophy of government which...
170 comments
Read more