I'm reading The Daily Beast's report on Gabbard's conspicuous abstention. The reporter (Scott Bixby) characterizes the nonvote as an expression of the belief that the question of whether Trump should be impeached was "not worth answering." But Gabbard had something to say:
In a statement released after she voted “present” on both articles, Gabbard said that because she “could not in good conscience vote either yes or no... I am standing in the center and have decided to vote ‘Present.’”That strikes me as perfectly articulate and fully engaged. It's not that Trump didn't abuse his power but that the House Democrats have abused their power. That's her answer. She stands apart from all of them. She's better than everybody else. "Present" may sound lame, but to say both sides are wrong has meaning. Everything is so wrong that the woman of conscience abstains. That's the expression.
Gabbard blamed both sides of the House for turning the impeachment inquiry into a “partisan endeavor,” blasting Trump’s defenders as having “abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight,” and the president’s critics of using “extreme rhetoric.”
“My vote today is a vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country,” Gabbard concluded.
I'm not saying I accept all that and believe that she's not political. She's running for President and not doing too well. What is there for her to do but take some risk? She grabbed attention for herself when the attention was on the Democratic Party moving as a single, self-important, hulking entity. She made a big move, and now we're talking about her. You know, there's a candidates' debate tonight, and she's not in it. But we're talking about her today.
It's possible that some who are anti-Trump will feel so bad about the impeachment that they'll see Gabbard for President as the solution. Will any of the Democrats at the debate say anything other than that they, like all the House Democrats except Gabbard, would have voted for the impeachment? I presume they will be asked, and maybe the question will cite Gabbard's independence. Hey, moderators: Ask the candidates if they condemn Gabbard's "present" vote. Quote what she said about partisanship, the abdication of legitimate oversight, and "extreme rhetoric," and ask if they agree.
If that happens, Gabbard will be present at the debate.
I see that on Twitter the trending hashtag is #TulsiCoward. Some examples of what's there:
The center of what? Red Square? #TulsiCoward https://t.co/n4zAR7a53N— Matthew Chapman (@fawfulfan) December 19, 2019
#TulsiCoward I’m sure she’s going to change her political affiliation too just wait for it ! It will happen after she cancels her ridiculous idea of running for President. #TulsiGabbard pic.twitter.com/bOOsoE5HzK— Debbie 🐝Ahern 🇺🇸 💙🌊✨✌🏽✌🏻 (@savetheturtles2) December 19, 2019
#TulsiCoward Voting "Present" is considered by some as a soft No. Why not just vote No Tulsi? Is this the leadership you would bring to the WH if elected? I think your 15 minutes are up.— KGinKS (@KGinKS1) December 19, 2019
#TulsiCoward = Trump puppet. Just as Trump = Putin puppet. pic.twitter.com/oYpdFv4Q75— Andy Bush (@AndyBush1980) December 19, 2019
ADDED: Tulsi tweets:
A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are ripping our country apart. Today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people. #StandWithTulsi pic.twitter.com/wAvu8PXNoB
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) December 19, 2019
Posts
129 comments:
She is going for the Barack "I vote present" Obama voters.
If the Republicans just went along with what the fucking Democrats wanted, it would have all been bipartisan. D'uh.
Ann, point on........
And she is not interested in those Dalmatian puppies.
Tulsi has just become the only acceptable Democratic candidate AFAIAC. I will vote for her in the MA primary.
It's tough to get ahead these days.
When you see any identified Democrat coming, it's tantrum time. That is tedious in a child you love; it is noxious in a political party. I would think their own adherents would be sick of these toddlers.
Tulsi just went on a sit-down strike, a tactic used by older children and Gandhi--passive resistance baby. But whose conscience is she pricking? Not Adam Schiff's. Not Mitch McConnell's. Not yours. Not mine.
She certainly wants attention. She is getting it a tiny bit from The Daily Beast--and Althouse. Is she a rebel without a clue?
Trump is Putin's puppet? I can't believe that's a real person. In fact, I'm starting to believe most of the accounts on Twitter are just corporate puppet accounts.
If she thinks both sides are wrong, then the only responsible vote is no--Trump should not be impeached.
"Present" is a cop out no matter how she dresses it up.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
In the land of the politically stupid, the half-witted Hawaiian gal is Queen.
There is no putting this country back together again.
It is being reformed, in either liberty or socialism.
Any serious Presidential contender would know that.
The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.
Trumps puppet AND save the turtles.
That about sums up the seriousness of the moment.
She's positioning herself for after the Dems get raw dogged in 2020. If they take a beating similar to what labor just experienced, she's hoping to be there as the "moderate" savior of the party.
The majority Speaker has decided to quash the impeachment. It is defective and will not be forwarded to the senate.
Defective: contains no crimes.
Gabbard did the right thing. She was thinking of Jesus and Christmas, while the rest of her party wanted a Crucifixion.
Tulsi...
You are a fox but I'm so bummed. Wtf!?!?
It's called 'nay'.
That's it. No more throuple offer for you. My fiancee and I can't get on board with someone who can't go 'all the way'.
Nay Tulsi. Nay.
"Nay Tulsi. Nay."
So she is no longer invited to sleep on your big brass bed??
I am Laslo.
But how can this Agent of Putin's Russia be allowed to remain in the Dem Party after Hillary outed her? Won't she have to Register under FARA as a Foreign Agent, leave the Dems, and run as a Hindu Independent. Marianne Williamson at least admits that she has always been a chosen agent for the Kingdom of the Spirits.
Isn’t voting present a way of refusing herself since she is/will potentially be running against Trump? Shouldn’t all the senators running for democratic nomination not vote as well since a vote to convict in the senate would help their cause?
One of the more interesting phenomena of the Trump era is the way that he has managed to turn traditional alignments on their heads. It was just 2012 when the GOP candidate was declaring Russia "our number one geostrategic foe," and the Democrats were lambasting him for such a ridiculous statement. Now, the DNC has spent the last three years engaging in the most laughably absurd Russophobia imaginable. Gore and Obama both ran on skepticism towards "free" trade arrangements like NAFTA, but the Democrats are now telling us how disastrous a trade war is. The Democrats supposedly were against stupid, endless wars, but now they hyperventilate over Trump removing troops from a pointless, illegal deployment to Syria. Bill Maher even devoted a nonsensical New Rules segment to Trump "losing Syria" (whatever the hell that means). Democrats had long voices skepticism towards FBI/CIA/Deep State abuse of powers, while Republicans tended to defend them for "keeping us safe." Now that position is inverted.
Gee...it's almost as if politics has nothing to do with principles. Who could've guessed?
Ann, two of the posts you included were from people with fewer than 200 followers (one has 30). Our cat has more followers and we're going to get you her comment as soon as she's finished washing her paws, which could be awhile.
Whatever this was, it wasn't related to leadership.
Gabbard blamed both sides of the House for turning the impeachment inquiry into a “partisan endeavor,” blasting Trump’s defenders as having “abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight,” and the president’s critics of using “extreme rhetoric.”
What a cop out. Anyone with any objectivity could easily see that it was NOT the case that "both sides of the House for turning the impeachment inquiry into a “partisan endeavor,”". That is the same old crap that schools, etc. pull by blaming both the bully and the victim. The Dems started this, kept at it, kept ratcheting it up. Sorry, "both sides" were not equal in this, not by a LONG shot!
Marianne Williamson voted "Be Here Now".
Good points J Farmer.
I think Tulsi is looking towards 2024/2028. This impeachment is likely going to be much more damaging to the Democrats than the Republicans, and someone is going to "rise from the ashes." She'll be able to say "See, I told you!"
I would imagine she's gambling that there will come a time when Democratic Party voters see the impeachment as a failure. Then she can sell herself as the person who believes in most of what they do and can get some of it done, as contrasted with the true believers who will keep tilting at windmills while the President goes on being President and enacting his agenda.
I suspect the timing won't work. The base will continue to see her as a betrayer right through the early caucuses and primaries and then she's done. And by 2024, this will all have been forgotten.
“Tulsi has just become the only acceptable Democratic candidate AFAIAC. I will vote for her in the MA primary.”
I think that it was the smart move on her part. She votes to acquit, and she never gets the nomination. Probably not re-elected to the House either. And if she votes to impeach, and she never gets elected President. What has to be remembered is that this is an extreme remedy applied simply because they could, and through spite that they lost in 2016. Most everyone knows it.
Let me suggest that the difference with Obama is that he voted present in order to stay invisible. She voted that way because she was already visible. Indeed, she may have had the most visible vote of any last night. And because of it, can probably be spun as a vote of conscience, esp after pushing for a lesser remedy.
Also, imagine voting for a groundless impeachment, through party solidarity, getting elected President, then having that vote used to justify being impeached yourself out of purely partisan pique. That is one of the consequences of last night’s vote - next Dem President facing a Republican House will get impeached, if, for no other reason, than A1S2 impeachment more easily overrides Executive Privilege than does A1S1 Oversight. But mostly as payback. Except maybe for Tulsi. I think her stand last night very well might win her enough Republican votes to avoid being impeached herself, if ever elected President.
Laslo: great song reference. Nay rhymes with lei.
Anyway, Tulsi should have voted "Nay" to be fully intellectually honest. Because "nay" is a neutral vote. You can hate trump or believe he's shady but there's no actual crime cited in the articles so just say nope.
But politically, "present" feels so much better. She's person-whistling to Trump voters, a show on Fox, a cabinet position in the next Trump admin. But saying "nay" would just be overkill and unnecessarily expend political capital.
Worthless cunt award for Tulsi.
Sorry, Tulsi, but you have no back bone.
The bold move would have been to vote “nay” and to explain that when she’s President, if the House is in Republican hands, she doesn’t want a precedent that impeachment for partisan, bullshit, reasons on a straight party line vote is acceptable.
I’m not sure there’s a voting block that looks for you’re not smart enough to figure out what’s going on.
Epic fail.
Feckless, not worthless.
There was that bookworm character from the grade school library- he liked tiny spectacles.
If Tulsi was an unattractive woman she could not get away with the 'present' vote.
Attractive women can get by with just being 'present'; attractive women are allowed to keep options open, to be noncommittal.
Unattractive women have to seize the moment when it is there.
I hope that helps.
I am Laslo.
“I’m special, so special
I got to have your attention, give it to meeeee”
I agree with Todd that this isn't a "both sides did it" matter. If the Republicans didn't defend Trump in this squabble, it would be just another (R) fold up like a cheap suit. Like Mitt Romney did when false statements were made. Especially when almost all of the media are libtard sycophants.
The Obama cop out lives on.
Note: my 7:21 comment is not meant to imply Obama was like an attractive women.
Although - if you view him in that context -- his eight years make more sense.
I am Laslo.
Birches asked, in complete disbelief...
Trump is Putin's puppet?
OBVIOUSLY President Trump is Putin's puppet!
Just look at the facts!
Turned The USA into a petroleum EXPORTER, And Caused the price of Oil to Plummet
ARMED Russia's enemy, the Ukraine; and provided assistance in combating Ukrainian corruption
Humiliated Russian spy assets in this country (the so called "FBI" and "CIA")
Crushed Russian political organizations in this country (the "democrat party" and the "media")
wait a minute.... That doesn't sound like a very GOOD puppet! Maybe he's like Chucky?
Laslo Spatula said...
Note: my 7:21 comment is not meant to imply Obama was like an attractive women.
Although - if you view him in that context -- his eight years make more sense.
BJ Clinton: America's First Black President?
James Buchanan: America's first Gayboy President?
Barry O'Bama: America's first trannie President?
Soon- Hillary Private Server for Clinton Cash - to call Tulsi a Russian Asset.
@Bruce Hayden, I started typing before your comment was posted, and then I had some problems with blogger. I see your point, but I will stand by my comment at 7:12.
Nay Tulsi
Nay
You mayn't lay
Upon my big
Brass bed
You stray Tulsi
Stray
I won't take back
Those 'throuple' things
I said
Yay Tulsi yay
My fiancée and I
will find someone else
to lei
Alright, Democrats, can we just get to the naked walk of shame?
Now that could bring the country together.
Tulsi's Walk of Shame
NSFW
I chuckled out loud when I read that she was ‘present’.
She’s playing a longer game in the hopes that the stars line up and she somehow becomes a presidential nominee. A yes/no vote will come back to haunt her.
It's no longer about competency in the White House - in fact, looking back it never has been since Kennedy. It's about who can ACT most 'Presidential', who can fake sufficient sincerity to get into office - and who hopefully has the SMARTS to get into office and realize that nothing in your life EVER prepared you for the position. It's the world's worst OJT experience, and you're only hoping that you'll leave the country better off at the end of it, unless you're a socialist in which case you WANT it worse off.
The only person with significant executive experience in my lifetime has been Trump. And he's done wonders for this country - naysayers be damned.
I think the reason the Dems are so hot for impeachment is that there's nobody they've got anywhere in their organization that could do as well as Trump, so they HAVE to destroy him. Pulling him down won't make themselves larger - but they'll feel better about being incompetent.
Tusli was willing to remove a sitting President from office for not-crimes and no evidence.
That's all that matters.
Good analysis, Farmer.
And Kevin said...
"There is no putting this country back together again. It is being reformed, in either liberty or socialism."
True, and coming faster than we imagined. There is a great deal of ruin in a country, but once you're on the road to Utopia, there are no speed limits. Every Democrat supports the Green New Deal, and all are celebrating the arrival of a vicious, ignorant self-centered 16 year old like she was a Messiah. No society can survive the mass hysteria of child-worship.
Actually, Gabbard should have recused herself in light of her obvious conflict. In fact, all of the current democratic candidates for the office of president should recuse themselves
The blue button looks great on the nose of the chick with the dinner-plate glasses.
I'm voting present for the 2024 strategy, but can she win the nomination with only a plurality of Dem primary voters? Aren't theirs still proportional and not winner-takes-all?
Meh.
Look at me! I didn't decide!
Except you did.
And you're still a gun grabber that shouldn't be trusted with any real power.
Voting yes on impeachment was an exercise in loyalty and fealty towards Hillary Rodham Clinton and her never-ending tantrum. No wonder Gabbard abstained from staining her own record.
Nope. Gabbard’s vote was too cute by half. She’ll win no love from anyone anywhere, in a tribal war one must fight for the tribe. Period. High mindedness comes after the war is over,
"Gabbard blamed both sides of the House for turning the impeachment inquiry into a “partisan endeavor,”"
WTF? One side peddles BS to get rid of a duly elected president, and the other side vigorously defends that president against the BS. Both are "partisan." Right.
"blasting Trump’s defenders as having “abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight,”"
Huh? What "oversight" have defenders "abdicated"?
"It's not that Trump didn't abuse his power but that the House Democrats have abused their power."
Hey, Tulsi, hey, Althouse, stop playing your nicey-nice games: in what way did Trump abuse his power, and if he did abuse it, is it a high crime?
Voting yes on impeachment was an exercise in loyalty and fealty towards Hillary Rodham Clinton and her never-ending tantrum. No wonder Gabbard abstained from staining her own record.
Worth a nice hearty bold and repeat
J. Farmer said...One of the more interesting phenomena of the Trump era is the way that he has managed to turn traditional alignments on their heads.
Here is something I wrote elsewhere a few years ago before Trump was elected:
Trump is a democrat at heart running as a Republican. What he's pulling off here is the best case of "political umpolung" that we've ever seen as a nation. I don't think anyone here is going to grasp what I mean by "umpolung" let alone "political umpolung." I know I've proposed it before. Sure enough, I googled it and I'm the sole owner of the term.
Shall I go on?
link to original
Now, the next question is if Nancy will sit on the vote and not forward it to the Senate.
She has said it's about Senate rules but I still say this is about RBG and the Supreme Court. She knows it will be dismissed or quickly voted down in the Senate. She may hope that, by refusing to forward the articles to the Senate, they can use this to oppose the next nomination. There is nothing in the Constitution about this but the Democrats have left the Constitution far behind by now.
While Gabbard is somewhat better than her Dem rivals, this was an attention-getting device, not a matter of principle.
"Gabbard said that because she 'could not in good conscience vote either yes or no,'" explaining that as a Democrat she had no conscience, neither a good one nor a bad one, further criticizing all the other Democrats for pretending that they had one too.
"Umpolung" means "pole-inversion" in German. It's chemistry term of art. Trump hasn't lessened polarization in politics; he's gotten the poles to invert or switch sides on several issues..
Not a bad idea but mostly a hail Mary by Gabbard. She's thinking her party isn't completely controlled by lunatics. I'm guessing she's wrong.
Democrats have decided they will no longer accept election outcomes they don't like. This new way of thinking doesn't bode will for Gabbard or our Republic.
Trump is a democrat at heart running as a Republican.
Why is that? Because Trump realized that the DNC is rotten and corrupt to its core. We''ve all seen that for years now. Trump also managed to expose the the hypocrisy of the GOPe. That's why we like him.
Some context:
Tulsi withdrew from the Congressional race in late October and is not seeking re-election to Congress. This happened shortly after she criticized Hillary for losing the 2016 election. The Dem Party already shunned her.
“Nope. Gabbard’s vote was too cute by half. She’ll win no love from anyone anywhere, in a tribal war one must fight for the tribe. Period. High mindedness comes after the war is over,”
Maybe no love from either side, but no hate either, and that was why her (non) vote was strategic.
I repeat myself, but she never gets the Dem nomination if she votes Nay, and never gets elected President if she votes Aye. Her Present vote threads the needle. And she foresaw this, as indicated by her saying that she would have voted for censure, just not Impeachment.
“She has said it's about Senate rules but I still say this is about RBG and the Supreme Court. She knows it will be dismissed or quickly voted down in the Senate. She may hope that, by refusing to forward the articles to the Senate, they can use this to oppose the next nomination. There is nothing in the Constitution about this but the Democrats have left the Constitution far behind by now.“
Here is what I said in another thread:
Now comes the fun part. CTH ha pointed out that there are several lawsuits by the House pending right now. They have apparently been asked whether or not the case for access to the Mueller grand jury information is now moot. And the court expects an answer next Monday. The critical thing here is that to keep in mind is that the Mueller investigation had available to it all of the FISA Title I wiretapping, etc, and probably a lot of the 702 results from searching the NSA databases accumulated over the previous four years. A treasure trove of opposition research, illegally obtained through persistent and egregious FISA abuse, and very nicely sorted and collated at taxpayer expense. The juicy parts were then run through grand juries by the hyper partisan prosecutors, presumably at the behest of their close Lawfare friends. All that is needed now is a court case allowing the House access to this grand jury information, and when implemented, all this illegally obtained (at taxpayer expense) opposition research will, almost instantaneously be leaked to the DNC by Schift and his Lawfare people, and squirreled away for later use by the DNC. They found a compliant Obama appointed district court judge. Now all they need is buyoff by appeals courts. And this would possibly explain the Article on Obstruction, because much of the Mueller Report involved equally bogus claims of Obstruction. And with Palsi’s delay sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, they can use that to argue that they need all the Obstruction information in the Mueller grand jury testimony for their impeachment case in the Senate. Etc. Lawfare all the way.
Dems are under tremendous pressure to tow the group-think line.
Schitt and Pelosi are vile corrupt liars.
“That strikes me as perfectly articulate and fully engage”
Dogshit. It’s a weak-ass cop-out that nobody respects. As John McCain could tell her, the only thing she’s positioning herself for is life as an also-ran muppet. There are times when you take a stand and yesterday was one of them. Nobody’s base gives credit for political calculation.
Meanwhile
https://www.theblaze.com/news/pete-buttigieg-communist-slogan
She knows the charges are bogus, but she's still a Dem. She'd vote for impeachment, but the other Dems were mean to her.
Tulsi's vote invites* (does not "beg") the question:
Where do you stand on born-alive infant protection legislation?
*By comparison with Barack Obama's identical vote on the issue.
What BS.
Hell hath no fury...
It was a bold thing to do. I am sure Tulsi knows there is no viable appeal to either the conscience or integrity of today’s Democrats, particularly Twitter Democrats. We ponder the question, “Are there no decent Democrats who will denounce the skullduggery of the likes of Schittstain?” One answer becomes clear, there are only three in Congress.
“Tulsi Coward?” Really? By what definition do these morons find her actions cowardly?
Trump should tweet:
"I want to thank Tulsi Gabbard for her courageous vote. She sees through the Pelosi-Schiff charade! I invite her to the White House to discuss how to end needless wars!"
Then let the Dems devour her.
Gee...it's almost as if politics has nothing to do with principles. Who could've guessed?
With all due respect to our hostess, that is what you get when lawyers have lots of political power.
Scott Adams says she's a brave genius. Persuasion A+. Apparently now in the oath marines take.
Is she going to run as an independent for Senator from Hawaii? I hope so. The problem is the main ethnic groups: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese all vote as blocs.
She has stood out A LOT, given she's just a nobody Congressman with almost no seniority. The problem is the D's HATE Mavericks. So she's picking up R's and Independents, but she's losing D's.
By the way, no matter how big the chasm between right on one side and wrong on the other, there will ALWAYS be some "moderate" who will run to the center - and proclaim BOTH sides are wrong.
Tulsi is going to cash in when her term is up early next year.
She’ll be the Sarah Palin if the ‘20s.
Laslo Spatula: "Note: my 7:21 comment is not meant to imply Obama was like an attractive women.
Although - if you view him in that context -- his eight years make more sense."
It certainly helps us make more sense of LLR-lefty Chuck's round the clock praising of and defending obama on all issues.
That makes alot more sense now....
Tulsi tweet:
"Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain," she tweeted.
"From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation," she added. "We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose."
The Russian Asset hath spoken! All the brain dead ladies on the View and the on-air talent at MSDNC know that Tulsi is a Russian Bot!
Tulsi Gabbard was a coward with this vote.
It is pure bullshit.
So Tulsi split the baby.
Tulsi Gabbard knows a cult when she sees one. Banish her! Unclean! Unclean!
"The problem is the main ethnic groups: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese all vote as blocs.”
This is where identity politics leads and government becomes about log rolling, and soon there is less and less to confiscate and distribute to your “people."
Gabbard can see the writing on the wall, as did two or three other representatives last night.
Gabbard knows she isn't going to be the nominee for either president or VP. This was her preparing for after next November when the chickens come home to roost.
For those who think she should have voted "No":
To do so would have left her no future in the Democratic Party- no leadership positions, no chance at another office or position. She really would have had to become a Republican to continue in politics at all, and her political leanings are not conservative by any definition I can find.
no the huntress, actually denounced the chiefs of the party, even renounced her appointed post,
my two cents,
https://vimeo.com/337952622
Yancey, she already has no future in the Democratic Party.
Yancey Ward said...
For those who think she should have voted "No":
To do so would have left her no future in the Democratic Party- no leadership positions, no chance at another office or position. She really would have had to become a Republican to continue in politics at all, and her political leanings are not conservative by any definition I can find.
So she put her career over doing the right thing.
Priorities.
She is a coward.
Tulsi also bucked the narrative when it was "Trump betrayed our Kurdish allies!" back in mid October.
Her "Present" vote may just be a middle finger to the Dem Party, but doesn't necessarily mean she supports Trump or that she cares whether he is treated fairly.
I'll bet she's had death threats.
Well, the modest boldness of voting present is consistent with her modest boldness of being a moderate to a modestly conservative democrat.
"She is a coward"
She is a politician.
"Yancey, she already has no future in the Democratic Party."
This is only maybe, Mock. If the Democrats get shellacked next November, she will be in the position of looking like the wise Democrat.
Trump can fire anyone from the executive branch. He is the sole power. I won, bitches.
The future of the Dem Party is technocrats like Buttigieg. Tulsi is left enough for the Party, but she's antiwar. So long as the Dem Party maintains any discipline, nobody like that will ever rise to leadership. It's a uniparty, administrative state thing. When funding Syrian "rebels" suddenly became the top priority of progressives during the Obama admin, and it became a moral imperative to do and fascist to oppose it, that was the tell. The reaction to the "Kurdish abandonment" was also a tell.
Buttigieg won't mess with that stuff.
Every one of the current Dem candidates will end up the bitch of the Clinton machine, same as Obama did.
“There’s no shame in being a pariah” - Marge Simpson.
Whatever Tulsi's true reason, I give her some credit for not just toeing the party line. For one thing it puts a kink in the narrative that all right thinking people agree...blah blah blah.
She said her vote was for reconciliation. We've heard that theme from her before when she slapped Hillary by channeling Lincoln saying, she doesn't think of Trump voters as Deplorables, she thinks of them as fellow Americans. Perhaps she's sincere. She may not have much to lose at this point. Dems are vindictive to apostates.
"There is no putting this country back together again. It is being reformed, in either liberty or socialism."
Completely disagree with that dichotomy. We’ve had socialism for over a century already. Identity is going to be the primary fault line, not economics. Trump ran on protecting Social Security and Medicare. How does that represent liberty over socialism?
Tulsi has all the right enemies. She's got that going for her. (Disclaimer: I gave to her campaign a few months ago and will do so again tonight.)
We’ve had socialism for over a century already.
No we haven't.
The means of production, distribution and exchange are not owned by the state in America.
Yesterday I was driving north from Florida and passed through DC on I 395, I think, and passed the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, etc, and what stood out to me was an oily sheen that seems to cover the Capitol Dome. I drive out of my way to see those sites and usually felt a little bit of patriotic pride when seeing them. Now it is disgust. Disgust with the whole bunch of them.
Fuck them all. Let them turn the US into Venezuela. Let them fight over the scraps, let them destroy the economy with their socialism and later, let them deal with whatever fascist strongman arises from the ashes to promise to fix what they have destroyed and bring back the glory which was the United States as we knew it.
The means of production, distribution and exchange are not owned by the state in America.
No, but they're pretty well-regulated by a militia of lawyers.
Do you suppose that Nancy was finally pushed off the fence into supporting impeachment because she was convinced it would trigger a stock market panic sell-off, or at least upset the international markets enough to put our economy into recession?
It didn't, so now there is bag of steamy dog-shit in her lap that she is scarred to throw to the Senate, and that is disgusting to keep holding.
Trump ran on protecting Social Security and Medicare. How does that represent liberty over socialism?
Both began and are understood to be funded by contributions. That may be untrue but the support they have from the people is based on the concept that they are funded by contributions.
Like Obama. Enough said.
It was her only chance and she took it, namely, vote in a way that appeals to the moderate Democrats - if they ever come back. They'll probably go to Trump but she did what she did. Now it's wait and see. She supported Bernie Sanders against the DNC, even resigned. So the Bernie Bros won't hate her. And she has a following. If the Dems don't actually implode (and that's what is likely) she'll be back.
https://twitter.com/ProperOpinion/status/1207551265280086018
LOL
Good for her.
There's a debate tonight. Every Dem Senator should ask why they have felt comfortable stating Trump should be impeached-- especially if his crime is supposedly trying to unfairly smear his political rival for 2020.
Also, every Dem candidate should be asked to pledge that if they win, they will comply with every subpoena and send every witness Congress asks for.
Whatever else it does I puts her outside the Pelosi tent. I bet that in 8 years that looks wise. Right now it means she is done as a Democrat office seeker. Maybe she is after a media gig. There are worse choices. Fox should hire her.
Yancey Ward said...
"She is a coward"
She is a politician.
That is clear now.
She tried to move up to the Trump lane in politics.
She doesn't have it in her.
She is a coward and she wont make it. It is the difference between a member of the house and an executive/leader.
MayBee said...
Every Dem Senator should ask why they have felt comfortable stating Trump should be impeached-- especially if his crime is supposedly trying to unfairly smear his political rival for 2020.
Also, every Dem candidate should be asked to pledge that if they win, they will comply with every subpoena and send every witness Congress asks for.
12/19/19, 1:20 PM
Sorry that that would require an actual honest debate with actual moderators and that is NOT what the Democrats nor their voters signed up for. They will only be getting the theater they have demanded.
She is probably viewing this through a surfing perspective.
She says in the video that she has introduced a censure resolution and that the decision to remove the President should be left up to the voters.
If that is her view then the logical and moral decision would have been to vote no on impeachment.
Gabbard's reasoning makes no sense; she is voting on a specific set of bills, not on a hypothetical. If she doesn't support the specific bills, then her vote must be no. She's spineless.
Re: Bruce Hayden:
Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, they can use that to argue that they need all the Obstruction information in the Mueller grand jury testimony for their impeachment case in the Senate. Etc. Lawfare all the way.
What do the (proposed) Senate rules say about this? Can they stay "discovery" until the motion to dismiss is heard? And if the motion passes, then no discovery?
Balfegor said...
What do the (proposed) Senate rules say about this? Can they stay "discovery" until the motion to dismiss is heard? And if the motion passes, then no discovery?
12/19/19, 2:58 PM
I guess it depends if the Senate is now going by the House "Calvin Ball" rules whereas the rules are now whatever the majority needs them to be and only for as long as they need, after which the rules change to the next needed set.
Two mathematicians (Brams and Fishburn) described a phenomenon called the "No Show Paradox." It is possible that Ms. Gabbard is better off not voting than casting a sincere ballot. But how?
As a candidate for president, Gabbard has a conflict of interest. She was right to recuse herself.
@Bob Boyd:
No we haven't.
The means of production, distribution and exchange are not owned by the state in America.
That is true in a very strict sense, but it was not the meaning Kevin (to whom I was responding) had in mind when he said that the country faced a choice between "liberty" and "socialism." Personally, I think the word socialism should be retired, since it's been so evacuated of meaning as to be useless in describing anything in the real world. Any word that can be applied to the economics of Sweden and North Korea is not a useful word.
My point is that there is no choice between "liberty" and "socialism." The US, like nearly every other country in the world, utilizes a mixed economy. That is, an economy of markets and state intervention, private and public enterprises.
There's the bold, courageous leader the Nation needs!
Damn the torpedoes, full speed to the port side.
"That strikes me as perfectly articulate and fully engaged."
Sure. It's articulate, and engaged.... and wrong. "Reconciliation" is not the goal, and is not achievable, between political opponents.
No matter how interesting and articulate she is, it's in the shadow of her actions. She's trying to spin how we interpret what she did, recast it into some kind of above-the-fray moral high ground.
But no. She was elected to do one thing above all: vote on motions in the house, either "FOR" or "AGAINST" each time. That's literally her job description.
Sure, sometimes it's hard. Sometimes it involves sacrifice, and pissing people off. That's the job. To vote on stuff.
Post a Comment