I’ve said before that I respect her as one of a miniscule number of relatively sane Democrats, maybe even admire her courageous and honest willingness to push back against the more wild-eyed and bizarre Demonrat proposals. She’s a liberal all right, but she’s also one of a nearly extinct breed that, despite mulishly clinging to many ridiculous and unworkable collectivist ideals, nonetheless remains intellectually supple enough to be at least marginally responsive to archaic and forsaken concepts such as common sense, real-world practicality, and respectful tolerance for dissenting opinion. Practically alone among her Party peers, Gabbard’s integrity and love of country has never been in question, or not that I know of anyway. All in all, I stand behind my assessment of her. For a liberal and a Demonrat, Tulsi is more or less all right with me.
The political realignment spurred by President Donald Trump’s rise as the undeniable leader of the Republican Party is only just beginning, and it may result in the emergence of a surprising superstar: former U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
Gabbard first gained national attention as a supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders, (I-Vt.) who refused to participate in a corrupt DNC process that disenfranchised the far-left presidential candidate. Her stand made her a reviled figure among establishment Democrats, who hated her even more when she refused to buy into anti-Russia hysteria and opposed U.S. bombing campaigns in Syria. Her refreshing candor has resulted in an unexpected cult following on the pro-Trump Right.
While Gabbard’s economic policies vary considerably from the Republican orthodoxy, she brings a much-needed breath of fresh air on civil liberties and American foreign intervention. These are issues that appeal to young people, who are the prime demographic for the meat grinder of war and who often find themselves punished by the state for nonviolently enjoying their lives. Gabbard is an asset whose point of view should not be rejected out of hand in Trump’s GOP. Making the Republican Party into a true MAGA coalition will require the building of bridges and the rejection of failed approaches tried in the past.
Gabbard is a politician that the Republican Party needs to rebuild its shattered credibility among the masses. She has built a brand as a maverick who will say what she believes is right on the issues, no matter the political consequences.
Gabbard would also alienate all of the worst actors still festering within the Republican Party. The annoying free marketeers, who gave the cold shoulder to Trump for his economic nationalism, would naturally be up in arms over Gabbard’s lack of reverence for the sacred deity of gross domestic product. The remnants of the neoconservative war party, including former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, would be the most triggered, and their anguish alone would be worth letting the Gabbardites into the fold.
Could be, could be. The idea of wooing Tulsi in an attempt at persuading her to cross the partisan Rubicon is certainly audacious, bold, and unconventional—attributes I usually respond to positively, whatever the context. To me, they’re features, not bugs.
But no rebellious Maverick needs to wax all ebullient over this prospect. Sadly, the author slams head-on into a familiar obstacle discussed here numerous times: he’s made the killing mistake of accepting the false premise that tinkering, fine-tuning, or fiddling around under the Uniparty hood is still a useful, worthwhile project. Sorry, son, but it ain’t. The American system is dead as a dodo, with the up-front-fraudulent 2020 election as its death certificate, and there is no hope of reanimating the carcass. She was murdered a-purpose; mourn her loss, fine, but don’t kid yourself: she ain’t coming back. Intellectual pud-pulling to insipid fantasies of “retaking Congress in 2024” and all the other feverish wet-dreams whose climax revolves entirely around attaining a fair victory in an honestly-conducted election is worse than a waste of time.
Speculatively blibbering on about just how the treacherous GOPe could be reformed is a mug’s game, nothing more. At this point it’s tiresome, pathetic—a pointless distraction that will hurt far more than it will ever help. The facts are in; it’s time we all grew up and faced them squarely in an adult fashion.
A few dabs of touch-up paint will never suffice to restore the gloss to the rotted, corruption-stained husk of “American democracy.” To properly bring a lasting shine back up on this tattered, battered old bucket o’ bolts will mean more than some el-cheapo patch-job. She’s gonna need a complete body-off-frame restoration. If properly and meticulously done, by someone who knows how and is passionate about his craft, the results are a thing of beauty, damned close to miraculous. But it’s a long, time-eating process. And you just better believe it ain’t cheap.
- Entries
“Gabbard is a politician that the Republican Party needs to rebuild its shattered credibility among the masses.”
That “shattered credibility” is not due to not being left wing kooky like Gabbard, so how exactly is embracing left wing kooky going to repair anything?
I will posit that Gabbard is not completely nuts. That’s not saying much. Supporting Bernie? Supporting a corrupt to the core commie doesn’t do much for the values of those nominal republicans that are pissed at the GOPe.
I suppose there are some good qualities in her. Perhaps she loves her country.
I’m just not sure her country is my country.
Gabbard does not seem to be a crazy leftist, but she is certainly a leftist. Which actually does make her a good fit for the GOPe, since they are leftists as well. Not a good fit for actual right of center Americans, though.
Yes, point, she’s a good fit with the GOPe.
Enh. Since the GOP is the “Not yet!” wing of the Democrat Party, she might as well jump the aisle.
I think Gabbard talks a good game, but when it comes time tomvote she’s more IN with the Leftist Crazies than one might think.
If a Dem were honest the Impeachment would have been a line they could not cross. Did she not vote For Impeachment.
IIRC she did. She’s an Old Skool Crazy Leftist who knew enough to hide it better.
She wimped out and voted “present”. OK, so she knew it was a farce and would not vote yes, but was afraid to vote no.
Present is a 0bambam vote. How many times did 0 vote Present?
people elected to Congress are supposed to vote yay or nay.
When we did we allow this Bullshit of “present” voting? That’s not what your constituents voted you into office to do. They voted for someone to represent their interests. Not say “I’m here but who cares”.