Few contemporary American political figures generate such unique disdain as Tulsi Gabbard, the Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii. The disdain is not unique for its tenacity – plenty of figures are on the receiving end of bitter criticism – but for its political composition. Gabbard straddles an ideological fissure that spans the Democratic and Republican party coalitions in ways that are difficult to pin down. Despite being an avowed progressive on policy issues and a frequent critic of President Trump, her most committed antagonists appear on the left.
The consternation perhaps began in earnest during the 2016 presidential cycle, when she resigned as a Vice Chair from the Democratic National Committee to endorse Bernie Sanders – and in so doing cast stark aspersion on Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy judgment. This created seeds of doubt among liberals that she was a double agent of sorts, operating within the Democratic party for the stealth purpose of undermining its cohesion and causing problems. It wasn’t just that she supported Sanders, which was well and good, but that she drilled down so specifically on one of the eventual nominee’s most searing vulnerabilities: the fact that Clinton had supported every major American military misadventure of the past 15 years, and showed no signs of penitence or personal evolution. Though Gabbard later conceded she would vote for Clinton in the general election, her support was always tepid and even slightly pained.
Gabbard’s path to excommunication accelerated when Trump won the election, as she was among the very few Democrats who opted for a conciliatory tack. She visited Trump Tower during the presidential transition period, armed with the express intention to dissuade the president-elect from further entangling the US in efforts to oust Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad. The suspicions of her motives intensified among liberal activists and journalists, who could not fathom why any self-respecting Democrat would want to do anything at that juncture other than shout Resistance slogans and furiously retweet Russia collusion memes.
Though she initially offered to work with Trump and offered constructive policy guidance – another disgraceful capitulation by the lights of many liberals – her criticism grew more pointed as Trump’s term progressed. But still, Gabbard never quite embraced the kind of turbo-charged anti-Trump mentality that so often defines Democratic activist sensibilities. Instead her criticisms have always been targeted and substantive, rather than flamboyant and overly-personal. (Although it should be noted that many successful Democratic congressional candidates also steadfastly avoided overly-personalized criticism of Trump during the midterm campaigns, and were applauded for this as a wise tactical choice. Gabbard followed a similar strategy from the outset, with the difference perhaps being the issues she chose to emphasize: national security and foreign policy, which activates reflexes that are less reliably partisan and sortable than when the focus is on healthcare or taxes.)
Trump supporters sometimes profess that Gabbard is one of the few Democrats they find palatable, probably because she seems to avoid the Culture War brawling that so often comes across as tedious and shrill when filtered through the contemporary left-wing moralizing lingo. All that said, her positions are still almost entirely progressive by any normal measure (with a few possible exceptions that her liberal antagonists frequently highlight). This creates an unusual paradox in her public perception. Seeming palatable to Trump supporters automatically evokes suspicion among liberals as evidence of some lurking moral turpitude.
Her visit to Bashar al-Assad in January 2017, along with former Democratic Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, was the final straw for enemies whose antipathy toward her had been simmering and craved an attack-line to coalesce around. The meeting was fully in keeping with her broader campaign to discourage reckless regime change misadventures, the same position which caused her to express extreme skepticism of Clinton. Predictably, neoconservatives also joined the rush to denounce her for this apostasy, at which point she was tarred – preposterously – as an unconscionable abettor of Assad’s crimes. Because neoconservatism has slowly ingratiated itself into the mainstream of the Democratic party since Trump’s ascension, the barbs flung by liberals and their newfound neoconservative friends could barely be distinguished.
As with any other politician, aspects of Gabbard’s record are certainly up for legitimate questioning. But one need not endorse everything that she’s ever done, every position she’s ever taken, or every vote she’s ever cast to acknowledge the deep cynicism of the criticism she endured for the episode. In visiting Assad, she’d embarked on a diplomatic mission with the explicit purpose of seeking avenues to reduce conflict in Syria, site of the most intractable strife in the world. To claim that simply meeting with a principal actor in that conflict is tantamount to ‘palling around’ with him, as Meghan McCain snidely put it, is nothing short of cliched nonsense. It’s the same weak logic always used to discredit diplomatic engagement, whether it be Trump’s meetings with Kim or Obama’s meetings with Raul Castro. The morally relevant factor to consider must always be the aim of these meetings – i.e., what objective they are carried out in service of – rather than the fact that the meeting occurred in the first place. Gabbard’s objective was not to sell Assad arms or assist him in covering up human rights abuses, but to act as an emissary through which non-military resolutions to the conflict could be pursued. Even if one views her efforts in Syria as wrongheaded or futile, to characterize them as ‘palling around’ with a brutal dictator – as if she has a personal fondness for the man – is an odious canard.
Yet it’s that canard which many Democratic pundits once again lobbed at Gabbard this week – joined, of course, by their allies in the neoconservative commentariat – when she departed from her normal rhetorical posture toward Trump and unleashed a nasty but deserved tweet: ‘Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not ‘America First.’
Tulsi Gabbard ✔ @TulsiGabbard Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “America First.”
134K 12:01 PM - Nov 21, 2018 Twitter Ads info and privacy 47.8K people are talking about this The impetus for this was of course Trump’s amoral and borderline-sycophantic statement in which he outlined the reasons why the United States would be ‘Standing With Saudi Arabia’ for the interminable future despite mounting evidence that the Crown Prince ordered the assassination of a dissident journalist. But unlike so many in the political class who have suddenly discovered themselves to be strident Saudi critics just within the past month, for Gabbard the more pressing and morally grievous issue has long been ongoing US support for the Saudi campaign of destruction in Yemen. So when Gabbard finally dropped the rude tweet, it didn’t come across as shrill or tedious; it’s a rhetorical option she has deployed only sparingly, which made its force extra palpable. Even those who typically roll their eyes at overblown anti-Trump rhetoric took it seriously, including podcast impresario Joe Rogan, on whose show Gabbard has appeared. (She was the first sitting elected official to do so.)
Joe Rogan ✔ @joerogan Kids, that’s what you call “Going hard in the paint.”
Tulsi Gabbard ✔ @TulsiGabbard Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “America First.”
7,287 8:42 PM - Nov 21, 2018 Twitter Ads info and privacy 1,425 people are talking about this Yet even though in this case she was aiming her ire squarely at Trump, liberal journalist types couldn’t help but continue condemning her as a callously unfit messenger due to the Assad episode – as if that had anything to do with her revulsion of Trump’s amoral sycophancy for the Saudi Crown Prince. Again, to equate the two relationships as even remotely on the same moral plane would be absurd. In flattering Mohammed bin Salman, Trump is excusing flagrant abuses, protecting defense contractors, and further inflaming regional conflict. In meeting with Assad, Gabbard sought to propose diplomatic engagement in place of military conflagration. These objectives have nothing to do with one another. So the liberal and neoconservative attack made no sense, but that’s to be expected – Gabbard scrambles ideological assumptions, and that’s fundamentally what her critics are so flustered by.
this is like the third time BpG has made a thread along the lines of "why does the left have an issue with..." and few people actually knew who that person was to begin with.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
On the surface she appears to appeal to me in almost all of the ways I prefer. Get out of wars, progressive policies. She is a Democrat but the left hates her for some reason. Google her name and front page hit pieces are already out.
Tulsi Gabbard: how a progressive rising star is a paradox for the left The Hawaii congresswoman is backed by Bernie Sanders, but her controversial opinions have some progressives miffed
Tulsi Gabbard’s critics argue her views on foreign policy, immigration and gun laws warrant more scrutiny and undermine the agenda upon which Democrats are campaigning across the US. Tulsi Gabbard’s critics argue her views on foreign policy, immigration and gun laws warrant more scrutiny and undermine the agenda upon which Democrats are campaigning across the US. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran who made history in 2012 as the first Hindu elected to the US Congress, has cemented herself as a rising star within the Democratic party.
She has the support of Bernie Sanders, the de facto leader of the progressive movement, and boasts of endorsements from a string of liberal-friendly groups. The environment-focused Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters, labor unions such as the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood and National Nurses United have all given Gabbard, a three-term congresswoman, their blessing as she seeks re-election in the November midterm elections.
Bloomberg eyes 2020 presidential run as a Democrat, but can a centrist unite the party? Read more But Gabbard’s stated progressive bona fides have been called into question by her opponents, who are waging an ambitious challenge from the left in the hopes of pulling off an upset in Saturday’s Hawaii congressional primary.
Although their prospects are grim, Gabbard’s critics say her views on foreign policy and tolerance for dictators such as Bashar al-Assad deserve another look.
As one of the few Democrats to meet with Donald Trump following his election, Gabbard’s unorthodox positioning has drawn scrutiny at a time when progressives have rallied their midterm messaging around opposition to the president. Her highly controversial visit last year to Syria, where she met with Assad, also raised eyebrows both nationally and at home.
“The wake up call, for most of us, came when Gabbard met with Trump soon after his inauguration and then with Assad, instead of marching on DC with us and the rest of the Hawaii’s congressional delegation during the Women’s March in protest of what has become an unprecedented abolition of human and civil rights in America,” said Sherry Alu Campagna, an environmental scientist who is among Gabbard’s most well-known primary challengers.
The wake up call, for most of us, came when Gabbard met with Trump soon after his inauguration “The incumbent clearly has an agenda that does not involve her constituents and we are waking up to the fact that our needs are taking a back seat to her ambitions.”
Gabbard has emerged in recent years as a paradox of the progressive movement. When she was first elected to Congress, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow declared at the time: “She is on the fast track to being very famous.”
Indeed, Gabbard swiftly cemented herself as one to watch; she co-founded the Congressional Future Caucus, bringing together the youngest members of Congress with an eye on addressing issues facing millennials, and landed assignments on the House committees on foreign affairs and armed services.
Advertisement
In the 2016 election cycle, Gabbard seized on an opportunity to further her rise to national prominence. At the height of the hotly contested Democratic presidential primary, Gabbard resigned from her position as the vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee and endorsed the insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders. Gabbard’s move came as Democrats struggled to rein in an intra-party feud stemming from allegations that the DNC was working behind the scenes to influence the nominating contest in Hillary Clinton’s favor.
Two years later, Gabbard’s support for Sanders has paid dividends. Her re-election bid drew the endorsement of Our Revolution, a grassroots political organization launched by veterans of Sanders’ campaign.
“She has been an ardent supporter of many of the issues in our People’s Platform: Medicare for All, transitioning to clean renewable energy, criminal justice reform, and making Wall Street pay their fair share,” the group said in a statement.
When asked about Gabbard’s meeting with Assad, the group dubbed Gabbard as “a passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy, which often requires meeting with people whose actions we do not agree with”.
But Gabbard’s critics argue her views on foreign policy, immigration and gun laws warrant more scrutiny and undermine the agenda upon which Democrats are campaigning across the country.
“Nationally, people thought, she checks all the boxes, this is great,” said Shay Chan Hodges, an activist who unsuccessfully challenged Gabbard in 2016. “But I think people have now started looking more closely at her record and what she’s saying.”
Gabbard’s opponents have cited her refusal to debate them as evidence of her reticence to publicly defend her record on certain hot-button issues. Gabbard was unchallenged in 2014 and has not taken part in a primary debate since the year she was elected.
Hawaii News Now attempted to convene a debate between Campagna and Gabbard to no avail; the congresswoman’s campaign defended the move by stating: “She continues to communicate directly with voters across the district.”
Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard on Capitol Hill in Washington DC on 17 November 2016. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard on Capitol Hill in Washington DC on 17 November 2016. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images It is not uncommon for dominant incumbents to generally avoid debates. But Gabbard’s decision to decline to participate in such a forum has exposed her to charges of hypocrisy, since she forcefully advocated for adding more debates between Clinton and Sanders in 2016 in a high-profile split from other DNC leaders.
“While she may think this is a strategic move to prevent the success of her challengers, what it really does is silence the discussion of important issues that face Hawaii’s rural constituents,” said Campagna. “It also prevents any opportunities for voters to hold Tulsi accountable.”
In 2015, Gabbard was among a minority of Democrats who voted for additional restrictions on refugees entering the US from Syria and Iraq. She has also previously expressed “skepticism” that the Assad regime is behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and aligned herself with nationalist figures such as Narendra Modi of India.
Breaking with most Democrats, Gabbard has embraced the use of the phrase “radical Islam” – a phrase which to many Muslims has evolved into a dog whistle on the right intended to indict the entire Islamic faith. Gabbard has said she is mindful that most Muslims are not extremists, but joined Republicans in criticizing Clinton and Barack Obama for not employing the phrase, stating: “It’s important that you identify your enemy”.
Gabbard declined an interview for this story.
“Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has spoken out strongly against the Trump administration’s travel/refugee ban, the Trump administration’s illegal military strikes against Syria, Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, Trump’s decision to end DACA, and other dangerous decisions and policies,” Erika Tsuji, a spokeswoman for Gabbard’s re-election campaign, said in a statement to the Guardian.
Gabbard also stands by her meeting with Assad, her spokeswoman said: “She has stated time and again that peace can never be achieved if we only meet and speak with our friends. If we really want peace, we need to be fearless enough to sit down and speak directly with our adversaries.”
Although a majority of Democratic voters in Gabbard’s district and neighboring areas said she was obligated to debate her rivals, the snub has not appeared to have had much palpable effect on her prospects.
Colin Moore, an associate professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, said Gabbard’s continued popularity was undeniable. But whereas he predicted Gabbard would sail to another term in Congress, Moore said she has yet to truly be tested nationally — where her ambitions may, in fact, be.
“The Hawaii congressional delegation has often thought of itself as a team whose primary goal is to go to Washington and bring federal dollars back to Hawaii,” Moore said. “The way they have done that is work with everyone, keep a very low profile, be around for a very long time and rise in seniority.”
“Tulsi has really bucked that trend … she is this national political figure, who appears on CNN and other national media outlets quite frequently, talking about issues that don’t directly affect Hawaii.”
“That has led to a sense that she’s neglecting her responsibilities and that she isn’t really serving her constituents well,” he added.
It was revealed in June that Gabbard is writing a book to be published by a literary agency that boasts of representing presidential contenders. Last October, she traveled on a multi-day swing through the caucus state of Iowa, urging party unity while fueling speculation of higher ambitions.
Although her opponents are far from likely to pull off an upset this cycle, the brimming frustration that Gabbard is taking her position for granted – and skepticism around her progressive image – could foreshadow the challenges that lie ahead.
Yeah, her Dad is concerning for sure, there is a lot of ugly there for a democrat. He is an odd duck for sure. But she was 17 years old working for her dad. That was 20 years ago and has recanted it since and has voted Pro LGBT since that time.
Tulsi Gabbard apologizes for previous role with group that promoted conversion therapy by Katelyn Caralle | January 14, 2019 09:54 AM
Print this article
Sign up for breaking news alerts
Email Address
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, has apologized for her previous work with an anti-same-sex-marriage group that promoted conversion therapy, after being scrutinized for her record on joining the 2020 presidential field.
"First, let me say I regret the positions I took in the past, and the things I said,” Gabbard told CNN in response to the outlet's report on her past involvement with the group. “I'm grateful for those in the LGBTQ+ community who have shared their aloha with me throughout my personal journey."
Gabbard announced Friday that she would be seeking the Democratic nomination to run for president in 2020.
Democratic strategist believes Biden has the infrastructure in place to launch a 2020 bid Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Gabbard worked for her father’s organization, the Alliance for Traditional Marriage, which is a political action committee that seeks to protect traditional marriage by opposing lawmakers who support gay marriage.
"Working with my father, Mike Gabbard, and others to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, I learned that real leaders are willing to make personal sacrifices for the common good,” Gabbard told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin in 2002 when she was running for state legislature, CNN reported. “I will bring that attitude of public service to the legislature."
Gabbard’s father, a Democratic member of the Hawaii Senate, also previously served as the director of Stop Promoting Homosexuality, and, at one point, hosted a radio show promoting the same ideals called "Let's Talk Straight Hawaii."
The young congresswoman’s stances, however, have shifted dramatically since the early 2000s.
"Over the past six years in Congress, I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to help work toward passing legislation that ensures equal rights and protections on LGBTQ+ issues, such as the Equality Act, the repeal of DOMA, Restore Honor to Service members Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement Act and the Equality for All Resolution,” Gabbard told CNN. “Much work remains to ensure equality and civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans and if elected President, I will continue to fight for equal rights for all."
I certainly agree with you. But I think we can both understand. In today's political climate the opposition will turn over every rock to find a reason to discredit a candidate. I mean just look at Trump's tangent over Pocahontas. And the right blindly follows.
And we both know there's a left, then there's the far left. All things are not equal there. And the far left will dig as deep as they can just to eat their own. I call it incessant cannibalism.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Yep, I totally get it but with the turd they trotted out there last cycle it would be beyond hypocritical to oust her for those comments when she wasn't even old enough to drink. But you're right, it will definitely be an issue she will need a good rebuttal to.
I've never seen the political press take such interest in a freshman congressman. Also the cons overplayed their hand when they distributed in joy a false tub shot of AOC's legs. Like her politics or not, you do have to admit that the public is fascinated with her.
I'm not really against her politics. Being a moderate I see positive and negatives in most politicians. I just think she's a flash in the pan and soon the press will move on to someone else.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I've never seen the political press take such interest in a freshman congressman. Also the cons overplayed their hand when they distributed in joy a false tub shot of AOC's legs. Like her politics or not, you do have to admit that the public is fascinated with her.
That phone vid of her reaction the night the voting results put her on the map. Dark horse unseating the incumbent... her emotions were so raw and genuine.
Instant celebrity.
What shoe does with it remains to be seen. They're fascinated because she's still a unique 'human interest story.'
The only thing I really know about her is from the podcast with Joe Rogan. I think one of the reasons the left or establishment doesn't like her because she was willing to call them out for screwing Bernie. In the interview she said Hawaii was worth 4 primary delegates. 70% of the vote went to Bernie, yet he only took 1 delegate. The rest were handed to Hillary.
My guess is that she won't be afraid to remind everyone how Bernie got screwed by a corrupt political party structure.
I fully expect candidates like her to continue to rally the anti-establishment sentiment that was so prevalent in the last Pres election
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
Not many of the left like her due to her views on nationalist leaders, being meh on LGBTQ+ rights, general islamophobia, and meeting with hostile heads of state.
As our resident commie, what are your thoughts on Maduro?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Good guy. I wish he could nationalize more industries without the US flipping the table and threatening to war against them. I would love to see the abandoned sugar fields of Coca Cola be put to use. He was also a lot better than most people in Chavez's cabinet. He used to be a bus driver and union organizer, he's been fighting for the common person for decades, but he's turned himself into a skilled politico over the years. That said, he is a virulent homophobe. I'd still rank him in the top 30 socialist leaders in Latin America though. He's also 1000x better than Bashar.
