Why Tulsi Scares the Democrats

Tulsi Gabbard was interviewed by Dave Rubin yesterday. She

  • is patriotic, loves her country
  • hates identity politics
  • supports the melting-pot model vs. the salad bowl
  • is against open borders; supports  secure borders
  • is not a gun grabber (though not an unapologetic 2A supporter)
  • is skeptical about the growth of presidential power
  • favors devolving power to the states
  • is critical of the DNC
  • has “Republican friends” in Congress

She’s talking the talk. Who knows if she’d walk the walk. Certainly, she’s the least repulsive of the Dem candidates, though she does have a few repulsive views (e.g., reparations).

7+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Author: drlorentz

photon whisperer & quantum mechanic

18 thoughts on “Why Tulsi Scares the Democrats”

  1. I’ll add she’s the only one of the Democrat candidates who doesn’t support abortion up to birth (though she does generally support abortion rights; as you noted, she does have a few repulsive views). She does seem the most “normal” of the Dem candidates.

    0

  2. But, does she really scare them?

    Her views, as noted in the bullet points in the main post, are sufficiently at variance with those of the Democrat party apparat and its foaming-at-the-mouth base that she stands zero chance of connecting with sufficient voters to move the needle.  Indeed, she has probably been excluded from the next round of “debates”.

    It doesn’t matter what she says; the media will spike the message, give her seconds of air time if she makes it to the stage compared to minutes for Beater-o-Jerk and Butt-Gag, and sink any chance to deliver her message to potential voters.

    It’s only due to the intersectionality tickets she punches that she hasn’t been totally ignored so far.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. Yes, but we like her. And politics is such that it is possible for her to switch parties. She won’t be a Republican presidential candidate but she certainly could be something else in the party.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  4. John Walker:
    But, does she really scare them?

    Her views, as noted in the bullet points in the main post, are sufficiently at variance with those of the Democrat party apparat and its foaming-at-the-mouth base that she stands zero chance of connecting with sufficient voters to move the needle.  Indeed, she has probably been excluded from the next round of “debates”.

    Exactly. She scared them enough to use dirty tricks to keep her out of debates, mostly because of her successful attack on Kamala. In future debates, Tulsi would look like the only sane person in the room precisely because of the views in the bullet points, thereby making the rest look like the loons that they are. Since there’s no way she’d ever win the nomination, so whichever fruitcake snagged the title would still look as far out there as ever.

    Contrast is the problem. With Tulsi out of the way, the others can focus on Orange Man Bad whilst still promoting muh free stuff and open borders. While she’s still around, Tusli will call them out for fiscal irresponsibility and open borders lunacy. She’d be complaining about identity politics and how divisive it is. She might push back against the hate America stance of the others. Her views are popular.

    Any Democrat thinking of voting for one of the other candidates would suffer whiplash after watching that interview. Fortunately for the DNC, no self-respecting Democrat would ever watch alt-right, Nazi-adjacent, tool-of-the-patriarchy Dave Rubin.* Heaven help ’em if they can’t suppress her message.

    *Butti-whatever was frightened off Rubin’s show by the usual suspects.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. Watching this now. I can see why the radical left hates her. She is far too moderate for them.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  6. I see her appeal to a large share of Libertarians.   I see her appeal to Democrat Party apparatchiks who scoured America to find female candidates with military experience.   I see her appeal to some of the none-of-the-above voters.

    She does not appeal to me.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  7. Watch for a Tulsi/Crenshaw alliance in the congress to reshape the institution from within. Both are the outstanding rookies of their class.

    Tulsi is getting airtime. If the Dems lose in 2020, the party will implode and there will be significant opportunity to grab some of the pieces.

    I do believe she is playing the long game, and by making her a martyr, she will become more powerful than they can imagine. (Watch as she disappears on stage, leaving only a cloak…)

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  8. MJBubba:
    I see her appeal to a large share of Libertarians.   I see her appeal to Democrat Party apparatchiks who scoured America to find female candidates with military experience.   I see her appeal to some of the none-of-the-above voters.

    She does not appeal to me.

    Her appeal to me is her stance against the US war machine, which is the number one issue at the national level. Conservatives have zero credibility when talking spending cuts and downsizing DC unless they come to realize that the Pentagon and interventionist wars are huge welfare programs.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  9. TKC 1101:
    Watch for a Tulsi/Crenshaw alliance in the congress to reshape the institution from within. Both are the outstanding rookies of their class.

    Tulsi is getting airtime. If the Dems lose in 2020, the party will implode and there will be significant opportunity to grab some of the pieces.

    I do believe she is playing the long game, and by making her a martyr, she will become more powerful than they can imagine. (Watch as she disappears on stage, leaving only a cloak…)

    ?Really. Crenshaw is for Red Flag Laws, hardly a rational conservative idea. The seizure of weapons without due process is a bad idea that only a leftie or mope would support. Remember the Revolutionary War was started over Brit attempts to seize gunpowder and weapons from the Puritans.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  10. Devereaux:
    Crenshaw is for Red Flag Laws, hardly a rational conservative idea.

    He also supports expanding the HB1 visa program. I was a fan of his, but these two positions leave me cold.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  11. danok1:

    Devereaux:
    Crenshaw is for Red Flag Laws, hardly a rational conservative idea.

    He also supports expanding the HB1 visa program. I was a fan of his, but these two positions leave me cold.

    It generally seems when you get a pol who was a SEAL and lost an eye, you ought to be a fan. But he appears to have lost more than just his eye; he kind of lost his mind. ?What was he fighting for if not the rule of law to protect property, OR the right to resist your government when it becomes tyrannical with arms if necessary.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  12. I’m so jaded, I don’t trust any politician. Particularly a Democrat.  I get the feeling she’s got other motives and is positioning herself somehow. Maybe she means it, maybe she doesn’t. But I don’t trust her

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  13. Devereaux:

    danok1:

    Devereaux:
    Crenshaw is for Red Flag Laws, hardly a rational conservative idea.

    He also supports expanding the HB1 visa program. I was a fan of his, but these two positions leave me cold.

    It generally seems when you get a pol who was a SEAL and lost an eye, you ought to be a fan. But he appears to have lost more than just his eye; he kind of lost his mind. ?What was he fighting for if not the rule of law to protect property, OR the right to resist your government when it becomes tyrannical with arms if necessary.

    He has my respect and admiration for his combat record and sacrifice. And he does seem to be willing to engage and talk with those who disagree with him. But the bloom is off the rose, as far as I’m concerned.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  14. Devereaux:
    Really. Crenshaw is for Red Flag Laws, hardly a rational conservative idea

    Beside the point.  My analysis is not an endorsement, just a prediction of the future.

    Crenshaw and Gabbard are the perfect “what comes next after the lawyers and grifters in politics”

    Both are media savvy, both handle the media well, and both know how to use their military background without scaring the civilians.

    Disagreeing with their positions does not diminish their skill at political persuasion.

    Also, both have been on the Joe Rogan podcast and did very well. Crenshaw going on SNL and Gabbard blowing up Kamala in the debate shows courage and skill.

    Our politics will require reconstruction after the next election and these two are well positioned.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  15. Douglas:

    John Walker:
    But, does she really scare them?

    Of course not. She hasn’t a chance in Hell at the nomination. She’s no threat.

    There are other ways to be a threat besides winning the nomination. Gabbard already dealt a death blow to Harris. What do you think, did Harris consider Gabbard harmless because she can’t win the nomination?

    0

Leave a Reply