I switched from Biden to Gabbard or Castro

[PatrickforO]

37. I'm thinking about it. Gabbard isn't going to make it deep in the primary,

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2019, 02:11 AM - Edit history (1)

of course, so our discussion here is a bit of a moot point.

Still, it bothers me that someone who went and served this country in the forever war, then came back and was duly elected to the US Congress by the people of HI (and HI is pretty blue), is now labeled here as a DINO.

I can remember asking before, "Say, I've noticed lots of negativity on here towards Tulsi Gabbard. Why is that?" I received answers similar to what you have said in the post above. She is apparently guilty of 'cozying up.'

Now, I wonder why.

Let's do a bit of exploring what is in front of our eyes. First, as regards this site, there are many on here who absolutely despise Bernie, and Gabbard did resign as co-chair of the DNC to endorse Bernie in 2016. Unforgivable, and utterly horrible for about a third of the people on here, I think.

Now, I was a big Bernie supporter too, because I never thought the centrist philosophy was good for the American people or for our party. And, yes, I know Bernie is not a Democrat, and I'm supporting Warren now because she most closely matches my own philosophy. What lost me for Bernie was how many of his supporters stayed away from the polls or voted Stein. That was bad.

OK, so around here, for the majority, Bernie is anathema. It is true 2016 was a rancorous primary, and we could in fact write a book about it.

Gabbard was a soldier. She went and served this country in the forever war. Now she is anti-war. I saw a NBC hit-piece just yesterday on here condemning her for 'cozying up' to Assad. NBC said she was being promoted by 'known Russian' social media trolls. However, about two posts later in the thread, this NBC article was debunked. Apparently the guy running this particular troll farm has Republican, not Russian connections, though the line between those two is very...shall we say tenuous.

So she said, "Assad is not the enemy of the United States." Let's take that in the context of Gabbard's belief that we should not build an alliance to strike Syria and deepen the wars in the Mid-East. Since Russia and China were also opposed to military intervention, and at the time the US was touting it, naturally Gabbard was associated with Russia. I'd very much disagree with that association because Gabbard took a position based on her understanding of the uselessness and needless death and destruction in the wars in which she herself participated, this makes her some kind of a Russian asset. You want Russian asset, look at Trump and Moscow Mitch. Gabbard, not so much.

To my mind, the biggest strike against Gabbard is her hard-line anti-LGBTQ rhetoric before she fell into line with the Democratic platform. I'm far more inclined to be troubled by this than by anything else about this candidate.

So, Gabbard. Where do I stand? I stand with Warren because I think she'd make an excellent president. However, I will support any of the other candidates should they be nominated as our party's candidate, including Gabbard. That won't happen, but I have not seen or heard anything that convinces me Gabbard is some kind of Russian asset, or pals around with Assad, or is a Democrat in name only. I just haven't. She served this country honorably, and continues to serve the people of her state.

Should Gabbard be nominated, though, I would have some concern about her strength on social justice, her understanding of domestic policy and her tendencies toward excessive isolation.

Just a couple more thoughts. I always like to play a little game called Cui Bono, which is who stands to benefit from burying Gabbard in this primary? Let's make a short list:

1. The military industrial complex - the last thing firms like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Ball and other military contractors want is for us to elect a president who is fervently anti-war. Lots of money is changing hands with these forever wars, and this year's 'defense' budget was $733 billion. They don't want cuts because it is bad for their shareholder profits.

2. The more centrist wing of the Democratic party, which is still convinced we cannot win an election with big and progressive ideas, but instead have to kowtow to some mythical white blue collar worker in the midwest. As Moore pointed out last evening on MSNBC, though, and he is right, the real working class is mostly women, young people and people of color. We lost the so called Reagan Democrats decades ago and they aren't coming back. This centrist group is currently backing Biden quite forcefully.

So there you have it. My somewhat complete thoughts on Gabbard. Not a traitor (you want traitor, think Trump and Moscow Mitch). Possibly an isolationist. Possibly still fighting internal battle around LGBTQ rights. Not a pal of Assad. Anti-war. An honorable soldier of the millennial generation we so vitally need to come to the polls next year.

I've found the millennials, since I work with so many of them, think for themselves. They've been screwed by the establishment every which way but loose, and their lives are a constant struggle against heavy student debt loads. They struggle with unaffordable housing, clogged roads and jobs that don't pay enough. They need childcare, healthcare, relief from debt and a better future.

We'd better come in with a big bold vision to galvanize them like JFK did my generation. To my mind, Biden isn't it, neither is Gabbard, Hickenlooper, Delaney, De Blasio, and the others. I think we'd be MUCH better off to run Booker, Castro, Harris or Warren.