Caitlin Is Excited About Tulsi
For any with hope that Sanders would denounce the party, go full anti-war and run independent in 2020 this won't be hopeful:
Democrats must challenge unnecessary spending and interventions—beginning with the war in Yemen.
BY Bernie Sanders
Meh. Not quite anti-war, and still seems to be hooked on trying to reform the Dims.
But, then there's the Tulsi announcement. Is she anti-war? Well no. But here's some interesting points from Caitlin :
— #CultOfGivingAShit (@JulsJulsblues) January 14, 2019
[I apologize in advance for not including the many hotlinks in this excerpt from the post and highly rec going and reading the whole thang. divineorder]
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/01/14/five-reasons-im-excited-about-tu...
I’m not interested in defending Gabbard from the criticisms that have been leveled at her at this time; many articles have been written toward that end already, and if she’s going to run for the most powerful elected office on the planet it’s fair to scrutinize and question what kind of person she is. I’m also not interested in endorsing anyone for the presidency. What I am interested in is the way Gabbard’s presence in the Democratic presidential primary race is already in January 2019 upsetting the standard establishment script and forcing foreign policy debates that need to happen.
Here are a five thoughts on that subject:
1 – Gabbard will definitely be the most antiwar candidate on the debate stage by a wide margin, except in the highly unlikely event that someone steps up from way out of left field to run like Dennis Kucinich. Being the most antiwar candidate in anything associated with the Democratic Party is a very low bar, but her vocal positions on Syria, Iran, Yemen, Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Gaza, and previous US regime change interventions set her so far from the establishment orthodoxy that she’ll look as different from the other candidates as Ron Paul looked on the Republican debate stage.
2 – Make no mistake, it is this opposition to significant aspects of the US war machine that is the driving force behind the overwhelming bulk of the shrieking objection to Gabbard’s candidacy, not any of the more valid criticisms. We have learned from the mainstream acceptance of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that some criticism of the status quo will be tolerated when it comes to domestic policy, but it’s an excommunicable offense when it comes to foreign policy. The idea that the US should forcefully control world affairs using the carrot of alliance and the stick of military violence is so ubiquitous in both of America’s mainstream parties that it takes a Washington Post columnist getting dismembered alive to start a debate about something so self-evidently evil as the Saudi-led destruction of Yemen.
3 – Foreign policy is undeniably the area in which the greater part of US government depravity takes place, and as far as America’s permanent government is concerned it is by far the most important. Forcing a debate on an issue you’re not even supposed to bring up on mainstream media will get a lot of ordinary Americans asking questions that very powerful individuals don’t want asked. The DNC went from scheduling over 20 debates in 2008 to trying to limit it to six in 2016 because they didn’t want Sanders’ excellent domestic policy ideas getting out to the public and making their coronated status quo candidate look bad. Gabbard could have the same impact on foreign policy in an audience that has been aggressively propagandized by MSNBC warmongering.
4 – Gabbard’s progressive positions on issues like Medicare for All, environmentalism, $15 minimum wage, Wall Street accountability, the failed war on drugs, marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform and indigenous water rights will also set her further to the left on domestic policy than anyone on the debate stage besides Sanders should he run. This is a self-evident fact, but a lot of narrative control efforts are being poured into painting her as a right-winger. She will definitely help force the debate to the left, and her position on withdrawing from expensive interventionist war policies answers the “But how are you going to PAY for it??” questions the MSM talking heads are so fond of grilling progressives with on social programs.
5 – For me the most telling thing about Gabbard is the way she resigned from her position as vice chair of the DNC in order to endorse Bernie Sanders in 2016. Other DNC operatives remained inside the Committee and actively schemed to give Clinton every unfair advantage in the primary, but Gabbard showed integrity and refused to advance a biased agenda in violation of the DNC charter. It showed that she’s a real person operating within one of the phoniest places in the world, and that she’s willing to throw a spanner in the works of the machine when it’s in the highest interest. This unwillingness to march to the beat of the establishment drum for such proceedings could lead to some very interesting things as the presidential race heats up.
And that’s good enough for me. She’s not perfect, she’s a major long shot to actually win, but Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign for president will definitely shake things up in all the right places, and good things will come from it. Which is why all the right people are outraged by her bid today.
Thoughts?
Comments
Wonder what Dennis thinks about this
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Analysis by some guy of Tulsi questioned about use of torture.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Conflicted
hmm... she didn't even really address how torture was a heinous act that is illegal. No ifs ands or butts.... and of course she had to use the end of the world scenario that will probably never happen. But how many of us would do whatever it takes if our loved ones were in peril?
But then he didn't show if she did address my concerns so I can't tell where she actually stands on it.
If she is against what we're doing in those countries and speaking out against it then good for her. This is the conversations we need to have. I like what Caitlin said it took for Americans to talk about Yemen. A guy getting dismembered while he was alive. .
People said that because she went to Syria to speak to Assad she is his BFF. Didn't see if anyone said that about Bolton when he spoke to Bibi about keeping the troops in Syria? Double standards?
If it looks like she is going to win the the primary what will the DNC do? Will it be run fair and square this time?
This wasn't the only way Hillary interfered with it. Remember her financial shenanigans?
I'm keeping my mind open about her. Oh.. does anyone know where she stands on Russia Gate?
On Russiagate
Know you go to dk from time to time so you probably are already aware of this .
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Well that is some list isn't it?
This is the second diary there about her and it's obvious that she is not well liked. Apparently people think that people only like her because she supported Bernie. Okay ...
Tom P and Dumbo had some good comments and of course they got slammered down.
Ahh but Tulsi, that was why they were supporting them. Obama and Bibi thought it would have been okay if ISIS ran the Syrian government. And why not? Both of them were just fine with the neo Nazis in the Ukraine government. Yep. Bibi has no problem with this. Just unbelievable.
At least there was some pushback allowed. For now.
Agree with this:
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Pfiore8 has been saying some great stuff about
centrist Dems and other things like that and holding h/s own. And then others who feel the same way add their comments too. They still get a lot of pushback, but I haven't seen it turn as nasty as it was during the primary. So there's still a lot of Bernie supporters there, but it's going to be a bit interesting what happens when the primary starts. I'm still thinking that Hillary is just biding her time. Gawd I hope I'm wrong.
ANY head of state is a "brutal dictator" when
the US MisGovernment has them in its cross-hairs.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
No, snoopy
The Democratic establishment won't just let her win the primary fair and square.
The same people are in charge of the Democratic party now as in 2016. They don't have any problem with election fraud or intimidation and they don't believe they need to consult the party's rank-and-file in their selection of candidates.
All of these things have been established, quite publicly; the evidence for election fraud in 2016 is out in the open, even if admission of the fraud is not; the evidence for intimidation was revealed in the Wikileaks release of Democratic Party emails; and the evidence that they don't believe the opinions of their rank-and-file, quaintly described by some of us as "the vote," matters to the selection of the Democratic Party candidate, was clearly stated by the Democratic Party itself in court.
I would like to know how, under these conditions, merely generating a lot of popular support for a good candidate, donating money and working hard, is supposed to lead to a progressive victory that will then lead, at least somewhat, to progressive policy, without which this entire process is pointless.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
For what it's worth
here's a list of Tulsi's voting record:
http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Tulsi-Gabbard-412532
It's not Bernie's 40 or 50 years of consistency, but it is consistent.
On to Biden since 1973
Thanks, doh, will have a look.
She's willing to run as Dim so that is a big flag, but who knows? Who can predict the future?
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Tulsi saw the rigging first hand
Tulsi saw the rigging of the primaries first hand and resigned the DNC over it. Knowing this would bring the wrath of Howard Dean saying "whos gonna primary her?" That is yuge. In her district she is loved beyond belief, likely for very good reason. Her military experience gives so much more weight to her opinions on those matters, which are decidedly anti-interventionist. Go Tulsi Go! Run Tulsi Run! She saw what effect Bernie had on the conversation and knows and I thinks wants, to be that herself. Good for her. We need more like her, and Alexandria, and Bernie.
Question Authority!
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
both - Albert Einstein
Love is the answer.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Thoughts?
It appears most people have their minds made up already and those in favor, like with Bernie, won't be swayed no matter. It's like Trump supporters, Obama supporters, all politicians really. The game. The game is on. Maybe someone will start a Fantasy League.
Well thems some pretty dramatic thoughts.
Where did you get that?
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Well for one and since you asked :)
Johnstone, who I refuse to read usually (which is another story), doesn't want to address the naysayers, i.e., alternative views and information, but wants to list what she thinks are positives and says that's good enough for her. What's that sound like to you?
Different take
BA, Caitlin prefaced her article by stating:
DO highlighted these words from her:
What’s “... good enough” for Caitlin is that - at least for now - Gabbard is throwing a wrench into the presidential election machine gears. Caitlin flat-out stated that she is not endorsing her, or anyone else. Caitlin is simply making observations on how Gabbard has Democrats running around like their hair is on fire. She’s right about what she’s seeing and I think it’s relevant to point out Gabbard’s effect.
"At this time",
like, when is the time to "defend Gabbard" from the criticisms of her support for the fake and illegal war OF terror. She's excited and glad Gabbard is in the fake presidential race everyone here seems so excited to talk about, and she labels her antiwar but it's not time to defend Gabbard yet. That still sounds like she's got her mind made up about Gabbard. Like she did about Obama and Sanders.
But she was just an example, I wasn't just talking about Johnstone. It's the same game being played when Obama ran, only the names are changed.
Ya, different takes for different folks.
Valid points
Yes, I hear you. Worries me some.
I do like Caitlin, but there may be some litmus tests involving Gabbard. I’m interested in what will be forthcoming. The WoT is a big one — hell, all war.
I will say that Caitlin is remarkably ready
to support a process controlled by the security state, the corporate media and the Democratic establishment.
Although d.o.'s statement is correct in that Caitlin says that she's only talking about how Gabbard is having a pleasant effect on the rest of the Democratic establishment, and not endorsing a candidate.
That statement seems to contradict the "that's good enough for me" conclusion, though, which sounds a lot like a lead-up to one more run of the purity pony meme.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That's her m.o.
She waffles back and forth between pretending to be radical and the readily participating in the farce, like the demexiters who just can't seem to exit. I caught on to her game early on and since then ignore her.
I'd say my position as regards Caitlin is
skeptical and waiting to see. I'm glad when she says true things, but I'm sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop. I won't be surprised if and when it does. After Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky, nothing much surprises me.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
What, or rather who, does this sound like?
And that’s good enough for me. She’s not perfect,...but...
I'm trying to imagine a current situation in which I'd say, in a political article: "And that's good enough for me. X is not perfect,...but..."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Please proceed! :)
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
People want to believe that the election process is fair
and in the hands of the people. Perhaps "want" is too weak a word. The idea that the election process is fair and in the hands of the people is such a strong belief that it often reappears within minutes of people talking about how corrupt our electoral process is. People are capable of discussing in detail exactly how Bernie was screwed out of the nomination--and he was, regardless of how anybody feels about that--and immediately afterward, sometimes in the same comment, talking about whether Tulsi is a candidate we want to get behind. This is much like the rhetoric around the Kerry campaign in 2004. I'll never forget hearing Michael Moore and the head of MoveOn talking about Kerry v Bush. Their conclusion was: "Well, it sounds like all we need to do is get out the vote." As a Floridian who had just lived through the first Bush fraud, I was shaking my head at my computer, unable to understand how anyone could reach that conclusion in light of recent history. Now, I'm no longer surprised. The idea that the only thing we need to do is find a good person and rally behind him or her is apparently unshakable. If you believe that idea, the only questions will be: where is there a sufficiently good person? and will we work hard enough for her?
Thus, there's a lot of discussion of Tulsi's beliefs and personal qualities, and not very much discussion of the election process itself, which is now held under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security. There's a lot of discussion of Tulsi's voting record and not a lot of discussion of how the Democratic party is likely to manipulate election results (with the help of the media, of course).
As with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Tulsi could be the combination of Mother Teresa and Mother Jones and I would still fail to see how her virtue is going to somehow triumph over corruption, if only we all rally strongly enough behind her. This isn't a myth (more's the pity), it's real life. In the mythological world, the hero completes the hero's journey and virtue, if strong enough, and supported by loyal enough compatriots, wins. But this is the world of 21st-century American history and politics, and there is no evidence that virtue will win an electoral contest; there's not even any evidence that an electoral contest could result in an unexpected outcome for the elites. They've only been surprised once in 39 years, when Trump refused to job for Hillary, and Obama (on behalf of the elites, no doubt) immediately responded by putting our elections under the control of the Department of Homeland Security, which signals pretty clearly to me that they are going to exercise an even greater level of control over the results than they did last time. It's for that reason that I wouldn't be shocked even if Hillary won, though I think the uber-rich have switched over to Biden.
But hey, maybe they'll put Gabbard in as his VP. That hasn't been their MO so far, but it would cost them nothing and placate a large portion of the disgruntled progressives still in the Democratic party.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well, you know my position, it hasn't changed.
I favor a boycott of the next presidential election, not a discussion about the merits of the next batch of duopoly politicians the serfs get to choose from. It's not just the election process for me, it's the political system itself. I now strongly believe the office of presidency should be either abolished or seriously revised to prevent the type of power madness we now see in Trump. People think he's the worse it can get might want to think again.
I'm not far from your opinion.
If I keep harping on things that are more or less old hat to you, it's because irrational argument bugs me; I feel it should not be allowed to stand. It particularly upsets me when I see people ready to believe in the exact same illusions that were just shattered in the last presidential election. It's like continuing to believe in an economic meritocracy after the 2008 crash.
Yes, those illusions have been shattered before, but this time it was like somebody dropped a bomb on them and then brought a steamroller through to crush the remains into dust and then doused the whole area with Agent Orange.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Although I did enjoy my share of schadenfreude
When Trump did win, witnessing Obama's iron fisted move was beyond shocking and signified for me the final death knell of any agency the public had in the electoral process. Perhaps that is exactly why the people who saw this happening in real time, now choose to forget the implications of that as another election season has begun? Too much reality and no place to go with that.
https://caucus99percent.com/content/it-happened-end-game-russia-hacking-...
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
That was a really good essay, zoe.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thank you
I'm grateful I had a place to come and share my feelings. Crazy times.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Tulsi has a strategy to win.
Running to the Left of your opponent is a sure thing, these days. It can win Primaries for a unique candidate, and it can win the general election if you have the guts and bluster to hold the Left throughout. It will roil the Party (either one) because it's technically cheating
Cheating because if you run and win with a Left-based policy vision, you'll be stuck trying to implement the changes you described on the campaign trail. In time, you'll look impotent and powerless and overwhelmed. Even if your Party also holds both the House and Senate, somehow it will be impossible to get enough votes to make the important fundamental changes you must. Pretty soon, you'll stop talking about it.
The Big Donors will still give to your Party, but they'll be mostly focused on the Party's House and Senate races. Those wins can keep a non-conforming President in check. A Left-minded candidate just doesn't seem to be a good deal for the profit-minded, tax-dodging oligarchs. They'll happily buy up congressional seats for your Party's designated members, who will take turns being the one vote you are always short.
So, you'll devote your Presidency to being effective where you can, and shelve the vision. You'll likely stick close to domestic policies. If you're feisty, you can use the bully pulpit to force a health care deal, although you might not feel much like signing it after the Congressional "staff" works their magic for the lobbyists. But time will be running out on Obamacare — tic-toc — and the pressure will be on, so.... You'll sign another money-pump for the insurance companies, disguised as a public health care breakthrough. There will be innovative benefits for the vulnerable people — like half-priced vitamins.
The loyal opposition will bitch about that new "entitlement" but you'll have left your mark. Meanwhile, the Deep State will have lots going on, complete with invisible outrages (attacks on the American Way of Life) perpetrated by the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc. You'll be compelled to impose very shitty sanctions on this or that country to destroy its economy and hurt its people. And you will do it, because if you don't, a suddenly united "Congress" will rise up and do it for you — and call you a traitor who wants America to lose.
::
The story is a little different if the President runs as an independent, who owes nothing to either corrupt Party. There will be a little more room for an independent President to step over political obstacles. The same holds true for the People. They will have a little more room to take an Independent President at face value — for every new issue — because the President is not a member of the "Other Party," which they loathe and despise with an intensity that presents like a mental disorder.
The Independent President might actually achieve bipartisan agreement on some issues, which will no doubt piss off both Parties. A smart Independent will do as much as they can with Executive Orders to settle the nation. They won't care a bit about a second term; one term will be plenty. This will be the first President in the past century or so who has the opportunity to speak the truth to the People, if they want to do so. In any event, they will have the wherewithall to leave the nation better than they found it. All they need to do is hold weekly Fireside Chats on the radio, like Roosevelt did, and share their vision for the country with the People. Perhaps talk a little bit about how the future could look if they pulled together. The Independent President has the supreme luxury to name all the creatures of DC who are standing in the way of progress and justice for the people. He or she can tell them not to be afraid; that he disagrees with the people who are trying to scare them. An independent President knows exactly who he serves.
Love is the answer.
I agree with you except I think
(not to be overly dramatic) that such a president would have to be willing to give everything, up to and including his or her life, because, as they've basically revealed over the last two years, the CIA, NSA, and other parts of the security state are highly invested in making sure the President is who they want him (or her) to be. The media is enough on board with this that we might as well consider them as having their editorial headquarters at Langley, or perhaps Fort Meade.
Thus, the next president would need to be ready to sacrifice their reputation, career, economic security, and even their life. The qualifications for the position would basically be the same as those for a security state whistleblower. For this reason, it would be best if the President did not have a family, and certainly didn't have underage children. The Vice President would need to be cut of the same cloth and absolutely dedicated to the same level of sacrifice.
Then we'd have to figure out how to get such candidates through a process controlled by the DHS whose "winners" are announced by that same media that might as well be based in Langley.
But first, we'd have to find people both able to reach millions of people and willing to die.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver