Tulsi's possible destruction of the Democrat Party with Catalytic Aid from HRC
Based upon recent happenings in the Dem's Klown Kavalcade, a plausible construct can be achieved during this 2020 Primary that the party is busy sawing off the stem of the tree branch which supports them all. Dems have been notoriously incompetent in their Trump coup, though it isn't for lack of trying. I remember a video of a wren, trapped inside a house, trying to fly through the closed picture window door. It kept flying at it, causing it to finally fall dazed on the floor until its little bird brain could sort itself. The wren took off for parts unknown elsewhere in the home.
Now repetitive head trauma is generally not recommended as a way to improve one's cognitive or emotional faculties. Look at Jerry Nadler. He's run into that glass door so much his head has been pushed down into his shoulders. Nancy is arranging cervical traction for Nadler, so that his face will appear above the knot of his tie.
Right now, the Burbank Boy Scout and Russiaphobe, Adam Schiff is showing effects of his continuing to run into another glass door as he repeatedly runs to press with "secret facts--THE evidence" which will jerk DJT from the WH. The attempted denouement of Trumpian treachery, so far yielding nothing, except bulging eye balls makes Adam look, shall we say, weird.
The foregoing is a brief setting of the stage explaining the Dem Party Whiggification by 2026.
Just before initiating this essay, it was announced that Deval Patrick, who is employed by Romney's Bain Capital is entering the presidential race. Just what the Dems need--another Obama-like establishment crony capitalist. Mitt's brother from a different mother.
The D party is disrupted into several fragments, some narrowly separated from other fragments (e.g. centrists and corporatists) while Bernie, Yang etc. are a bit more left (though conservative commentators are fond of incorrectly labelling Bernie a Communist (= Russian asset). To the furthest left, we have the Far Left Quadrille, demonstrating social justice's compatibility with campaign finance violations, Twitter suppression, affairs with married man not your spouse while paying such person 200K for "advice".
The primary outlines the different preferences of candidate supporters's second choice, if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. Bernie voters will NOT vote for Warren or Biden. Mayor Pete voters will vote for Biden, and some vice versa. Warren voters will largely go centrist/establishment as their second choices. Top Tier Harris and Borey Booker will decide who their 14 total supporters will switch to.
So far, so good. Not so fast. As surely as the sun rises in the east and Hunter Biden collects bribes business insurance for large companies, the Magnicent Rodent (aka Medusa) will be forced to enter the primary because "my country needs me",
Thus, with a casual backhand and veiled threats, HRC will sweep all competitors from the field...Well, almost all.
The cowardly, conformist DNC thralls will obediently get in line--including Bernie, just as he did in 2016. Well, almost all.
In the best tradition of the Terminator, Tulsi will assail HRC with so many painful barbs that Killary will be spouting "debunked", "right wing talking points" and conspiracy theories" with her every retort. Let's see how HRC defends the scurrilous charge that Tulsi is a Russkiebot.
Tulsi, with enough support financially, could stay in contention to the convention, which Bernie abjectly failed to do in '16. What happens is that Tulsi mercilessly disassembles all of Clinton's corruption, so weakening her before the general election that Trump faces HRC half-beaten down already.
What does Tulsi have to lose? She's already getting a steady barrage of smears, lies and hysteria. She's not up for re-election, at least in 2020. What she may succeed in doing is to illustrate HRC's multiple, dreadful flaws clearly. Tulsi has wide cross-over appeal. Right of center folks like her. So do moderates and left of center folks. Tulsi thus has the ability to split mainstream, i.e., conventional-thinking Dems, away from the capitalist contingent (which possesses the most money but the least enthusiasm). She could aggregate her supporters to both sides of middle of the road. Peace advocates of any political stripe may see Tulsi as the best way out of our national tunnel of regime change wars and the accompanying sanctions.
I do not believe the SJW's will ever support Tulsi. Doubtful AOC would. The far left will continue drifting away from the heart of the current Dem party, yet will proclaim that they ARE the legitimate heirs to the Dem. party.
So the Far Lefties (FLs) would become one largely disconnected faction. The Gabbardites will pose a major centrist force, over-balancing the FLs. A third faction will be the current crony capitalist/elite-loving third way neoliberals.
A possible 4th Dem faction could be a small Blue Dog contingent, likely to merge with Republicans.
Of the possible partitioning of the Dems, the Blue Dog faction is less of a certainty to gain influence.
Berniecrats will abandon everybody except perhaps Tulsi, Yang. The FLs won't go further rightward than Bernie.
Tulsicrats will not support establishment candidates. They may simply not vote in the general election, because Tulsi doesn't seem to have a chance.
Small big-money faction. Large centrist/pro-Tulsi segment. Large but not dominant FL spectrum. If you think Speaker Pelosi has trouble herding her collection of unruly cats, it will be much worse in 2020--and Dems will lose the House too.
All speculation. Thought experiment if you will. Does this scenario seem plausible?
Can anyone really believe that Trump will not prosecute those who have made his presidency (and earlier) miserable? If the punishment(s) are mere empty gestures, can anyone expect escape from the growing surveillance state?
Comments
The vast majority of Bernie voters will vote for Biden or Warren
Gahrrrrrohnteeeeeeeeeed. (There was a commercial years back with a guy loudly bellowing it like that but I can't recall for what).
I'm willing to consider some tangible evidence that indicates otherwise.
My guess is that only about 50% of Bernie primary voters would vote for Tulsi if she miraculously garnered the nomination -- but she won't even be getting 15% of the vote in the primaries so . . . Oh, and Bernie (and Warren) may not even make it through the first ballot because Senators have to remain in DC during an impeachement trial, cutting down their time on the campaign trail:
@Wally
Thank you for ruining any semblance of productivity in my day as my mind tries to remember what that commercial was for.
Justin Wilson, Cajun cook.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQSm-jWqYyw&list=PLUnQFuLDlDXuf0VoGhBPVV... width:400 height:240]
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Thanks AZ
for giving us thy daily cajun
Miss the bayous'
culture, music and food.
Where I learned to cook!
question everything
Gaaaaahrohnteeeed!
Thanks. It's been on a loop in my brain since yesterday.
Try instead thinking about what McConnell will do
And let us all know what you think about it. Will he risk making things worse for Trump even though the Senate will surely vote not to convict and remove? Or will he be happy to ensure that Biden can campaign around the country while Warren and Bernie are stuck in DC?
And if you figure out what that commercial was about . . .
@Wally
I can't see him dragging it out. I don't think he cares that much who the Democratic Candidate is. His only concern is keeping the Senate. Obviously he would prefer that Trump win the General, but that is secondary. The longer a trial goes the more likely some Trump related disaster will come out and hurt those chances or a GOP senator will say or do something stupid.
Mitch is captaining the ship of the senate, he won't steer it into uncertain weather.
Mitch will act in
whatever way he considers most disadvantageous to the Dems and advantageous to his own political power and to the GOP, more those considerations than concern about whether whatever process favors Donald.
Saw an interview with a Dem operative from KY recently who says he's known McConnell since the 80s. He stated clearly that McC is no friend of Donald --despises him actually, all in private of course. The gist was that McC would prefer someone else other than Donald, probably someone more in the GOP mainstream.
So there is some hope there -- despite comments from Lindsay Graham that the senate trial might not go forward unless the w-blower's name is revealed -- that a fair and reasonable senate trial might be held. But does it go on a month or two months? Might depend on whether Mitch considers it to the GOP advantage to have Bernie and Liz locked up in their senate seats for a trial for a long time, off the campaign trail, or whether he prefers either of those as a beatable nominee as opposed to all the many centrists running and so a shorter trial would be planned.
Another thing he might entertain is the idea of holding a secret senate ballot on conviction. It only takes a majority of senators to so approve, so Ds would need to be unified and then get 4 R senators to agree. Even that might be a stretch, for sure. But possible given McC's dim view of the Donald.
A trial will go on at least two months
It certainly is all contingent on McC. Amazing how much power that guy wields.
There's no way all those senatorial egos could ever been contained in a lesser time span than that. I'm guessing considerably longer.
The bit about Graham insisting on demanding the name of the whistleblower to move towards a senate trial is genius on his part or whoever thunk it up. It makes the Dems have to go back on their word to proceed. Not a good look. But we all know the name of the guy. All this legalese silliness ain't gonna help the Dems.
Well I don't know
the name of the guy. No one outside of the inner circles knows either. Wouldn't advise Ds to concede on another point to Rs. Would look weak and set a bad precedent for other w-blowers anonymity.
On the Lindsay suggestion, it's far from being a done deal with the Mitchmeister. And if he is so foolish as to join hands with the Mayberry Macho Man and not allow a full trial, imagine the backlash of even skeptical folk who would wonder what the Rs are afraid of, not allowing the full process to be completed. Imagine how it would also energize a Dem base in the GE that is further enraged over GOP shenanigans unprecedented in the long, glorious history of impeachment proceedings.
I don't think power-wielding but still mainstream Mitch would go that far. And I think Lindsay is just trying to curry favor with his Trump-worshipping SC base as he has re-elect coming up.
There are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon
that know that the "whistleblower" is Eric Ciaramella, a CIA agent strategically planted in the White House to dig up crap on Trump. His "complaint" was triggered by Barr and Durham's investigation getting too close to Brennan, Clapper et al.
those tribes must be
unusually keyed in to digging out our deep political information. Amazing. I tried googling and while I didn't spend more than a few minutes, I couldn't see the name. Only news sites indicating a GOP Rep had put out a name. But news sites, like The Hill, don't mention the name.
Apparently the major MSM outlets -- which I usually manage to avoid wasting time on -- also are not mentioning the name.
Curious where you and the tribe found it?
Right here in my essay titled
Meet the CIA whistleblower
Every media outlet has been told not to release his name, but it's been out for weeks. Everyone in congress knows his name too, but they are letting this CIA kabuki play on. The democrats saying that they have to protect this CIA officer is just so damn cute when they stayed silent during Obama's tenure when he prosecuted more of them than any president combined. Total kabuki because he doesn't fit the definition of a WB.
Can't catch
'em all, especially those Halloween Night news dumps. Too busy getting ready to greet them twick or tweeters.
Your assertion is factually wrong
Removal of the President from office requires a 2/3rds vote of the Senate, not a simple majority. Please explain your statement. I don't buy it.
Confusingly worded
on my part.
I meant there would be a separate vote on the question of whether the vote on conviction would be held by secret ballot. This would be purely on a procedural matter, albeit a very important one. Such a vote on whether to vote with secret ballot would require only a majority of the senators to approve.
Obviously, as even my faithful and precocious canine Farnsworth knows, 2/3 of the sober senators present and voting are needed to actually convict this crook.
Tulsi has pissed me off.
Still ducking the Bolivian coup, which in my mind is a litmus test for her credibility on regime change.
I was happy to support her when she was running to the left of Bernie on foreign policy, but what's the point of her single issue candidacy if, when the chips are down, she folds like an empty suit on the one issue she claims to care most strongly about?
We've got way too many fauxgressives running already. Walk the walk, Tulsi.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I'll wait until the next debate which is just a few days away
I'm still willing to give her the benefit of the increasing doubts and concerns I'm developing about her. But yea, Bolivia is a major litmus test for me. We'll see if she says anything about it before the debate or during it. Even if she just says like Bernie that it "appears to be a coup" will suffice before I completely distance myself from her candidacy.
Meanwhile in Bolivia:
Waiting for Tulsi
and Liz until the next debate -- sounds reasonable to me. That would be Wednesday. But they might have to squeeze in a sidebar comment on Bolivia if the one question they're given on FP doesn't directly deal with it, a real possibility.
Frankly, much longer a delay would be disappointing. I hope Tulsi didn't have in mind a delay until the appropriate House committee looks into the situation, which may not happen anyway.
I very much doubt however her delay (or Liz's) is b/c she is pleased with the events down there. More about perhaps her unwillingness to take on yet another FP controversy to add to her already burdensome load of having to defend about meeting with Assad and being a Russian asset.
Meanwhile, there is always the opening in her later media interviews, esp with indy media like Jimmy Dore and joe Rogin, to directly ask her about Bolivia and the coup. But the longer she waits to comment on an event that doesn't seem complicated to understand, there is the additional issue of her silence to answer for.
The Bolivian coup is not as simple as appears.
Morales already served two terms as President. Then, he had the Constitution changed to allow him another term. Yes, he was elected with a plurality but this jiggling with the Constitution to obtain a temporary goal (one person's re-election) does not sound a proper way of doing business. This is too much like the current American coup underway, with Dems changing rules on the fly. I like Morales's socially liberal policies but does the end justify the means? What would stop Morales, had he not been deposed, from running for another term after completing the one he just vacated?
Well EM had been
in office nearly 14 yrs before the coup, so there is that. But not sure on the facts re changing the constitution as you assert -- it's my understanding that actually a plebiscite was held to allow him a 4th term, which narrowly lost, but the SupCt of that country ruled that their constitution did allow for another term. Not being familiar with all the constitutional particulars, this is just according to what I read at the wiki entry for EM.
What is really going on is similar to South Africa
and Rhodesia.
Where the ruling class for centuries has been of European descent and they are the minority population. The indigenous people, who are the majority population, want to throw the Europeans out.
Eventually that will probably happen, as is did in South Africa and Rhodesia, and ultimately the Europeans will be leaving the continent, fleeing for their lives.
And of course Israel faces the same situation.
Same shit different day.
Not the proper way of doing business?
Well, those judges were elected unlike the ones who made sure Bush won.
But yea, Morales probably could have handled a lot of things better. But I think it's more appropriate to find fault with the folks who staged and supported the coup which has led to this improper way of doing business right now:
Post on South Africa above was meant for you not Walkamile
Did you mean indigenous versus European populations?
Bolivia has some of the same white/non-white issues I am sure but don't really know the sociodynamics of the country. The ouster of Morales is clearly as anti-left wing as one can get. The new government is the old government, pre-Morales. The elitist, mostly white upper class takes over once again.
She'll have to do better than that.
'Appears to be a coup' was fine in the early hours when the situation was still fluid. Now that we have a far better understanding how the coup came about, I would hope for a much stronger statement from both Tulsi AND Bernie.
And considering how often Tulsi touts her indigenous heritage of a people subjugated for centuries by European colonialists and their descendants, I would also hope she would make at least some attempt to express solidarity with these fine ladies.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
this is all I could find
we need to hear more
Such a missed opportunity...
to call out Trump and his thuggery.
Bet her polling would have bounced at least 3-5 points overnight if she had taken the interviewer's bait and come out with a strong anti-interventionist statement. Fits in perfectly with her campaign messaging and allows her to own both the story and the news cycle.
Of course, she'd then have to endure even more scurrilous slams at her patriotism from the Hillbots, but that would just make her more popular anyway.
But that's the funny thing: for all her jar head, hoo-ah posturing, Tulsi's actually a pretty timid campaigner, especially when she's outside her designated 'al quaeda' lane.
What Tulsi doesn't understand is that for her campaign Bolivia is a fastball right down the middle of the plate, but she's too scared to swing for fear she might hit a homer.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Possibly, but
actually she doesn't strike me as a timid pol. Not for someone so fiercely against US regime change wars and overall the massive waste in lives and resources that our FP brings. It takes some courage to challenge the FP Establishment so directly knowing the severe backlash that would follow. Although likely Tulsi underestimated that.
As for Bolivia, politically it's a small back-burner issue for even the minority of voters who are familiar with the latest. Iow, we are in an elite here in terms of overall numbers in the population in being knowledgable about it. All the more so as the MSM ignores or vastly underreports it. Or misleadingly reports it, failing to utter the word "coup". Just some far-away small country down south -- SOP for them folks there, think most folks here.
So politically this has far more downside risk than upside gain for pols, even as raising the issue and calling out the coup is the right thing to do. But pols usually are risk averse and do careful political calculations, so the silence from all non-Bernie candidates is not a huge surprise.
Typical feckless Dem strategery.
By tying Bolivia to her pre-existing narrative on regime change, Tulsi can MAKE the coup a front burner issue and OWN it if she chooses to. THAT's the job of an actual politician running in a non-kabuki election: to publicize and promote issues and events that favor her candidacy and messaging.
Maybe, marinated in beltway CW as you are, you're simply not used to a real campaign run on actual issues, but I can assure you the results are typically a lot more successful than whatever the establishment Dems have been pretending to do the last thirty years.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Agreed, Tulsi must pick her battles
And Bolivia ain't it. How many Amurricans can locate Bolivia on the map? How many even know it is in the Western Hemisphere? My calculation is that 98.4% of Americans don't give a rip about Bolivia. Why should Tulsi then lay into our VZ/Bolivia problems, which are most useful as anti-Trump weapons? Her job now is to overcome a growing field of Klown rivals. This means taking the rivals down. She saves ammunition and exposure for winning the primary instead of prematurely bombarding Trump primarily. If she wins against the Dem machine, then her pivot should be against Trump and the many opportunities he presents for well-deserved criticism.
The battle has come to her...
and right now she's hiding out in her foxhole.
Besides, she's barely at 4%. What's she got to lose by standing up on her for her core (and only) issue? It's a big opportunity if she really believes in what she says.
Also I wouldn't be so quick to discount the importance of Bolivia to a LOT of voters who are sick to death of all our international meddling, and that's especially true of Dem primary voters and even more true of those with relatives south of the border.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Not all attacks have to be engaged
The wise commander knows when to withdraw. Your estimate of how many Americans CARE about Bolivia or Evo Morales is grossly exaggerated. Most citizens could not tell you the name of our Supreme Court's Chief Justice. And you think Americans will care? We, NHK, are political junkies, living in a political bubble. The goings-on in Bolivia mean absolutely NOTHING to 90+% of Americans. And of those who care, the RWs think dumping Evo was a good thing--getting rid of Commie bastards running countries.
Who do you think her supporters are anyway?
People who think the coup was a good idea?
You really think it would hurt her support by articulating a strong counter narrative to the MSM bullshit? Or maybe you think Tulsi would lose Dem primary donors by coming out strongly against Trump's regime change?
And again, what has she got to lose? So many rationalizations for inaction, an yet no appreciation for the benefits of separating herself from the rest of the field.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Lightening rod issues
Gain exposure real time
An opportunity to advertise
Speech writers could make hay with this
If Tulsi is on the pulse
question everything
90% is conservative.
I would go with 95 or better.
I have to say I agree.
While many Americans may not be able to find Bolivia on a map, how many could locate Iraq on a map before we illegally invaded that country? I personally don't think American ability to locate a country on a map should be the litmus test of how many people will care about one more US backed military coup to depose a socialist leader. The Iraq war cemented this country's status as a full time endless warmonger and many people now see that for just what it was. Maybe people who care about Bolivia are a small minority now, but if Tulsi or any supposed lefty makes the point that this is just another resource stripping war on another people who did NOTHING to the US maybe more will wake up and actually bother to look at a map. And maybe more would indeed see these wars as illegal, which to me would be a huge improvement over the silence on that we have now.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Timing.
Attacks must be timed and coordinated for maximum effect. Tulsi can oppose Bolivian coups etc. Fine. But her silence does not equate to approval or even acquiescence. Here is a point to be made repeatedly: Tulsi has a military mind. Planning, logistics, coordination, execution, desired goals are all part of successful military campaigning. People tend to misunderstand the reality of Tulsi's positions and world view. She thinks like a soldier--but a compassionate soldier.
I do not agree
and I am a Tulsi Gabbard supporter. I know that Tulsi is very strategic, but this is an issue where she did not have to be strategic. She could have said something to the effect that it appeared to be a coup and left it at that.
Many of her long time supporters on Twitter are dismayed at her lack of making a definitive statement.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Tulsi has a military mind
the Major gets limited television options other than non-Dem party line venues. After 3+ years, she is still assailed about visiting Assad, even though her reasoning is perfectly valid. Why waste her effort and detract from other issues when no American troops are (yet) on Bolivian soil? This is a potential cancer on her limited resources, which she cannot expend usefully on a regime change which has NOT led to war.
98.6% of Americans don't give a blip about Syria or . . .
. . . Ukraine or Yemen or Iraq or ad infinitum.
I dug up a post September 2019 debate poll from 538 which indicated that all of .07% of Dem voters considered foreign policy a primary concern.
It kind of funny in a way that we get in such intense arguments about it when we are obviously in such a tiny minority. Or not so funny. I try to find some humor in just about everything. And of those who are concerned about foreign policy -- including the mucketymucks who care because they are into reaping the rewards of US corporate hegemony, that makes us an even smaller group of fabulous furry or not so furry freaks (freaks in the best sixties' sense of the term lest anyone consider my use of the term yet another reason to jump on my head).
But of those of us to whom it is mighty important from a lefty anti-war, anti-imperialist perspective, I don't think it's stretching it at all to say that Bolivia is really the hot button issue right now.
In any event, I really appreciate the discussion here on the matter in the widest sense. Lots of perspectives have been shared without any real backbiting. I feel better and more informed for it.
And hey if you're gonna give Tulsi so much latitude, try to find some of the same spirit regarding Bernie's public positions.
Bernie still has my respect
In the 2 million to 1 chance he has of winning the nomination, if he does win, he gets my vote. Maybe Yang too. But I won't vote for any of the Klowns otherwise--except of course for Tulsi, who is my first choice, obviously.
The trick isn't in winning the general
. . . which I think he might, still maybe, be able to pull off.
The big bugaboo is winning the primary. The same for Tulsi. Actually, it's way more difficult for Tulsi -- and she's even messing with any kind of third party chances in the future if she remains silent on the coup in Bolivia. I gotta go look up who her advisors are and their backgrounds. They are missing a golden opportunity (which is ok with me given I support Bernie).
I'm a firm Tulsi
backer, but at 4-6% I can't say at this point she's much more than a back-burner candidate. When a back-burner candidate tries to elevate a back-burner FP issue into people's consciousness and use it to elevate her candidacy, I would imagine the odds are very strongly against her.
But as I say, it's easy for anonymous posters online to take a bold stance. Their reputation and career aren't on the line, conveniently.
As for your personal slam about being too steeped in beltway CW, I suppose for some people being just glancingly familiar with that mindset and referencing it can get a poster a target on his back as a DC hack or similar. I do admit I watch that Rising show with Krystal Ball most days. I believe it's put out by The Hill, which is Beltway. Guilty as charged. Occasionally glance at Politico and 538. Knowing what the establishment is thinking might come in handy, I confess. And there's the stopped clock syndrome too. Apparently you find all this a bit suspicious or not lefty-progressive. So be it. I am not here to make comments conforming in any way to your views.
But yes, I am actually quite familiar with real campaigns run on real issues, the good and the bad, successful and not so much so -- probably going back much further than most here.
'Back Burner'
This story is being mentioned daily in every major periodical in the world.
The UN and even the Pope have been asked to intervene.
But for you, the most egregious example of US' interventionist policy toward Latin America in at least the last ten years is no big deal and nobody cares.
OK then.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Misstating my position
of course and overreacting emotionally to me. I do find it a big issue -- which is why I said I was disappointed in Tulsi and Liz's silence so far. If it wasn't a big deal, I wouldn't bother with the disappointment. Also noted it was a coup. But all that is a different matter from what 95% of the public thinks, which re Bolivia probably isn't much at this point. Which is why I suggested the possible reason for the candidates-but-one silence on the matter. I am just trying to step into their shoes.
And "major periodicals" may bring it up, but how many Americans read them these days? Or read at all? I'm talking about the (presumed) non-coverage in the traditional electronic mass mainstream media, not fancy elitist periodicals like (the formerly honest) The New Yorker and similar.
Personal anecdote re The Folks Out There in the Hinterlands: I have a politically-interested left-leaning guest here currently, former teacher, nearly as well educated and informed as my two Italian historian guests last summer. Quite a reader too, as we exchanged titles of our favorite books last night. But on getting her regular political news and takes (and she can name nearly all 20 candidates), it's the regular cable channel menu for her -- Msnbc first and maybe some CNN. She had never heard of consortiumnews or Rbt Parry when I brought it up last night, even though all here are quite familiar with the site. Nor Stephen Cohen, Max Blumenthal -- all the rest.
And this is from a well-educated voter. So, in addition to the 5% of the Great Washed, what are the chances of all those many Great Unwashed out there digging into elitist periodicals to find out more about Bolivia? Heh. As our local Reptilian Overlord noted, we are in our little political information bubble here, and it's a mistake to assume the rest of the 99% of the public are similarly well informed.
The interviewer who asked the question
is Fiorella Isabel of the Convo Couch. Fiorella Isabel and Craig "Pasta" Jardula host the show. She is primarily a Bernie supporter but also supports Tulsi, so I doubt that she was baiting Tulsi. She asked the question because most of Tulsi's supporters (at least on Twitter) want to know why Tulsi is suddenly silent on Bolivia.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I didn't mean 'bait'...
in a negative sense necessarily. Just that the reporter's question (which included the word 'coup') offered Tulsi an opportunity to bite which she declined (and props to the reporter for asking the provocative question).
You can kinda hear the reporter's disappointment at such a milquetoast answer in her 'All right, thank you'.
She's not alone.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
She’s always said she opposes regime change *wars*
It seems to me now more than ever, she phrases it this way quite deliberately.
In the past it grated on me because she specifically excludes the “war on terror” from her “anti war” position — she even called herself a ‘hawk” when it comes to military aggression and killing ever more “Islamic terrorists” — yet she is seen and touted as a “peace” candidate.
Now it appears we are seeing another subtle layer to her careful phrasing. She has never (to my knowledge) opposed regime change per se, but rather regime change wars. She talks primarily about her “brothers and sisters in uniform” as the reason.
Since the coup in Bolivia isn’t a “war” and her brothers and sisters in uniform are not being put in harms way or openly involved in it, her position is ... that she has to think more about it and gather more facts on the situation and it’s various narratives before having an opinion.
I can see why supporters who expected a strong response from her, speaking out against the US intervention there, would be disappointed or taken by surprise. I’m not only because I’ve already been there. I would love to support an antiwar candidate or better yet, a peace candidate. But the first time I heard her position on the need to step up the bombing of “radical islamist terrorists” I realized that didn’t cut it, for me. Call me crazy (I’ve been called worse), but if I support a candidate as antiwar, I want them to oppose ALL wars, and genuinely support peace as a goal. And I don’t see being a hawk on the global war of terror to be supportive of peace.
So my disappointment came early on, as soon as I began looking into her candidacy. I felt sad that this was what now passes for a peace candidate. Speaking out against any wars is good enough, and better than nothing! It so reminded me of early Obama, with his speeches against “dumb” wars (which to me meant basically all of them). People so believed that meant what they wanted it to mean, he got a Nobel peace prize just for being elected president. Yay peace candidate! Oh... wait... dumb wars evidently meant something else. Joke’s on me for hearing what I wanted him to be saying.
Gabbard’s “regime change wars” is, I think, similar to Obama’s dumb wars. Allowing her supporters to expect clear and strong opposition to regime change, in all its shady forms, and to oppose wars, bombing and killing across the globe, as counterproductive. I’m much more wary since Obama, and I’ve always felt she was being a bit slippery in her careful phrasing. My spidey sense said look deeper, and I think it was right.
Theoretically possible,
as she is a pol, but very much doubt if Tulsi meant to split such hairs into "war" regime change bad vs good non-war regime changes. Such cutesy distinctions would seriously undermine her credibility overall. Anti-regime change war with no qualifiers is the raison d'être of her candidacy. It's the whole shebang. If she meant to split hairs, her credibility is down the tubes and she is done as a political figure.
It could possibly be that, not being a particular expert in Bolivian democracy and politics, she is not going to rush into a premature judgment without first taking time to carefully consider the situation. Easy enough for us mostly anonymous online warriors to sound off bravely, but quite another if you are putting your public reputation on the line.
That said, I think there's enough to see clearly already to at least make a statement along the lines of These latest developments are troubling and are obviously not in line with regular political processes in that country. However I will seek more information on the situation and have further comments as I get more complete information.
Correct. People want a vision--not semantics
Being against regime change wars means being against all regime change wars--even if the proposed new government is actually socially liberal. To make fine differences, such as some suggest, between approved and non-approved regime change will confuse and alienate voters. Tulsi is viewed as a straight talker. Yes, she may avoid answering certain issues, but she is pretty direct when speaking her fundamental beliefs. People still lampoon Bill Clinton for his question" what is the meaning of is?"
Yep, we seem to
agree on this one. Straight shooter indeed, well put. If she was hair-splitting, it would put her in Al "There Is No Controlling Legal Authority" Gore and John "I Was For It Before I Was Against It' Kerry territory.
As for the poor maligned WJC and his unfortunate utterance you cite: I cut the guy considerable slack on that appearance. Recall that he had been presented with a very detailed explanation by the Starr Chamber Boys going into the fine grain of what constituted, for them, the type of sexual activity they were seeking to uncover. Just about every word in their readout of sexual conduct had a separate, precise definition, except possibly for the word that Bill asked about, "is". That's my recollection anyway. He was trying to give back in kind to those scumbags. He just didn't appreciate at the time how that short clip would end up being replayed endlessly in the public sphere, out of context as I recall.
Stupid of him to even respond official and legally in that process. He should have entered a default on the underlying lawsuit and put the matter to rest, however messy some of the financial and legal consequences. Never ever go under oath in a legal proceeding having to testify about your sex life. Unless absolutely necessary, which it wasn't in Bill's case. Poor legal counsel he had, and probably vastly overpaid.
For me it's like Obama's FISA vote.
The scales fall....
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Tulsi has never characterized herself as a Peace candidate
However, she has characterized herself as being against regime change wars and has spoken out against sanctions. She has also spoken out many times about the fact that so many innocent people are being killed and these wars are making us in this country less safe. Further she has spoken out against the Bush doctrine of using pre-emptive strikes.
I also know that she has said in the past that she supported the use of drones which is bombing, but she has also said that she would limit their use significantly. As far as I know, every candidate including Bernie supports drone warfare.
One of the big points Tulsi has made about how wasteful these wars are fiscally which is the very same point we use to make in our local Peace vigil. She has talked about how we can save trillions of dollars and use that money back home for the betterment of our own people. So it could be called splitting hairs. I call it nuance but the overall position of her campaign seems to be clear.
So here is my personal take on Tulsi's foreign policy: Get out of existing wars, stop arming terrorists, bring the troops home, use diplomacy to solve problems first, and use the enormous money spent on war to do good things in the US.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Perfect comment.
And now that I have finally come to the conclusion, after decades of soft brainwashing, that ALL our wars need to stop, I fully agree, we need true anti-war candidates, period. All this dancing around about the war on terror should be seen for the farce that is when this country arms those "terrorists" to do its bidding. The whole idea that we should have a war based on that just ignores the entire premise that we make more terrorists the longer we are there and that's not even really counting the ones we made intentionally! The idea that we keep fighting wars against something we ourselves created and tout those as "good wars" just shows, to me, how much bullshit the American public not only buys into, but willingly and enthusiastically accepts while this country rots from within.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
She's doing exactly what we would expect a leader to do
I've read the thread, and I do agree that she could use this as a campaign issue to create synergy with her anti-interventionist regime change platform. So why doesn't she? Seems the assumption is that she's being a chickenshit politician. That doesn't seem consistent with her character. What did she say when asked? She said she's still gathering the facts. It would be reckless to take the politically expedient path if this is the case. She's a major in the army and a congressperson with a security clearance who sits on the House Committee on Armed Services. It's possible she's heard things other than the two major narratives.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
Excellent point, bondibox
Almost certainly she knows lots more than we serfs. She is no chickenshit. She went to war--and did it twice. Her candidacy is important. Face it c99'ers, Bolivia is small potatoes in the larger picture. Expending precious ammunition ( = media exposure and money) on a relatively inconsequential issue for Amerikans such as Bolivia (although obviously a huge issue for those who live there) is unwise. We, her supporters, know where she stands on regime change wars.
Dunno about the
"Democrat Party" -- the term RWers going back at least to Joe McCarthy have used to denigrate the Democratic Party. The actual flawed DP itself is definitely no more than a work in progress, as we see how the party establishment reacts to the possibility of a Sanders or Warren non-establishment or semi-establishment nominee. Likely they will have to just suck it up and go along with the program, or risk splitting in two and ceasing to be more than just the moderate wing of the Republican Party and easily absorbed into non-existence.
As for Tulsi, she just doesn't have enough clout currently with the rest of the party, not at 4-6% support, so all the speculation is rather pointless. When she reaches 250-300k individual donors and more, and nudges up a bit more in the polls, then we can speculate. Until then, she is out there building a good name for herself fending off the McCarthyite smears from the establishment wing of the party, and calling out our foreign policy establishment's regime change inclinations. As such she is building a solid foundation for a future run, in the unlikely event we still have a country and elections 4-8 yrs from now. But for now she can't be considered more than a lone and unwelcome voice of dissent in a party whose FP stance has gone cold warrior crazy.
As a fellow lone nut dissenter myself, she would have my vote if the primary in this formerly Golden State were held today. I expect that will still be my posture come voting time in March. Meanwhile Bernie also has my blessings. And as always, I consider Liz an acceptable alternative pick should she make it through to the nom, and definitely as VP for the Bernmeister.
@wok - what's your thinking on what McC will do?
. . . once Trump is impeached? I assume you think impeachment is a done deal at this point (I do) whether it's justified in terms of the presumed limited to U-gate charges or not (I don't re the former) . . .
My pure guess,
as I have not known Mitch McConnell for decades, is that he would see the public backlash downside to no senate trial and so doesn't pull a Lindsay Graham and seek to thwart the entire senate process. He might then plan for a 5-week trial -- not too long as to drag out the process unduly and annoy the GOP base, but long enough to throw a monkey wrench into the Dem primary process. Maybe 6 wks tops, but not 8.
I think it might be asking too much of him to allow for a vote on a secret senate ballot, let alone quietly encourage it behind the scenes. But still a possibility, if a bit slender. This would be a political calculation based on what further evidence the House presents against Donald and how damaging it is, coupled with his hatred of DT, versus the considerable flak he would get from DT's backers and Fox for allowing such a risky vote that could topple Donald. Right now, the U-gate evidence just isn't enough to force McC's hand on a secret vote. But it's still early and presumably the Ds have much more evidence to show. One hopes anyway.
Once one starts clearing the plumbing, what happens to the crap
McTurtle will not allow a Graham-style cover-up, if he has advance assurances that the ensuing investigation will steer clear of McConnell-related funny business (particularly Elaine Chao's Chinese doings). A true Senate trial will air so much dirty Dem laundry, including possible true accusations of Senators Coons, and a few others, who threatened Zelensky earlier this year on a Ukraine visit, that Wolodymyr better stay on the DS party line. That act was clearly seditious and direct demand, if true, of demanding a quid pro quo--the quo would be keeping the Biden story under wraps.
Democrats just reacted to a possible Sanders win
they voted to hobble him from the git go with Nancy's pay go rules.
Nah... the donor class will keep the dems in power just like they keep letting the repubs up after every time they cause some huge crisis. Obama said that they drove the car in the ditch and that dems should take away their keys to the car. But then they gave them back in just two short years and here we are and here we go again.
The Dem party is split and the split will widen
Bernie hasn't got a chance. The Hillbots are ensuring that. The majority of the Bernie true believers will not rejoin the remaining Dem party once it is apparent the DNC will screw him (and many others) out of winning.
Warren is a big league phony. I wouldn't trust her to turn out the bedroom lights. She will switch her positions faster than a dancer on a stripper pole. Who-Iz-Liz will make your head spin with her flippin' and floppin'.
My position is that this election will test the future viability of current Dem adherents as a semi-unified pseudo-opposition party. Dems will continue coalescing ideologically around different, mutually incompatible political systems. Why haven't the Dems given the public a political platform, other than Orange Man Bad? It is because they are too divided to agree on one.
Prime example: M4A. There are many versions of not quite-M4A, which I call M4A-X4. This and anti-war should be the basis of Dem policy offerings. It isn't. The bogus Green New Deal is 90% social justice warrior engineering and 10% environmental engineering.
If either Bernie or Liz
are nominated, the party, or at least its most public leaders, will fall in line, largely, behind M4A as it would be the center-piece of either campaign in the GE. And as the proposal gets even further traction with the public, the DP leaders, having to run for election themselves, will not want to be caught on the wrong side politically. Especially true of Pelosi, facing an aggressive and smart challenger from her left in her SF district.
Not hard to imagine how party leader rhetoric on M4A will suddenly begin to be adjusted leftward on the issue, beginning at the time when it becomes clear either B or L will be the nominee. Starting with something like, "Actually I never said I was totally against it. I just had some questions about some of the proposals being offered. And there were so many ..."
Seriously?
Did you see my first comment to you or have you seen the essay I posted? Your faith in what the democrats will do is really hard to understand since they just passed legislation that would make it very difficult for Bernie's plans.
And yes the democrat leaders have come out and said that they do not want MFA. There are plenty of centrists who will continue voting for Nancy and the rest of the MFA gate blockers. But nice optimism.
We simply disagree,
which happens here sometimes.
Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I do try to consider political realities as I look ahead. And in the scenario outlined above, M4A will be front and center in the GE with B or L as the nominee. Pelosi will be at risk against her more progressive House opponent in trying to defend the safe incrementalist center against an increasingly popular and important issue like M4A, and she could also be considered to be undermining her party's nominee with a too-vigorous anti-M4A stance. Suffice it to say, I think she will be in a difficult position politically trying to hold on to the status quo.
Bogus
Bogus environmental engineering at that.
Bernie has been flip flopping on open borders bigtime
And it is beginning to make some noise on the intertubes. In 2016 according to Bernie open borders was a Koch idea. (Cheap imported labor and bad for the working class).
But now with Trump putting up a wall, suddenly open borders are a good idea. Because the social justice warriors have said so.
And he has now flip flopped on Israel as well. Everybody who criticizes Israel is now an anti-Semite where they were not it 2016. They are deplorables now. Probably has figured out that what has happened to Rhodesia, South Africa and now Bolivia, will be the fate of Israel as well. And that can't happen because unlike these other countries, Israel has a right to exist as a Caucasian/European minority run country outside Europe.
I just realized why there are so many Dem candidates
Could it be that HER encouraged all of them to run with promises of cabinet positions if they would just drop out and endorse her. "All of the failed Democratic candidates have endorsed HER!" as if that is a ringing endorsement.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
Plausible