Tulsi Gabbard weighing 2020 presidential bid

[goldenequity]

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is considering running for president in 2020, says a source with direct knowledge of her deliberations.
Tulsi Gabbard weighing 2020 presidential bid
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ial-bid-917418


Rania Batrice, an adviser to the progressive congresswoman and deputy campaign manager on Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign,
has been putting out feelers for digital and speechwriting staff for Gabbard.
One person approached about the positions say that 2020 wasn’t mentioned explicitly, but it was heavily implied.

Batrice denied that the staffers are being hired for a presidential campaign.
She did not dispute, however, that Gabbard is considering joining what’s expected to be a crowded field of Democratic presidential contenders.

“I think everybody is focused on 2018, but we will see what happens after that,” Batrice said in an interview.
“Someone like Tulsi, with her experience, is an important voice in the party and the country.”

Top aides to Gabbard did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Amid the clamor of Trump headlines and focus on higher-profile candidates,
Gabbard has been quietly making the traditional moves of a presidential candidate.
She recently visited Iowa, where locals urged her to run for president, according to the Iowa City Press-Citizen.
She keynoted a progressive gathering in New Hampshire in September.
And she’s writing a book due out this spring titled, “Is Today the Day?: Not Another Political Memoir.”

A 37-year-old Iraq War veteran, Gabbard won her House seat in 2012 and became the first Hindu to serve in Congress.
She has distinguished herself with an anti-interventionist foreign policy approach, and a progressive populist economic policy
that has earned her praise from the likes of Sanders and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Gabbard has also drawn controversy, which would surely become a factor in any presidential race.
In 2017, she came under heavy criticism for meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad
and expressing skepticism that he was behind chemical attacks, urging caution over the use of military force.
She also raised suspicion among progressives for meeting with president-elect Donald Trump during the presidential transition in 2016.

But Gabbard became a darling of the left in 2016 when she resigned as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee
after fighting against a primary debate schedule that seemed designed to give Hillary Clinton an advantage.
She was one of the first members of Congress to endorse Sanders.

“There’s a very clear contrast and clear difference when it comes to our two Democratic candidates,” Gabbard said at the time,
“and who will exercise good judgment” in matters of war.

[goldenequity]

[shakey1]

She'd make a good secretary of state.

[goldenequity]

She'd make a good secretary of state.

although true..
you'd then have to have Rand in the driver seat.
There IS no one else.

what I mean is... Sec State is a submissive role; main job is to 'express' the foreign policy of POTUS..
so there's NO POTUS I can think of that would appoint her except Rand.
The ptb want NO populist candidate. NONE.
both Rand and Tulsi would be fighting the same 2 headed snake.

[shakey1]

although true..
you'd then have to have Rand in the driver seat.
There IS no one else.

[CaptUSA]

I'd like her for almost any foreign policy role. Secretary of State, UN Ambassador, Secretary of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director... But President??

Sorry Tulsi. There are lots and lots of roles for you, but not where you could influence domestic or economic policy.

[jmdrake]

We if nothing else this would effectively block Hillary 3.0.

[Todd]

What's interesting about Tulsi is she doesn't fit into the cookie cutter Progressive box. She has deviated from the party line of not being critical of religious extremism and she hasn't won any friends for it. Sounds like she isn't a partisan hack and has principles and the ability to think. In this article they call her an "Islamophobe". lol.

https://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...-tulsi-gabbard

[jmdrake]

What's interesting about Tulsi is she doesn't fit into the cookie cutter Progressive box. She has deviated from the party line of not being critical of religious extremism and she hasn't won any friends for it. Sounds like she isn't a partisan hack and has principles and the ability to think. In this article they call her an "Islamophobe". lol.

https://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...-tulsi-gabbard

I don't get how not wanting to randomly drone bomb Muslim children = Islamaphobe.

[dean.engelhardt]

I hope she runs. It would be interesting. There are so, very few anti-neoconservatives, its refreshing to see one running for high office.

[oyarde]

I know all you weirdos love her , like kucinich just a different flavor of communist . Endorsed bernie .

[specsaregood]

although true..
you'd then have to have Rand in the driver seat.
There IS no one else.

what I mean is... Sec State is a submissive role; main job is to 'express' the foreign policy of POTUS..
so there's NO POTUS I can think of that would appoint her except Rand.
The ptb want NO populist candidate. NONE.
both Rand and Tulsi would be fighting the same 2 headed snake.

If Randal was somehow in the driver seat, then we would be in a position to do MUCH BETTER than Gabbard.
I'll just drop this here. She is all talk.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard - 31%

H RES 397: NATO
Vote Date: June 27, 2017	Vote: AYE		Bad Vote.
This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.” The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force
Vote Date: June 16, 2016	Vote: NAY		Bad Vote.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad. The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”

H R 4909: Use of Military Force
Vote Date: May 18, 2016	Vote: NAY		Bad Vote.
During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere. The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.” H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Vote Date: March 23, 2015 Vote: AYE Bad Vote. Ukraine Military Aid. House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia. The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities. H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870 Vote Date: June 19, 2014 Vote: NAY Bad Vote. Weapons to Syrian Rebels. During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. Fortenberry noted on the House floor that "the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations," that "sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists," and that "it has already happened." He added: "The naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted." The House rejected Fortenberry's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 167 to 244 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because arming "moderate" rebels in a foreign country is tantamount to going to war, which would require a declaration of war by Congress. Also, the United States should follow the Founders' advice not to become involved in foreign quarrels

H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine
Vote Date: April 1, 2014	Vote: AYE		Bad Vote.
Ukraine Aid. This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. [ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ] The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.

[dannno]

I'd like her for almost any foreign policy role. Secretary of State, UN Ambassador, Secretary of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director... But President??

Sorry Tulsi. There are lots and lots of roles for you, but not where you could influence domestic or economic policy.

Compared to what? She would be the best of the Dems.

[jkr]

WE REALLY need a dem we can point to as reasonable, so we dont appear partisan...but I cant find any...

R there any democrats that r not pieces of sh it?

[oyarde]

Compared to what? She would be the best of the Dems.

There are and never will be any best dems is my guess.

[Jamesiv1]

She would be a formidable opponent.

[Todd]

WE REALLY need a dem we can point to as reasonable, so we dont appear partisan...but I cant find any...

R there any democrats that r not pieces of sh it?

Yep. Just like any other party they have them. They just aren't popular in their party and usually get blackballed. Jim Webb comes to mind.

[RJ Liberty]

Tulsi should run, if nothing more than as a politician talking sanely about foreign policy. The Left and the Right need someone willing to stand up to the Military Industrial Complex. Having her run, speaking in thousands of interviews broadcast on every network, would make people think about why we are continually in a dozen Mid-East countries; the number of people questioning what we've been told would be at a scale that hasn't been seen since Ron Paul's 2012 campaign.

You don't have to vote for her, but you should support her running.

[dannno]

Tulsi should run, if nothing more than as a politician talking sanely about foreign policy. The Left and the Right need someone willing to stand up to the Military Industrial Complex. Having her run, speaking in thousands of interviews broadcast on every network, would make people think about why we are continually in a dozen Mid-East countries; the number of people questioning what we've been told would be at a scale that hasn't been seen since Ron Paul's 2012 campaign.

You don't have to vote for her, but you should support her running.

Might not be a bad idea to vote for her in the primary, there will likely be no Republican primary and we don't know what the libertarian primary will look like yet.

Since she is anti-establishment, if she wins they won't be pushing as hard for her to beat Trump like they would if they get Biden or somebody like that in.

But ya she could make the dem debates look similar to the republican debates of 2008..

[RJ Liberty]

Might not be a bad idea to vote for her in the primary, there will likely be no Republican primary and we don't know what the libertarian primary will look like yet.

Since she is anti-establishment, if she wins they won't be pushing as hard for her to beat Trump like they would if they get Biden or somebody like that in.

But ya she could make the dem debates look similar to the republican debates of 2008..

I wonder if Rand would run in a primary against Trump. Then we'd have presidential candidates questioning foreign policy on both sides.

[thoughtomator]

Gabbard is far and away the highest quality candidate available to the Democrats.

She will be ignored by them in favor of some multiculti albatross that will lead them to yet another round of expensive losses.

[dannno]

I wonder if Rand would run in a primary against Trump. Then we'd have presidential candidates questioning foreign policy on both sides.

Not bloody likely (he probably shouldn't, but I would support him if he did)

[Aratus]

We if nothing else this would effectively block Hillary 3.0.

True... talk is of Joe Biden running again,
let alone Bernie and Hillary going at it, or
even Elizabeth Warren, many of the top
Democrats are over the age of 70, she is
younger, and is reaching a career peak...

[shakey1]

I'd like her for almost any foreign policy role. Secretary of State, UN Ambassador, Secretary of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director... But President??

Would seem to be her strong suit.

[kahless]

The way they are promoting Beto O'Rourke reminds me how they promoted Obama early on.

[Swordsmyth]

Compared to what? She would be the best of the Dems.

And that isn't saying much.

Capt is absolutely right.

[Swordsmyth]

WE REALLY need a dem we can point to as reasonable, so we dont appear partisan...but I cant find any...

R there any democrats that r not pieces of sh it?

NO

[Swordsmyth]

If she has any sincerity they will cheat even more than they did last time against Bernie and she won't stand a chance.
If she isn't sincere (and there is good reason to believe that) she might stand a chance but she will not change a thing if she wins.

[jmdrake]

Gabbard is far and away the highest quality candidate available to the Democrats.

She will be ignored by them in favor of some multiculti albatross that will lead them to yet another round of expensive losses.

Does Gabby have any native Hawaiian her? She'll need at least more than 1/1024 in order to top Elizabeth Warren.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This thread has too much talk and not enough pics.