NYT Publishes Hit Piece on Tulsi Gabbard Ahead of Debates
Aspiring Sushi Thieves Apprehended
October 13, 2019Big 10 Students Push to Rename Columbus Day
October 13, 2019In the entire mob of presidential hopefuls we’ve seen on stage at debates the past months, only one has anything close to common sense, and that’s Tulsi Gabbard. We have her to thank for tanking Kamala Harris’s run after her (fully accurate and well-deserved) character assassination during the second debate; she’s a veteran; and she’s pretty consistent about her values (at least compared to her competitors).
It’s no wonder the leftist establishment is trying to get rid of her.
While Gabbard failed to qualify for the third round of debates, she reached the benchmarks to participate in the fourth one. However, she’s announced that she’s “seriously considering” boycotting the debate in order to draw attention to the DNC/media’s notorious habit of rigging elections.
I am seriously considering boycotting October 15 debate to bring attention to DNC/corporate media’s effort to rig the 2020 primary. Not against Bernie this time, but against voters in early states Iowa, New Hampshire, South… –> https://t.co/x5P3GFGbyn pic.twitter.com/zBk9ONd3f5
— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 11, 2019
Given the timing of it all, then, it’s hard to imagine that a recent New York Times piece is anything but a rebuttal to her comments. Titled “What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?”, the piece emphasizes the support for her among “white nationalists” and the state of confusion into which she’s hurled Democratic strategists and politicians.
On podcasts and online videos, in interviews and Twitter feeds, alt-right internet stars, white nationalists, libertarian activists and some of the biggest boosters of Mr. Trump heap praise on Ms. Gabbard. They like the Hawaiian congresswoman’s isolationist foreign policy views. They like her support for drug decriminalization. They like what she sees as censorship by big technology platforms.
Then there is 4chan, the notoriously toxic online message board, where some right-wing trolls and anti-Semites fawn over Ms. Gabbard, calling her “Mommy” and praising her willingness to criticize Israel. In April, the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website, took credit for Ms. Gabbard’s qualification for the first two Democratic primary debates.
Okay, first of all, screw you very much for lumping in “libertarian activists” with your little basket of deplorables. Second of all, and more to the point, you can’t judge a candidate based on who supports them. Platforms, policies, values, and motives are all very complex things and can overlap in strange and unexpected ways. We all remember Brandi Maxxxx from Parks and Rec, right? The porn star who constantly aligned herself with Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler), despite Leslie’s protestations? The point is that’s a stupid thing to say and the NYT is stupid for publishing it.
But I digress.
Ms. Gabbard has disavowed some of her most hateful supporters, castigating the news media for giving “any oxygen at all” to the endorsement she won from the white nationalist leader David Duke. But her frequent appearances on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show have buoyed her support in right-wing circles.
Both Ms. Gabbard and her campaign refused requests for comment about her support in right-wing circles or threat to boycott the debate. Even some political strategists who have worked with her are at a loss to explain her approach to politics.
So. . . she condemns the “most hateful” of her supporters (which, if you remember, is EXACTLY what the left IMPLORED Trump to do in an identical situation– here’s the proof that it wouldn’t have mattered one bit) and is willing to have a dialogue with the political opposition. And she’s been very clear about her reasons for boycotting the debate. What’s so confusing about that?
Yet there is only confusion for several Democratic officials, activists and party officials, who privately say they have been a little spooked by Ms. Gabbard. Rival campaigns worry about her unpredictable attacks if she participates in the debate, pointing to her sharp jabs against Senator Kamala Harris of California in an earlier matchup.
“She’s taken a series of policy steps which signal to the right that she has deep areas of alignment,” said Neera Tanden, a longtime policy adviser to Hillary Clinton who now leads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
Basically it seems like Gabbard is a threat because she’s willing to think beyond party lines. The leftist establishment hates her because they can’t count on her to blindly support any/all of their corrupt power grabs, which incidentally is what appeals to her supporters.
Tulsi responded to the article on Twitter:
As if to prove my point, NYT just published a “greatest hits” smear piece. All your favorite hits in one article! These are the folks who will be acting as the “neutral” questioners/moderators of Tuesday’s debate lol
— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 12, 2019
Personally, I hope she doesn’t boycott the debate. She’s about the only option with anything worth listening to beyond sheer entertainment value. If nothing else, she could singlehandedly destroy another opponent with their own track record.
