Tulsi Gabbard says she's running for president
Source: The Hill
BY CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO - 01/11/19 06:48 PM EST
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) said Friday she has decided to run for president in 2020.
"I have decided to run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week," she told CNN's Van Jones in an interview set to air Saturday.
"There are a lot of reasons for me to make this decision," Gabbard explained.
"There are a lot of challenges that are facing the American people that I'm concerned about and that I want to help solve," she said.
Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/425010-tulsi-gabbard-announces-2020-white-house-bid
No comment.
zonkers
(5,865 posts)Response to zonkers (Reply #1)
Post removed
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Recalculating...
marble falls
(57,102 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)What a strange thing that was to say, I think.
Zorro
(15,740 posts)DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)help the Russians hack the campaign?
Don't wan't that homophobic traitor on our team ever again.
mahina
(17,668 posts)still_one
(92,219 posts)negative views on taking immigrants in from war torn areas in the middle east, implies to me she still has Islamic phobic issues
However, her continuous appearances on fox news to bash President Obama told me everything I need to know why she is NOT qualified to be the Democratic nominee for President
George II
(67,782 posts)Link to tweet
?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticaloasis.freeforums.net%2Fthread%2F18802%2Fgabbard-dishonestly-attacked-smeared-hirono%3Fpage%3D1
GWC58
(2,678 posts)Trump, maybe? I think so. Hey Tulsi, thanks, but no thanks. 😳🤔
mahina
(17,668 posts)calguy
(5,313 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)mastermind
(229 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)who can whip the Dotard's azz will emerge.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)helps fill out the ol resume.
Sapient Donkey
(1,568 posts)liked among liberals I heard discussing her. I need to go refresh myself on the details, but I do recall coming away feeling that she didn't seem to value a few important liberal values. This opinion had nothing to do with her opinion on Syria. In fact, I was reading up on her to make sure the ire she was receiving wasn't simply due to her similar alignment with Trump on Syria.
still_one
(92,219 posts)nycbos
(6,034 posts)mahina
(17,668 posts)Cha
(297,304 posts)It is unfortunate that Congresswoman Gabbard based her misguided opinion on the far-right wing manipulation of these straightforward questions, Hirono spokesman Will Dempster said in a statement.
He added that over the past two years, Hirono has been attacked by right wing ideologues for her examination of Donald Trumps ideologically-driven nominees to the courts.
Senator Hirono asks all judicial nominees particularly those who have expressed very strong personal ideological views in conflict with Supreme Court precedent if they can be fair, Dempster said. She asked Mr. Buescher, who has a clear record of anti-choice activism, whether he could separate his personal beliefs from decisions he would make if confirmed for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hawaii-rep-tulsi-gabbard-accuses-fellow-democrats-of-religious-bigotry-in-questioning-judicial-nominee/2019/01/09/2c17ecdc-1467-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.97039859a6e2
Since I can only c/p 4 paragraphs these are the ones I chose.. if you want to read more.. please go to the link.
mahina
(17,668 posts)Fascinating and very illuminating article on Rep Gabbards accusation of bigotry against Mazie.
Rep Gabbard will definitely need to explain herself to keep her House seat, never mind run successfully for President.
If you like Tusli as I think many do, you should definitely read this article.
Charlie Pierce
Esquire
If you're looking to bet on the various people who can muck up the 2020 presidential election, you can do worse than put a little early money on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat of Hawaii, whose flea-on-a-griddle semi-progressivism is beginning to look less like charming eccentricity, and more like calculated mischief. She's positioning herself for a possible run at the nomination herself, if there's room for someone whose history says she's more offended by Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono than she is by Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Let me explain, but first, let me tell you about my grandfather, for whom I am named.
Charlie Gibbons was a sign-painting man in Worcester, Massachusetts. He was a man of several enthusiasms, which included his own art, the Boston Red Sox, unfiltered Camels, and Narragansett Lager Beer. (On most Sundays in the summer, he would watch the Sox with three companionsthe Camels, the 'Gansett, and me.) He also was a very big deal in the Knights Of Columbus, and I mean a very big deal. He had a cape and a sword, the hilt of which was distinguished by having been fashioned out of a tiny statue of Columbus himself. This was not the coolest sword in my upbringingmy father brought home a Japanese officer's dress sword, a dagger, and a deadly samurai blade from his days in the warbut it was the most elegant by far.
The Knights were formed in New Haven in 1882 in order to create a fraternal order for Catholics who were excluded from the standard ones like the Elks, and who were forbidden by Church doctrine from joining the Masons. And that was pretty much all I knew about the Knights, with whom I lost touch when the Camels and the 'Gansett finally got my grandfather in 1965.
But, apparently, they've done very well for themselves, at least as far as the National Catholic Reporter could tell.
For more than a decade and a half, under the leadership of a former political operative, the Knights of Columbus has increasingly used its enormous wealth to influence the direction of the church, underwriting think tanks and news outlets while gaining entrée to some of the highest levels of decision-making in the church. Its capacity for funding has given the Knights of Columbus an inordinately loud voice, potentially drowning out that of others, and no other lay group can match the Knights' ability to leave its mark on the church. Some worry that such influence can actually distort the church's ecclesiology, its structure and its governance...
If funding is any indication, however, the Knights are deeply engaged in the culture wars with some of the largest grants going to the loudest and most influential participants in the church and the public square. In 2014, a total of $1 million, in three separate amounts, went to the Susan B. Anthony Foundation, an aggressive anti-abortion organization most recently campaigning to defund Planned Parenthood. The foundation can be as highly partisan as it is anti-abortion, even opposing pro-life Democrats.
It targeted Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pennsylvania, for instance, for her vote for the Affordable Care Act, which the foundation labeled a "pro-abortion health-care bill." Dahlkemper had previously publicly defended federal restrictions on the use of taxpayer funds for abortion.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a legal group that has carried the fight for the U.S. bishops and the Little Sisters of the Poor against the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act, received $300,000 in one 2014 donation and an additional $25,000 from the Knights of Columbus as "a sponsor of the Canterbury Medal." Supreme Knight Anderson received the award in 2007, and Chaput in 2009. The Little Sisters of the Poor had received $100,000 in 2013 and another $20,000 in 2015 to "support facility improvements." The Becket Fund received another $25,000 in 2015.
To me, if you "target" a candidate, you lose your tax-exempt status by that afternoon, but that's just me. However, and most significantly for our immediate purposes, there's this.
The Knights gave $50,000 each year, in 2014 and 2015, to the Federalist Society, described in a recent New Yorker article as "a nationwide organization of conservative lawyers" whose executive vice president, Leonard Leo, "served, in effect, as Trump's subcontractor on the selection of [Neil] Gorsuch" as nominee, eventually confirmed, for justice to the Supreme Court. Aside from Leo's reputation as a devout Catholic, the society is thoroughly secular and largely an operation benefiting the Republican Party.
Which brings us to Gabbard's most recent trip to wonderland.
At issue is the nomination of one Brian Buescher to be a judge on the federal district court in Nebraska. Buescher is a bog-standard Trump judicial nomineea career activist, hip-deep in the wingnut side of the culture wars, as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was quick to point out when his name was placed in nomination.
Mr. Buescher is a political operative and partisan warrior. His ideological views were most prominently on display in 2014 when he ran unsuccessfully to be the Nebraska Attorney General, but he has worked behind the scenes for years on behalf of Republican candidates and causes. According to his Senate questionnaire, he has worked as a campaign volunteer on 14 different Republican campaigns, and he has contributed thousands of dollars to Republican candidates.
In addition, he has served as a Nebraska Republican Party State Central Committee member, Nebraska Republican Party Convention Delegate, Nebraska Republican Party Finance Chair, Nebraska Republican Party Rules Committee Chair, Nebraska Republican Party Resolutions Committee Chair, Nebraska Republican Party Volunteer Legal Counsel, Douglas County, Nebraska Republican Party Chair, Omaha Young Republicans Chair, and treasurer of the University of Nebraska College Republicans. Such deep political connections would, at a minimum, cast significant doubt on whether Mr. Buescher would be able to check his politics at the courthouse door if he became a judge.
Beyond that. Buescher is a muckety-muck in the K of C, as we used to call the Knights. Given the fact that the Knights seem to have politicized themselves in a big way, and that one of the ways they did it was to give money to the Federalist Society, to which the president* has subcontracted the job of staffing the federal courts, Senator Hirono has been grilling Buescher about his membership in the K of C and whether or not he can be trusted to leave the beads in chambers when he takes the bench.
This has given Gabbard another opportunity to dive into the spotlight, this time at the expense of a colleague in the Hawaiian congressional delegation. From The Hill:
We must call this out for what it is religious bigotry. This is true not just when such prejudice is anti-Catholic, but also when it is anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, or anti-Protestant, or any other religion. In politics or at home, we Americans can disagree with and oppose people if we are concerned about their views, opinions, or their commitment to uphold their constitutional duties. However, we must not claim or imply that an individual is not qualified because of their religion or their membership in a particular religious organization, or their belief in the tenets of their faith.
To repeat, Hirono is not questioning Buescher's faith or anything like it. She is quite logically inquiring whether or not his membership in a highly politicized lay organization will affect his judgment on critical issues that might come before the court, issues that Buescher already is on record for having taken a side on during his days as a conservative activist in Nebraska. (The guy ran for attorney general in Nebraska, for pity's sake.) Hirono is doing nothing more than being "concerned about their views, opinions, or their commitment to uphold their constitutional duties," which Gabbard concedes is part of their duties as members of the national legislature.
The Knights of Columbus, for all their charitable work and their gifts for accessorizing, are not a religion. They have chosen to involve themselves in secular politics through their support for the Federalist Society and their targeting of certain political candidates. They can't hide themselves in the gospels now, and Mazie Hirono should tell Tulsi Gabbard to go suck up to another dictator and stop trying to run for president on Mazie's coattails.
Cha
(297,304 posts)Tulsi Gabbard!
Mahalo, mahina
Response to George II (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)tenderfoot
(8,437 posts)Response to tenderfoot (Reply #21)
Name removed Message auto-removed
brush
(53,787 posts)tenderfoot
(8,437 posts)And incessantly violates conflict of interest laws... think that through.
GP6971
(31,166 posts)You can't be serious.
Care to back that up?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #33)
Post removed
AlexSFCA
(6,139 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)AlexSFCA
(6,139 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Cha
(297,304 posts)her views are Not "likeable".. and that's what is important.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,586 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm not willing to trade a President paid in rubles for one paid in rupees.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)Hopefully most Dems don't fall for it.
msongs
(67,413 posts)aeromanKC
(3,324 posts)Shes not even likable enough. BUT she is kind of pretty.
Docreed2003
(16,863 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,033 posts)Looks like everyone feels like me about her.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)I will not be voting for her, though.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)RussBLib
(9,019 posts)I've heard her talk several times over the last year or two and came away impressed. She'll make a good addition to the field of Dem candidates.
Don't get much of the negativity here.
Response to RussBLib (Reply #40)
Post removed
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)but split to endorse an independent.
She didn't sign the letter calling for protection of State Department employees until it made news that she didn't.
She pledged to work with President Trump after privately meeting with him, and was described as having a lot of "common ground".
It took her three days and a public outcry to repudiate an endorsement from David Duke.
I think she's an opportunist, and I don't trust her motives at all. And if anyone else had said something like:
As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists
we wouldn't stand for letting them host the Oscars, let alone run for President.
RussBLib
(9,019 posts)But we do have a big tent
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)But, that's what primaries are for... candidates should present their policies and defend their prior record. That's called democracy... let it play out!!
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Another qualified candidate as an option is a good thing IMO.
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)... good news for me is this announcement doesn't make it any harder at all.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!!
DrToast
(6,414 posts)Polybius
(15,428 posts)The more qualified Democrats, the better.
George II
(67,782 posts)Polybius
(15,428 posts)She also has good Congressional experience.
murielm99
(30,745 posts)Byronic
(504 posts)I'm glad she's running, and I wish her well.
It's going to be a fascinating field of candidates this time around.
David__77
(23,421 posts)I hope foreign policy is a major issue in the primary- what role should the US and its military play internationally, and how should foreign relations be conducted.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)Response to Recursion (Reply #47)
Post removed
David__77
(23,421 posts)I like her.
Cha
(297,304 posts)Yeah, she's so "positive"..
It is unfortunate that Congresswoman Gabbard based her misguided opinion on the far-right wing manipulation of these straightforward questions, Hirono spokesman Will Dempster said in a statement.
He added that over the past two years, Hirono has been attacked by right wing ideologues for her examination of Donald Trumps ideologically-driven nominees to the courts.
Senator Hirono asks all judicial nominees particularly those who have expressed very strong personal ideological views in conflict with Supreme Court precedent if they can be fair, Dempster said. She asked Mr. Buescher, who has a clear record of anti-choice activism, whether he could separate his personal beliefs from decisions he would make if confirmed for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hawaii-rep-tulsi-gabbard-accuses-fellow-democrats-of-religious-bigotry-in-questioning-judicial-nominee/2019/01/09/2c17ecdc-1467-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.97039859a6e2
Since I can only c/p 4 paragraphs these are the ones I chose.. if you want to read more.. please go to the link.
Apollyonus
(812 posts)Ambition is ok ... and as long as she supports the eventual nominee wholeheartedly, more power to her.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Pretty sure she has connections in the Hindu far right as well.
George II
(67,782 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I'm probably gonna end up voting for Warren.
tavernier
(12,392 posts)cstanleytech
(26,293 posts)then again almost anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together and even a hint of backbone would be better.
As for her real chances? My bet would be on extremely slim.
Personally I lean more towards something like a Biden/Beto ticket but then again its still really early so who knows who else might throw their hat in the ring.
GlennRuss
(20 posts)But this thread is the one that convinced me to join. I'm blown away at how this woman is being attacked here. I thought we supported democrats. I've read here countless times that the "D" beside one's name was pretty important. Not to mention I thought attacking democrats wasn't tolerated.
What happened to "purity tests"? Is that only for far left progressives? And what did she do that earned her this terrible reputation? Met with Assad? You guys realize her position at the time was shared by quite a few people. She was anti homosexual? I can list a few favorites here that were too.
The real issue here is she took a beating by left leaning bloggers when she cut ties with the DNC..and guys, whether you like it or not, she was right to do so. She can actually be an incredibly strong candidate if given an opportunity and support.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Cha
(297,304 posts)as much as you'd like to blame it on some imaginary reason for shining the light on her history.. you're Wrong.
I totally forgot about that until you mentioned it.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)Look, it boils down to this:
I'm fine if people, both voters and Congresspeople, decide that despite their personal anti-choice and anti-LGBT views, they cannot under the Constitution enforce them on others so they vote pro-choice and pro-LGBT. I'm glad for their votes, and I'm not going to demand their ouster.
Do I trust a person who feels that way to lead the defense of pro-choice and pro-LGBT issues, as a Democratic presidential contender must?
Not really, no.
Especially not when a person who claims that her reason for voting pro-choice and pro-LGBT isn't a sudden personal turnaround, but the rule of law, is upset that nominees for judicial appointments are questioned about the rule of law and whether they too can set aside their personal views -- today, not in 1998 or 2004.
FrankBooth
(1,604 posts)That Martin O'Malley had in 2016.
Response to George II (Original post)
George II This message was self-deleted by its author.