[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Tulsi Gabbard: I'm not running for reelection As President, I will immediately begin work to end the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, end our interventionist foreign policy of carrying out regime change wars, and redirect our precious resources towards serving the needs of the people here at home. As such, I will not be seeking re-election to Congress in 2020, and humbly ask you for your support for my candidacy for President of the United States. She’s at 1.3 percent today in the RCP average, par for the course for the entire campaign thus far, so no, she’s not retiring because she’s too busy planning her presidency. Might she be retiring because … she has a serious primary challenger in her House race, one who’s already made hay of her unusual skepticism about impeaching Trump? Voters in her very blue district have noticed: The poll also found that at least half of the voters in Gabbard’s district would prefer someone else in her House seat. She led her primary challenger by 22 points in the same poll, which was published earlier this month, but Gabbard won her last primary by more than 60 points. And her opponent might have received the endorsements of some big-name Democrats who are irritated by Gabbard’s friendliness with the populist right. She could have lost. At a minimum, she would have been forced to take more doctrinaire Democratic stances than she seems naturally inclined to take in order to appease primary voters. So if she’s not running for Congress again and she’s also not going to get within a thousand miles of the presidency, what’s she planning to do with herself next year? Hmmmm: — Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) October 24, 2019 So Hillary was … right? Not about the “Russian asset” thing but about Gabbard possibly angling to become a Jill Stein third-party candidate who’ll pull just enough votes from the Democratic nominee to enable a Trump victory? Worth noting: The Hunt and Fish Club is Trump-hating Anthony Scaramucci’s restaurant. And according to Fox Business, the host of the event was “Wall Street Democrat” Robert Wolf, with various other “Wall Street executives and potential donors” reportedly in attendance. Wolf is an interesting character, a Barack Obama buddy but also enough of a centrist to have become a contributor to Fox News in 2016. He’s not a guy whom you’d assume would want to groom a candidate who’s a sort of left-wing Ron Paul with a special affinity for Bashar Assad as a kamikaze option against Joe Biden or another centrist nominee. So if Wolf really is thinking of Tulsi as a third-party possibility, it’s likely for one of two reasons. One: He might prefer a second Trump term to a Warren presidency if that’s the choice next fall, given the risk that Warren will take a flamethrower to the financial industry if elected. Maybe he’s eyeing Gabbard as someone who could jump in if Warren becomes the nominee and try to siphon off some votes from her among Berniebros. Two: He’d probably prefer a Joe Biden presidency to a second Trump term (he’s a Democrat after all), so maybe he thinks Gabbard could potentially be weaponized against Trump if need be. She probably has more fans in Tucker Carlson’s audience than in Rachel Maddow’s audience. It may well be that a Gabbard third-party run would end up hurting Trump more than the Democratic nominee by attracting Ron Paul fans who’d otherwise back the president. The logic there is contradictory, though. In scenario one, Gabbard helps Republicans. In scenario two, she hurts them — even though progressives would be far more open to a left-wing independent candidate if Joe Biden ended up as nominee than if Elizabeth Warren did. So, really, I don’t know what Wolf’s game is. All I know is Gabbard is going nowhere in the Dem primary, no longer has to worry about her House race, yet seems very intent on continuing her presidential run. Here’s a brief clip of her last night on the highest-rated show on Fox News, hosted by the president’s close personal friend Sean Hannity, backing up the White House attack line that there’s not enough transparency in the Democratic impeachment inquiry. In no sphere of reality does it make sense to do that if you’re a Democratic presidential candidate who’s resolved to remaining a Democratic presidential candidate. It’d be like John Kasich announcing a primary challenge to Trump and then going on Maddow to call for the president’s impeachment and removal. All it’ll do is piss off your target voters. It doesn’t even make sense to do this if Gabbard is eyeing a left-wing third-party run, since of course progressives hate Hannity and Trump too. It must be that she’s simply repositioning herself as a sort of generically populist media “personality” who knows her fan base is entirely on the right. Nothing else adds up. — jordan (@JordanUhl) October 25, 2019 Poster Comment: Is she planning a third-party run as a Green or is she just positioning herself as a pet Lefty commentator on Fox News for the 2020 campaign season, kind of like how FNC used to employ Alan Colmes and Dennis Kucinich and others as house libs some years back? Seems unlikely since they've even gotten rid of Shep and Napolitano is skating on thin ice with FNC now.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
I'd thought a 3rd party run unlikely as she couldn't run as a D for her house seat and a Green for the presidency at the same time. But this development makes that not a concern. Still, she's also quite young so she can make multiple runs for Prez long after Hillary finally makes her way to the cemetery, whenever that will be, and running 3rd party will unlikely be forgiven by the D's. So running 3rd party is a one-way ticket out of the duopoly. We also can't underestimate Hillary's information sources. As much as we despise her for corruption and personal flaws, she didn't get to where she is by being unconnected. She may well have said what she said because she had inside info on Tulsi, and to strategically position herself to be able to say "I told you so" in the event Tulsi does make the 3rd party move. And if there is any chance of Trump losing in 2020, it relies on Tulsi not going 3rd party. If Clinton does reenter the race and takes the nomination, and Tulsi goes 3rd party, then Hillary will have the dubious honor of losing to Trump twice.
It is intriguing. I wonder if the Dems might offer her some kind of payout as a job or something, vastly overpaid, just to keep her from running as the Green and she could scare up some extra interview money on cable news on the side as a commentator. I wouldn't put it past them. Give her $5 million to just make her go away. Easy enough for the Dem tycoons. Unless those Dem tycoons want her to defeat Warren in 2020. As the article states...
I think she is trying to grab Trump's Independents. All of a sudden, she's the darling of Conservative news. The way men around the web keep saying, "But she's hot!" is concerning. Her slate should be of grave concern: Wants to ban assault weapons After that, is she still "hot"?
About everything you list are things a president has minimal control over. The president does not pass laws. Congress does. Where the president has about full control is on foreign policy. As president she can order troops out of the entire middle east and neither Congress nor the USSC can stop her. AS for Israel, I have conflicting info about her on that. BDS legislation wouldn't support a boycott of Israel, it would only penalize any support of a boycott of Israel which I feel is wrong.
In an ideal world, that would be true. In this world, I'll point to Barrack Obama and all of the tyranny he managed to do. Why would Gabbard be any different.
|
|||||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|