Why did Tulsi Gabbard attack Kamala Harris in the last debate?
If you watched the Democratic debate—or if you merely read about it, as I did—you probably noticed that long-chancer Tulsi Gabbard went after Kamala Harris in a big way, and by all accounts scored a takedown. At Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson mentions that he predicted that Gabbard would be a “disrupter”:
What did I see that others didn’t? As the sub-headline to the post said: “Bring on the crowded debate stage, with a disrupter thrown like a hand grenade into the mix.”
While her politics are very different than ours, she has a spirit of disruption that also guides us.
She also has very little to lose.
But why Harris? I’ve got a theory about that, and it goes as follows.
I believe that Gabbard knows she’s not going to be the Democratic nominee. She’s too young, too inexperienced, and what’s more, she has very low numbers. But I think she has strong aspirations to be the vice-presidential pick, and the person most likely to pick her would be Joe Biden.
Why Biden? They share a position in the present extremely-leftist Democratic Party as the moderates. Whether they really are moderate or not isn’t even the issue; they are perceived as moderate. Not only that, but Joe is old and Gabbard’s youth might be a benefit to balance the ticket. And of course, she’s photogenic as well as female. What’s more, she has a vague multi-ethnic air, being part Samoan and a Hindu, whereas Joe is that much-excoriated being, an old white male.
At any rate, Joe Biden is her best shot at moving up to that position. And who had attacked Joe Biden (somewhat successfully) during an earlier debate? Why, Kamala Harris, that’s who.
This time, Harris was probably expecting pushback from Biden. But not from Gabbard. And yet it was Gabbard who landed the blows.
Even before that, Gabbard already had zero chance of being the VP pick of someone like Harris or Warren, for two simple reasons, the latter of which is the most important: she isn’t leftist enough and she’s a young woman, much younger than either of them (although Harris is youngish compared to Warren, next to Gabbard she looks a bit long in the tooth).
Makes sense to me, anyway.
I get concerned about people who are “conservative” or “moderate” and like Tulsi.
Why?
I get that she has a great speech pattern and can seem “moderate” compared to these loons on stage – but LOOK at what she said during the debates.
One of the things that she said is that she believes we need to completely remove fossil fuels from our economy (or something similar).
All of our military planes use carbon based fuels. Not all of our ships are nuclear. If her strength is she has military background she has got to stop being loony. Seriously.
I cannot disagree with your analysis however, I have a different opinion based on the performance of these losers – each and every one of them. During the Democrat Convention, Michelle is going to take the ring with old Joe once again in VP position. This is the only chance they have to beat the Donald. I do not think she can win, but she would sure give him a run for the money. Any other combination of these losers is sure to go down in flames. Let’s see.
Neo
NY mag has a great take down piece about her. It looks at her relationship with cult figure Chris Butler. A guru surfer guy from the 60’s or 70’s.
Tulsi Gabbard is very photogenic and has a calm demeanor that is almost eerie considering her youth and inexperience. I have seen her interviewed several times on the Tucker Carlson show. She is definitely a leftist with a very strong pacifist leaning. But she sounds quite calm and reasonable when explaining her ideas. I understand her pacifism. As a combat veteran she has seen how ugly war is. She is in the camp that believes our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was a big mistake caused by neocons who are warmongers. I understand her reaction. I went through a short period of thinking pacifism might be a better path after my Vietnam War experience.
I disagree with her. Afghanistan and Iraq are/were about defending ourselves from Islamic terrorism. That those efforts have not defeated terrorism is no reason to quit defending ourselves. What we need to do is change our tactics and our rules of engagement. More emphasis on small elite units working with local allies and aggressive rules of engagement as has worked in defeating ISIS. Increased emphasis on shutting off money to terrorists. A direct confrontation with the tenets of Wahhabism. Enlisting moderate Muslims to reject the Wahhabis’ aggressive intolerance of infidels.
She may well be angling for the VP slot, although the interviews I have seen indicate to me that her pacifism is her main motivation in running for President.
Agreed. Also, Harris is the “rising star” after the previous, and this raises Gabbard’s profile. She should be praised for bringing up Harris’ unfitness for any public office. Instapundit in USAToday:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/08/justice-honesty-government-prosecutor-column/24611623/
Ah yes, Michelle “its been a struggle” Obama.
Yep, a real struggle.
She gets into Princeton; a world class university that 98% of white students have zero chance of entering.
She then goes to Harvard? Yale? law school; a law school that 99% of white students have zero percent chance of entering.
Then she become the first lady of the USA; a position that 99.9999% of Americans – black, white, whatever – will never, ever attain.
Yep, a real struggle.
Given her liberal progressive ideology, it’s only appropriate that she “hangs out” with the poor and unfortunate inner city blacks; you know, with folks like Oprah, Beyonce, and other multi-millionaire blacks and white folks as well as going on “The View,” so she can express how concerned she is about the plight of black Americans.
But she isn’t a total hypocrite you see; she and her hubby are now worth something on the order of 40 MILLION $$$$. Nothing wrong with that especially since her husband famously said about the rich, “just how much money does one need?”
Apparently somewhere north of 40 MILLION $$$.
Like the shyster-charlatan-con man Al Sharpton, Michelle “its been a struggle” Obama and her husband are all into the money making aspects of their liberal progressive religion and civil rights struggle.
What a shame.
She and her husband had – and still do- the opportunity to bring real change to the most unfortunate denizens of this nation.
Instead, they are too busy amassing a financial fortune and making the rounds of the millionaire/billionaire liberal progressive cocktail party social, media and political circuit.
What a fraud, what hypocrites these people are.
I simply do not comprehend at all how people can not see this; how their actions and deeds do not at all comport with their “compassionate” rhetoric.
Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman must be spinning in their graves.
Hold on. This woman is a bonafide loon:
Tulsi Gabbard: “Our President is supporting al Qaeda”
https://mobile.twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1156756987847335936
Since about 2012, after Obama was re-elected, I’ve been hearing people say that Michelle will run for president. Lots of people. First, the idea was that she would run in 2016 to succeed Obama, and beat out Hillary. Now, it’s that she’ll run in 2020.
I would never say it’s impossible. But I have never, never ever, felt it would happen. I can’t explain why not, except to say that it’s a strong gut feeling of mine that it’s not what she wants. I think she’s had it with public office after 8 years of being First Lady and wants to be free of such obligations. As I said, just a gut feeling of mine, but the feeling has not changed over the years.
John Tyler; couldn’t agree more.
I agree with your analysis Neo.
I have been thinking lately that a Biden/Gabbard ticket would be the only combination that has a chance of beating Trump, and it makes me nervous. She’s young and attractive, articulate, comes across as moderate (although she’s not), and her veteran status would be a big plus.
I haven’t read about the cult connection yet, so maybe that will come into play.
Chris B:
It makes me very nervous as well.
It occurs to me that Michelle has a deep disdain or even hatred for most of America. Because of this, she would rather chew on a bunch of razor blades rather than be forced to pander to a group of “rubes” in Iowa (I’m from Iowa) and New Hampshire.
But, … What if she could swoop into the Dem Convention and snatch the nomination away from whomever?
As pres., she would still have to put up with all the dog and pony show folderol that entails, and this would grate. Valerie Jarrett (who currently lives with her??) could take care of most of the behind the scenes heavy lifting.
I suspect her life’s goal always was to live like a princess without any of the tedious responsibilities, but maybe she can convince herself that those responsibilities can be managed. Maybe Valerie will help convince her.
I’ve really never understood why anyone would want a VP spot. Most VPs don’t go on do anything more of consequence that you can attribute to their having been VP. I can’t believe that “balancing the ticket” does much to make people likelier to vote for a Presidential candidate but since elections in swing state or so close maybe it does, though I can’t see how anyone could demonstrate it with evidence.
So the VP candidates of my lifetime have been (winner first)
Walter Mondale and Bob Dole
George H W Bush and Walter Mondale
Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen
Albert Gore and Dan Quayle
Albert Gore and Jack Kemp
Dick Cheney and Joseph Lieberman
Dick Cheney and John Edwards
Joseph Biden and Sarah Palin
Joseph Biden and Paul Ryan
Mike Pence and Tim Kaine
My question for the group: what did being VP do for any of these that they didn’t have before they were VP? I think only for Bush 41 can you make the case it did any good, and 1 / 15 (?) is not very good odds.
Frederick:
It did tremendous things for Gore.
First of all, he came within a hair of being president, almost a coin toss.
Second of all, it made him tons of money he would not have otherwise made. Third of all, it gave him a platform for his favorite cause. Prior to that he was no big deal in the House and Senate, although big enough to be chosen by Clinton as VP.
Palin was elevated to fame for a while because McCain chose her, even though they didn’t win. For a while she became a big mover and shaker, public speaker, and made money too. Granted, there were negatives (as there often are with greater fame). But in general she got a lot out of her nomination.
Biden has too. Before Obama chose him he was somewhat of a has-been. Now he’s the Democratic front-runner, despite his advanced age and mediocrity.
“I suspect her life’s goal always was to live like a princess without any of the tedious responsibilities” – I second TommyJay
Michelle won’t run because she doesn’t know how to work that hard, and doesn’t want to learn. It’s easier to sit on The View & throw darts and write books and travel and be adored. She’ll do that.
But in a “dream/nightmare” scenario she & Hillary both try to storm the Convention as the brokered candidate.
I too think Michelle wants no part of running for the 2020 nomination. She is motivated by greed. Lots of opportunities for her to cash in on her fame to amass more money that are more fun than the drudgery of campaigning.
Tulsi Gabbard is another Pete Buttigieg. Slick, personable and full of sh*t. Ambition wise, they’re both younger, smarter versions of Joe Biden.
I’ve never, for even a second, thought that Mooch would run.
Your analysis reminded me of the show reality show Survivor. Temporary alliances made for future benefit.
sdferr
wrt Trump supporting al Q: If you recall, people made the case that some elder Bush supported Hitler because, he had some money invested in a bank which owned shares in a bank in Weimar Germany or something. Nonsense.
In the Middle East, things are so mixed up that even an enemy of al Q can be said to be supporting it by supporting some other group which is affiliated at least in part with a group which supports al Q.
Neither are true, of course, but if you’re pandering to a credulous base desperate to BELIEVE, it will have some impact.
So true Neo. Al Gore is/was on the board of Apple Corp. for many years. Did he get stock options there? I thought I heard that he was worth about $1B, but Forbes has listed him at $300M.
I doubt Paul Ryan would have been Speaker of the House, without his previous VP candidate spot. And after he stepped down from the Speakership, he was offered a megabucks position as the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but turned it down.
We are a long way away from Harry Truman’s day when he retired in near poverty.
Very good analysis. Gives me some hope that I am wrong. However, when you are the “most popular woman in the world”, and the fate of the planet rests on defeating Trump – and you are told you are the only one that can do it, and the heavy lifting it takes to be president will be done by others, it takes a lot of stamina to resist the call of duty.
I hope you are right. We do not have long to wait to see how it turns out.
I agree with you about MO, neo. I even predicted that she would run in 2016 but now I think she just doesn’t want it, she has it made now, why go through the grief.
But I also think that the Democrat race is such a trainwreck now that *anything* could happen. And I think something will happen that no one has an inkling of now.
I disagree with a lot of the comments regarding Tulsi. Trey Gowdy said she is the only authentic candidate in the Democratic field. Tucker Carlson today said Tulsi and Delaney are the only Dem candidates that are not crazy. She works across the aisles, writes sensible legislation, and is willing to buck the establishment. The whole cult thing is exaggerated. Her dad is a Catholic who was an elected Republican until recently and her mom is a hippie. Her parents are still together and Tulsi is a Major in the Army. Of course she is calm. The rest of the Dem female candidates are hysterical and fake. There are a lot of negative “hit pieces” written about her from the left. It is a major smear campaign and it stems from her quitting her post with the DNC because she witnessed HRC corruption and decided to supported Bernie. Remember, Russia gate, smearing Trump, Tulsi, etc. all comes from the Clintons and all their loyal friends. It is easy to connect the dots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=317fGP6pfxs&feature=youtu.be
I am an Obama supporter who voted for Trump. I voted for Trump because HRC has never seen a war she didn’t like, and her sense of entitlement and her use of public positions to make herself rich reeks of a dishonesty beyond belief. Kamala is another HRC. She lies about her record, she was ridiculous during the whole Kavanaugh affair. If she is considered a raising star, help us all. Tulsi doesn’t scare me. Kamala scares me. At this rate, I thing Trump will be reelected. He may be a ‘bull in a china shop’, but he loves the country and has done surprisingly
well with gale force head winds to boot.
I think your analysis rings true. And I think the same analysis applies to Harris — by taking him on, she put herself on his level. I can see them teaming up. I can see Warren as Biden’s VP as well. I can also see Biden running as the VP on a Warren or Harris ticket, but that seems far less likely.
I don’t think most people in the US are ready for a female president. It’s a sad truth, but politics for most people seems to be a largely emotional issue. As discussed in your circle-dance post. People want lots of things in a president, they want a role model, and a problem-solver, and someone who makes the country look good (much of the hatred of Trump seems to stem from a visceral anger about how gauche he is, just as much of the love of Obama seemed to stem from a visceral delight at how cool he seemed to be). But at the end of the day there is a sense that we need someone to protect us. It’s bizarre that it tends to be an afterthought, but eventually people remember that the president is the commander in chief, and that role just doesn’t seem natural for a woman. (Yet?)
I was excited about Tulsi Gabbard when she first came on the scene. She is very, very well spoken, and her military background made me happy. But when she went to Syria and met with Assad, I gave up on her. And she doesn’t seem to support Israel, which is a dealbreaker for me.
She’s better than Harris, though, so I’m glad to see this development.
I don’t think any of these candidates, no matter how they pair up, can beat Trump next year. But I have been wrong about every political prediction I have ever made!
Sarah Rolph:
I agree with everything you said, except the part about people in the US not being ready for a female president. I could be wrong, but I think people would easily get behind someone like say, Nikki Haley.
Hello. I’m unable to answer the question in the post’s title, or maybe I just lack the requisite drive to search out the answer for myself, but I think Neo’s analysis makes sense. Every human action has a reason, even if it’s not immediately obvious or even logical. In this case, it seems fairly logical, though.
I happened to see a shiny new ‘Tulsi’ bumper sticker the other day. I was a bit surprised, but it did break the monotony – on those occasions when I do see bumper stickers around here, they’re most often the usual suspects (although there is the occasional Trump-Pence one, and not necessarily on the back of an Audi, either). Maybe I need to get out into the hinterlands more; I’m generally obliged to spend most of my time in the near vicinity of Albany, though thankfully not actually in that place.
I forgot what else I was going to say, other than to note the presence of TommyJay the Iowan (I think about Iowa all the time now – quite an unexpected change from, say, 3 years ago).
Oh, yes, about Tulsi Gabbard – (i) I keep thinking she should be from Oklahoma, (ii) she being from Hawaii IIRC, it would create an amusing historical and geographical symmetry with Palin if she were to become VP candidate, and (iii) I ran across an old set of limericks I wrote once in which I used the word ‘gabardine’, so her surname partly reminds me of that.
Chris B, You may be right. I am a big fan of Nikki Haley and I can imagine her being elected. I would definitely vote for her and would probably campaign for her. She has a lot of guts, and is very knowledgeable about foreign affairs. She showed a lot of leadership as governor and of course as UN ambassador as well. Maybe she will be our Margaret Thatcher, the one who shows it can be done!