Search This Blog

Thursday, September 26, 2019

Is Tulsi Gabbard the Democratic Party's Enigma?


September 26, 2019

While most of the media focus on the battles between most of the known Democratic aspirants to the White House, very few outlets are spending any time getting to know Tulsi Gabbard, an enigma to the party faithful, but who is an interesting candidate not too many people are talking about.
________________________________


Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), is an enigma in party circles.   Although she has not played any effort in passing noteworthy legislation, she has won some support for bucking the Democratic party at times.  During the 2016 presidential campaign, she went against the DNC and vocally supported Senator Bernie Sanders.  As a result, she was forced out from being a DNC insider and a member of the senior staff itself.  Backers of Hillary Clinton were furious about her open stance for Mr. Sanders. However, she was not afraid of any political blowback.  Even though Clinton secured the nomination, Ms. Gabbard chose to not be ashamed or bullied about her vocal support of the Sanders campaign. I was impressed with her courage, and it showed that she can make her own choices independent of the party establishment.

Tulsi Gabbard was one of the first candidates to declare her candidacy for the White House in 2020.  The national media gave her some exposure but relegated her to the lower tier of candidates.  Her shining moment came in the second official Democratic debate, where she tore into Senator Kamala Harris's record when she was Attorney General of California, specifically her prosecutions of those charged with minor drug offenses, denying bail to those who were not a threat to society, and a host of other opportunities where she had the power to make changes in criminal justice reforms.  The concerted attacks were so effective that to this day, Senator Harris has not recovered from her peak position after attacking Vice-President Biden about his past history relating to forced busing.  Senator Harris has not regained her momentum and has fallen off her trajectory that she now trails upstart Andrew Yang in one poll in her home state.  That is pretty good for a relative unknown.

It is too bad the mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC continue to downplay her candidacy and will not give her more platforms to showcase her policy goals and vision for the country.  One can venture to guess that her positions did not win her any allies amongst the DNC and the leftward media, and her absence on the third debate stage was seemingly due to her numbers in any of the "preferred" national polls that determined the candidates selected for the debate. This despite her meeting several of the "qualifications" which included campaign donor threshold, and position in various polls; even though some of the polling companies were not selected by the DNC's non-transparent determining requirements.

Ms. Gabbard is very vocal of her criticism of President Trump, especially of this support of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's bombing campaign against Yemeni rebels, and its bellicose saber-rattling against Iran.  She also supported Senator Sander's position of withholding material and financial aid to Israel due to its intransigence regarding settlements in the West Bank.  This position will not win her any friends within the pro-Israel segments of both parties, which is extremely influential and powerful.  However, if she can continue her momentum despite opposition by well-funded pro-Israel groups, it could put a scare into the coordinated campaign by both the DNC and the media to "select" preferred candidates in the run-up to the Iowa Caucus next February.

I wonder why the Democratic Establishment does not want her to be front and center within the nomination process to choose a nominee to challenge President Trump.  She is of Samoan descent, a convert to Hinduism that has served her country as a member of the Army National Guard and was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait as a medical officer.  She is the first Hindu to serve in Congress.  Ms. Gabbard has an amazing American story, yet the party is not championing her candidacy.  She checks many of the boxes of "intersectionality," which is a combined set of characteristics that would make her popular with the progressive base.

For some reason, she does not have as much support from the Democratic voter as she would like to have.  I don't know if that is because she does not have a large platform from which to espouse her beliefs and policy goals, or that the party's leaders are not excited about her candidacy.  Perhaps they want someone who can assuredly beat Trump, and for many, former Vice President Biden is that person.  I think Mr. Biden has large support due to his positive time as President Obama's valued Vice President.  That has garnered a large percentage of support amongst the party's African American base.  Tulsi Gabbard should be able to make her case to those voters, but perhaps their loyalty to his association with Mr. Obama is what will carry him to the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary.  If Vice President Biden falters, then Elizabeth Warren seems poised to benefit the most, not Ms. Gabbard.

She has some positions that would be popular with many Democrats, including receptiveness to the DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), wanting the United States to move away from the use of fossil fuels, the removal of dark money in politics through campaign finance reform, and criminal justice reform, and as a fierce advocate for anti-interventionist foreign policy, to name a few.  However, some issues that could be the reason for her lack of larger support is that during her time as a Hawaii legislator, she was against gay marriage, an issue that was supported by her father, through the Alliance for Traditional Marriage.  She has since apologized for her previous position, and now supports members of the LGBTQIA community to be able to marry with full federal protections.  Despite this, the gay community, of which Hawaii has a large number of residents and who are part of this constituency, do not want her to win the nomination.  Ms. Gabbard was initially against abortion, and considered herself pro-life, but has now shifted to protecting a woman's right to choose. Feminists do not trust her because she changed her position and feel it could be a political calculation, instead of a passionate position.  Additionally, she has shown support for India's Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, who is a Hindu nationalist.  Christian evangelicals will not support someone who feels a kinship with a leader who has allowed Christians in India targeted by Hindus who do not want the country to protect equal rights and status to those other religious denominations.

Representative Gabbard has many qualities that would make her an effective champion for Democrats in the general election against President Trump.  However, what ultimately defeated Senator Sanders during his run was staunch opposition by mega party donors, superdelegates, covert opposition by the liberal media of CNN, MSNBC, the network news, and bloggers, who ultimately will doom her candidacy too.  Which is sad, since she is one of the true independent voices for progressives, and she is passionate about a new foreign policy for America, one that is prudent, does not promote interventionist wars in the Middle East, and who articulates this as a combat veteran, and also a patriotic woman to boot.  The Democratic party will miss a chance to nominate someone who can make serious change in how the country grows into a mature superpower.  Unless she can win new hearts and minds, now that she has qualified for the fourth Democratic party debate in October.  While enigmas can be a mystery, when they are discovered, they can be powerful and inspiring. Too bad Democrats seem poised to overlook and ignore this interesting political enigma.  It could have been for the best.



Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Book Review: Justice on Trial (The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court)



August 27, 2019

Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino wrote a powerful book, Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, detailing the controversial and emotionally draining Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.  It was a thorough examination of the contentious hearings and the intense battles revolving around the main protagonists in this drama, Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.
________________________


The book provides information and nuggets of interest that give a different perspective about what Justice Kavanaugh and his family went through during the confirmation.  In it,  a considerable section was devoted to providing background on the contentious senate hearings for the confirmation of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas during the Reagan and Bush presidencies, respectively.  The authors believed that the failed confirmation of Robert Bork, who was a distinguished justice, was because he fell on the wrong side of the abortion debate. It was used as a lightning rod to kill his chances of serving on the nation's highest court.  Clarence Thomas was a test subject on a new issue that Democrats used to damage his candidacy, namely sexual harassment.  The star of those hearings in addition to Mr. Thomas was Anita Hill, who was front and center after accusing the justice of years of repeated sexual harassment.  Ms. Hemingway and Ms. Severino believed that those two hearings laid the groundwork for the Kavanaugh hearings, with sexual assault the new issue from which to destroy a conservative justice's chance to serve on the Supreme Court.  

Justice on Trial makes the case that the court was never designed to be a prize for the party that controls the White House.  Its purpose is to simply determine if any legislation is Constitutional or not, a designed check on Congressional overreach. The nine members of the court were never meant to have a starring role. The debate between Americans grew from respectful dialogue about various issues into political warfare to determine how presidents and political parties have a lasting legacy, and it centered on the court's justices to rule on subjects that were important to the parties' supporters.  Since both Republicans and Democrats have issues that are dear to their hearts, confirming of judges for the high court has become a zero-sum game.  For Republicans, it is the belief that the Constitution is not a document that needs a lot of edits and re-writes, and should be protected from constant change.  Conservatives believe that Congress should not pass legislation that alters the Constitution.  If there are changes to the document, it needs to be done through amendments passed through 37 states' ratification. Democrats feel that it is a living and breathing article and that it is designed to be altered to match the evolution of American society.

These competing viewpoints along with the breakdown of political discourse has made the Supreme Court the latest and far-reaching battleground.  The failed Bork and successful Thomas confirmations set the stage for the most divisive and contentious hearings, which the book details.  The idea that a potential Supreme Court justice will have to defend his behavior which involves sexual assault and rape accusations is something that the court and Congress have never dealt with before. The authors wondered if these types of gut-wrenching hearings will put off good jurists from serving on the high court. In the age of social media, anyone with a camera can make something go viral. It presented a new layer in political warfare, at a time when calm and deliberative dialogue was sorely needed.

The book's authors provided a detailed initiative by conservative groups, which included the Federalist Society, a passionate group of legal minds who want to preserve the Constitution and seek federal judges who will protect the "originalism" of the Founders's intent of a limited government and protection of free-market principles. Other prominent groups, such as the Judicial Crisis Network, and prominent member Tom Fitton, coordinated the various conservative groups so that they could present a united front and give Brett Kavanaugh support through media platforms. Carrie Severino, one of the book's authors, works for the organization as well and serves as Chief Counsel and Policy Director.  These groups worked to give supporters of Mr. Kavanaugh background of his legal opinions and prepared the judge for his important day in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The first hearing was uneventful, including opening statements and question and answer sessions, except for the protests that delayed Mr. Kavanaugh's testimony.

Justice on Trial described Senator Feinstein's knowledge of a potential witness who made the claims that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party in high school and once the name leaked, the revelation caused the confirmation battle to go nuclear.  Ms. Severino and Ms. Hemingway wrote about how the witness's identity and claims were withheld and later leaked to supportive liberal newspapers, and how this put Mr. Kavanaugh's family through trying moments, including liberal activists who attempted to smear the judge's reputation and put enormous pressure on the Committee to vote against his ascension to the court. The Democratic effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh was intense and never seen before. The book gave insight into the war rooms that were run by the conservative groups to give a real-time defense of Mr. Kavanaugh and counter the claims made by the witness, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, her legal counsel and her allies in the Democratic party.  Justice on Trial talked about President Trump's unwavering support who encouraged Mr. Kavanaugh to fight for his reputation. The judge passionately voiced his support for Dr. Ford, but at the same time, gave a powerful testament of his reputation, the way he had lived his life, and how he will uphold the law as it is written.  

I was impressed with the in-depth analysis of what both sides did to prepare, the battles raging with the president's inner circle, including the White House counsel, Don McGahn, who worked hard to defend Judge Kavanaugh. President Trump was adamant that Mr. Kavanaugh defend his honor to the country and wanted his choice to survive the hearings and played a large role in Republicans presenting a united front to secure Judge Kavanaugh's seat.

Ms. Severino and Ms. Hemingway gave some interesting nuggets as well, such as First Lady Melania Trump's doubt regarding the accusation, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley's attempt to keep his colleagues on a respectful and considerate path, while keeping the committee on track for a vote to the full Senate, along with the sex crimes prosecutor hired by Senate Republicans to question Dr. Ford. This was done so that an all-male Republican side of the committee would not have significant loss of public perception, so America could sympathize even more with Dr. Ford, and force Republicans to end the nomination of Mr. Kavanaugh.

Even though the country is immensely divided on many issues, I strongly urge those who want a different perspective on this fight to purchase or read the book.  Despite both authors' conservative leanings, I was impressed with the detail, the intent to interview many players in this drama and create a narrative that would give the reader what all went into the confirmation.  I was interested in the stories of everyone involved, how the Republicans coordinated with the outside groups who were vested in defending the rule of law, the desire by those who knew Brett Kavanaugh protect a judge's reputation (whether or not you agree with Mr. Kavanaugh's character).   One of the casualties of the emotionally draining process was that it could deter brilliant legal minds from public service, something which is sorely needed today. There is no perfect individual for public service. I encourage the reader to evaluate the book on its merits with an open mind. The result will be to gain a new perspective on what we can do better about how we vet and approve nominees to important positions of our government as defined by the Constitution. Choose a fair standard for all to follow. It is good to gather viewpoints from all sides, and that knowledge will help define a comprehensive understanding of what happened and will prepare us for a better future.

Enjoy the book.







The State of the GOP Primary So Far

  January 10, 2024 After four debates between the Grand Old Party (GOP) aspirants for the party's nomination, it is still former Preside...