I will say this for her, though: when she ran for the Democratic nomination, suddenly she found herself deployed as a serving military officer just when it would derail her campaign, and she never once complained about it. She went and did her duty honorably, and made no attempt to avoid it.
A lot of observers, including myself, thought the sudden call-up to deploy looked like a motivated favor by the brass to remove her from the race after she brutally derailed Kamala Harris' campaign in the first debate. Washington insiders get payoffs like that, because sitting Senators have a lot to say about military appropriations.
I don't like Tulsi's position on gun control (she has at least rhetorically seemed in favor of it) nor her support for Assad in Syria (although that is tempered by an understandable desire to limit the instability in the Middle East, and a generalized opposition to us getting into more wars). I do like many other things about her.
Honor, though, is always the main thing. She has shown that she has this quality, and I don't know of another politician today that I would say that about.
UPDATE: I see she has a new book out, which suggests that she may have been thinking about timing it’s release with this moment. So maybe she is interested in the job.
5 comments:
I agree that Gabbard's intrinsic integrity is an attractive characteristic, and in a lot of contests, I could seriously consider voting for her.
She's too dove-ish on war, though, for my liking, and in top of the list contests, that would be a deal breaker for me.
She does seem to be evolving her position on gun control, although I think her evolution is more considered and honest than Obama's foxhole conversion on gay marriage.
Eric Hines
Probably we aren’t going to get much say. I don’t know if the elections even work anymore; but I would not pass up the chance to vote against the establishment over the question of who the Vice President was going to be. Or even the President.
Too dovish? How so?
Tom, she gives me the impression that she's even more reluctant to fight than Rand Paul, who's at least willing to fight for the right cause, after it's been sold to the public, and after Congress has formally declared war.
Those are valid considerations, but with modern technologies, and with at least one of our enemies having a first strike capability, waiting FDR-like for months and months to build the case, and then getting Congress to declare--we no longer live in an era where diplomats exchange formal declaration documents--will leave us prostrate and conquered.
Gabbard isn't a blanket No on war, but I haven't heard her articulate a solid case for fighting one or when to do so.
Eric Hines
Thanks, Eric. I suppose that makes her an unknown on that.
Post a Comment