Here's.... vetting!
As if sucking up to Trump and Assad wasn't enough.

She was already the longest of long shots but these new revelations will have the effect of blinding her even more as she's left in the dust of donors sprinting away from her.

Gabbard's best bet is to wait by the curb for Gillibrand to come along and kick her to it in the ambitious NY senator's own futile pursuit of fleeing donors.

I know they're coming...

Welcome to DU.

and not being homophobic is one of them.

You should have to be a Democrat. Other than that, no.

A candidate with a record of attacking GLBT people and opposing their civil rights in those terms is disqualified for 2020. Period.

Doesn't mean I have to vote for her.

The only way I'd have to vote for her is if she was the Dem nominee in the general election.

I don't see that as likely.

Like, you had to be a member of the Democratic party for x number of years? Or am I wrong?

My stance is, let anyone who has been a member of the party for at least 3 years run. We don't have to vote for them. I know I won't be voting for Gabbard. If they want to make the fools errand, let them.

I appreciate what Gabbard is doing NOW, and as a gay man, I do personally accept her apology, but I had no interest in her as the nominee before this news and no interest after this news. I just don't think she is the nominee we are looking for. We have so many great options, I can't decide between them all, but she is not one of those great options, imho.

So far, I like (in no particular order) Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, or Beto O'Rourke. But who knows how I will feel after the debates and campaigning? That's why debates and campaigns exist after all. For example, I voted for Clinton in 2008 but later in the primaries decided Obama was the far better choice. In 2016, I was sure I'd be voting for Clinton right up until her town hall answer on the death penalty. Then I switched my vote to Bernie Sanders. Not that I didn't like her as a person. I bought her most recent book and loved her during the general. It's just that I have five issues I'm extremely passionate about during primaries, that's one of them, and I didn't like the answer.

But hey, that's what the primaries are for! To see who is the better debater, to see what they have to say, and to gauge their true feelings about a variety of issues

I just hope DU remembers that the Democratic primary is not about tearing down bad guys. It's about selecting which one of the good guys is the best good guy.

will reject her based on her previous statements. There are plenty of other choices who don't have such public statements in their records, so such prior attitudes will have a seriously detrimental effect on her campaign.

People remember and base decisions on statements from the past, even when they no longer represent a person's positions. That's why Gabbard doesn't have a chance.

Women are especially scrutinized, even on things that they said decades ago, often before they were in office.

While other candidates are given a "that's in the past, so I'm not interested in it" pass for otherwise progressive dealbreaker issues a mere 2-3 years ago.

I'll be ready to talk about 2020 Democratic primary candidates on January 1, 2020.

Right now, there's some shit going on in DC that seems more important, somehow. That's where I'm focused.

the field will probably be smaller. But I'm not going to be one of the ones focusing on everyone who announces early. I'll probably look at threads here about them, and might even comment, as I am doing today, but my focus is on the current situation. I'll leave the bickering about Democratic potential candidates for President to others for now.

Too early to tell who is going to become a serious candidate. Why angst over every single one of them?

Spot on Mineralman.

even if some weren't in favor of an immediate move to marriage equality. The general opinion at DU back then (and I remember, because my father and his partner had a direct interest) was divided between those who thought we should move directly to marriage equality, and those who thought it was okay to take the changes in steps -- first civil unions and then marriage equality.

TG, by contrast, protested with signs against civil unions.

Defined by Gabbard, apparently, as homosexuals who wanted their relationships to receive any legal recognition whatsoever. Language like that will indeed have a seriously detrimental effect on her campaign.

Political candidates and officeholders often forget that whatever they say in the moment that they think might help them at the time will be remembered long after and brought up.

Smart political candidates don't play such games. They discuss their positions only after carefully thinking about those positions and the impact of those positions. The risk of saying things for their immediate affect in a particular campaign is that those things might become detrimental later. Despite old statements biting people in the ass years later again and again, candidates still forget themselves and speak out of turn or out of expediency at the moment.

As a gay man I know who I’m not supporting in the primaries.

that many will be winnowed out as chaff very early on. That's why I'm not paying a lot of attention to all the announcements right now.

In 2016, he ran without opposition for state senate as a Democrat. And he chairs a senate committee.

http://www.mikegabbard.com/content/i-mike

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gabbard

As for Tulsi, I’m glad that she has adopted and voted in a progressive way on civil rights issues.

Link to tweet

I am interested in both voting records and ones personal worldview.

I appreciate the votes. I also imagine any other Dem from Hawai'i would vote that way, too.

Does she fight for what we believe in, or does she just get out of the way?

And now I feel dirty because I said I wasn't going to be shooting at early announcers like they're clay pigeons.

We should know better by now, knowing how russian tactics work of conflating old stories like this through bot networks to divide and conquer, to turn a flamethrower on our own about something said in 2004.

Should this define her and our opinion of her, or do we let her current words and platform define her?

I can think of a couple other people who's views on LGBTQ rights have evolved along with the public over time: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The reality is that people remember things and bring them out later. In a complicated campaign, like the one for the Democratic nomination in 2020, having a questionable position like that in the past is going to be a big, big problem for her.

People have very long memories when it comes to issues that affect them.

That's makes this a bit different. Neither HRC or BHO was ever homophobic in their comments.

invoke a hostile reaction from those that hear the words and those things attached to the word extremist. As a result, and her despicable use of this word (as well as homosexual vs. gay/lesbian/etc.), I will never ever support such a person and I don't care if they have 'evolved' their feelings. I have been around the block too many times to believe in these hypocrites. They should have been there upfront and supportive to begin w/.

The fact is that Tulsi chose to treat one class of people in such a hostile, negative way before getting all of the facts of why marriage is so important to those in the gay/lesbian/etc. community.

Tulsi should have never had this feelings of hostility to begin with, before finding out / or learning more about the issues of being gay/lesbian/etc. and why these folks wanted marriage equality. There have been other candidates for office, that why not embracing gay marriage, they explained in a very respectful tone a very rationale reason why, e.g., I need to get more facts etc. before I can embrace, etc.

This does concern me greatly, that discrimination seemed to begin first with her, before she knew all of the facts, and then went away according to her based upon some nebulous fact or event that happened. wow...I'm overwhelmed (sarcasm here)...

It's not just her position, but the language she used. I know many Democrats opposed marriage equality in 2004, and some also opposed civil unions as Gabbard did. I don't think many of them described gay people who wanted some kind of legal recognition of their relationships as "homosexual extremists".

... but isn't going to "define or enforce her personal morality" on others.

Somehow that doesn't make me likely to trust her to fight the Republicans for choice or the LGBT community with her whole heart.

Just my opinion, but hey, everyone has one.

after she said it was a mistake.

and when you can't please stop repeating falsehoods about Obama and Hillary.

Falsehood? What falsehood did I put out there.

You go back to my post... you copy and paste the EXACT thing I said about Hillary and Barack, and then you REFUTE that statement with proof.

Good luck.

No one would seriously claim that anyone used the same words that Tulsi did, but, that wasn't your more general point, was it? Obviously not, since you're right... so, better to argue over something you didn't say.

they evolved from supporting civil unions to marriage...neither of them that I know of ever remotely had the plainly anti-LBTGQ venom seen here.

If we are going to get angry at Hillary for super predators, then how is this not at LEAST as bad?

I won't argue that what she said was had more "venom" than anything Hillary or Barack said, and I was NOT trying to compare the two on the basis of "how bad were their positions", but I was trying to make the point that people change over time.

It is easy to say that Hillary and Barack never held positions "as bad" but I'd content that if Hillary ran for president today on a platform of "don't ask don't tell" and abolishing gay marriage in favor of civil unions, she would be seen as homophobic and not win the nomination.

Well, if she had that position in the past, how did she get nominated in 2016?

Her position evolved over time.

So give Gabbard the same benefit of the doubt that she might not be the same uniformed person she was 15 years ago.

I post a link with her positions and as someone pointed out above, they think her position is more along the lines of "government shouldn't interfere even thought she doesn't support gay marriage personally". I would NOT support her either if that was her position. That isn't good enough for me. But at least we're judging her on what she brings to the table NOW, and not something bigoted she said 15 years ago.

All candidates regret comments and actions that come back to the haunt them and cause political damage - NO, that doesn't mean they ALL are equally as bad - but, it's how they openly and honestly deal with these things that distinguish them.

Why would anyone be angry at Hillary for calling drug dealers predators? Are people angry at Senator Sanders for voting for the Crime Bill?

and going out of their way to demean and oppress others based on that prejudice.

yes

2004 is not that long ago.

What has Tulsi done for the gay community since? Sponsored any bills? Helped the community at all?

Link to tweet

We have enough Dem candidates who hold equality in their heart, as well as their voting record, so I see no need to support someone who only offers support in the voting record.

what each potential candidate represents and can bring to the race, so it will be much easier to winnow out those with unquestionably red marks.

Otherwise we stand the chance of not finding anyone in the future. Personally I like a lot of her ideas and understand that running for President in our present political environment is a very challenging task. We need to stick together and make defeating the right-wingers the goal.

And I don't think that Gabbard is by any means the only candidate in the field.

"Sticking together" doesn't = walking lockstep or ignoring all candidates' historires.

Being critical of homophobic, racist or misogynistic statements or actions is something that progressives are going to do.

Ignoring the history of a candidate's actions is something that Trump demands of his supporters. We aren't sheep, like they are.

I understand I must be misreading your comment

As a lesbian I don't believe there were extreme people wanting to get married. I was so happy to marry my wife that we got married twice. And now we are just a normal married couple. Funny how that works. As for her rhetoric, it is abhorrent and I know other dems probably said the same, but she also seems a little too into the Russian propaganda. As someone said before, we have much better options.

tent. Times have changed and people have become more enlightened and more willing to accept people of different views. I think anyone should be able to run for President - if they lose, they lose. That doesn't mean they have to agree with everything I do. I think the LGBTQ community understands this - maybe I'm wrong??

Gabbard is trying to back off from these claims, you aren’t suggesting, had she not, she’d be a viable candidate? Homophobia is the worst kind of bigotry, not a “different view”

As a 68 yo, I can guarantee you that these views were not held by many in the past. We all grow and learn as time progresses. How about a little let's kick their butt. The internet is fantastic but I think it also unfairly can destroy someone if that is the intent. We seem to know quite well how to destroy someone's character but are not too good at uniting our brotherhood.

I am no fan of Tabbard, but I will let the GBLTQ community leaders speak on how far they think she’s evolved. I’ll take my cues from those impacted

As long as you are not saying homophobia is a mere difference of opinion NOW, I’m good.

... who, as Tulsi claims, believe their personal opinions can't come into play when voting for legislation, so vote pro-choice or pro-LGBT.

And that's good. Glad for their pro-choice and pro-LGBT votes in the House and Senate.

I'm still not likely to trust such a person to be the MAIN person fighting for my rights against Republican intrusions into them, like a President must do on a daily basis.

Obama and Clinton evolved on whether it was right to extend legal marriage to folks like me, but even before, they never, ever said the kinds of hateful, bigoted things that Gabbard said.

I know the difference.

even bush was at the time. The speech that tulsi gave wasnt even about marriage, it was about civil unions. This is some visceral homophobia. Now in anticipation of her run, she conviniently attented a pride parade in hawaii last summer to change her image. We are not that stupid. I don’t see her getting endorsements from lgbt groups. Her father is virulently anti-gay and was even supported gay conversion ‘therapy’. She also considered at one time working for anti-gay hate group. Thankfully, we have plenty of choice in the primaries and tulsi needs to be made example of that while you can apologize your supposedly past views, you can never erase them and it will be exposed to no end in the primary season which I beleive will sink her reputation and someone will try to primary her next time she is up for reelection. Hawaii deserves better than this.

As a member of the LGBT community, I can (reluctantly) overlook positions from more than a decade ago regarding marriage that differed from mine, provided their recent actions demonstrate they have truly changed those positions.

I will not overlook candidates who repeatedly described LGBT individuals as homosexual extremists, merely for seeking the same rights as everyone else.

As an elected official, Gabbard voted against civil rights for me and every other gay person. She spoke of me personally in hurtful, bigoted terms.

She has also repeatedly voted against women's rights to choose what is best for our own bodies and selves.

In both these areas, Gabbard IS a right-winger.

Standard for us to hold when looking at the next leader of our party. It’s January of 2019 and I’m already excited about a number of names. We aren’t going to find ourselves without by holding a strong line on racism and bigotry.

I’m not looking to “understand” and find common ground with homophobes. That’s over. Done.

election, and she went off on the own to visit Assad in Syria -- unannounced to House leadership.

She's an egotistical, inexperienced loose cannon and we don't need another one of those in the WH.

they were doing too much-not enough? And is Kunu her foreign policy adviser?

https://m.

Homophobia and opposition to LGBT rights.

Opposition to women's rights, including the right to choose.

Opposition to U.S. foreign policy and alignment with the Russian agenda.

Promoting the idea of an isolationist "nation-state" instead of the collaborative networks that have prevented world war for 75 years.

These are all Putin's goals, and Gabbard's stared positions.

on a few little issues, this truly frightens me. Either I don't understand her or I understand all too well.

convinces me that her public shifts are for political gain, rather than genuine changes of heart.

As much as evolving Libertarian belief in government involvement. Sounds like she still doesn't like gays or abortion, she just doesn't think the government should have a say in it.

From her telling she changed her beliefs on this after serving the Middle East and finding it problematic that governments were enforcing anti gay and anti choice policies. That speaks to not a change in thinking about LGBT citizens and abortion but the efficacy of government in enforcing rules about those policies. That would make me think she would be willing to see religious exemptions to laws enforcing non discrimination.

I will not be supporting this candidate in the primary. This candidate will not do well in the primaries

I only wish she would change parties. It's regrettable that she carries a Democrat label.

She’s disqualified. Next.

not sure whether or not she's done the work to prove to people that she has truly evolved though, since this is a huge blemish, and I think it would take more than simply having a more progressive position on gay rights and the simple recognition of the humanity of those who identify under LGBTQ today. There would have to be some meah culpa on her part.

People can be the judge of that. I'm still on the fence. Relevant snippets from one article...
https://www.bustle.com/p/tulsi-gabbards-lgbtq-views-have-reportedly-changed-over-time-but-many-say-thats-not-enough-15794044



In a post published in December 2011, Gabbard wrote that her two tours of duty in the Middle East compelled her to advocate for reproductive freedom and marriage equality.

"I began to realize that the positions I had held previously regarding the issues of choice and gay marriage were rooted in the same premise held by those in power in the oppressive Middle East regimes I saw — that it is government's role to define and enforce our personal morality," Gabbard wrote.


'"She tells me that, no, her personal views haven’t changed, but she doesn’t figure it’s her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others," Ozy's Sanjena Sathian and Tom Gorman wrote', which was in reference to the reason she did NOT get the endorsement of Hawaii's LGBT Caucus.

and the response to that....

"has been a strong voice on LGBT issues and that is reflected in her voting record, which was scored at 100 percent." The statement also highlighted numerous pieces of legislation that Gabbard has co-sponsored to protect the rights of LGBTQ people, such as the Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act.

That's the best evidence that she's literally worked towards equality in her later years in congress, but I'm not saying even that can wash away the concern that even if she doesn't think that legislation against LGBTQ is the governments right, she may still have some lingering personal bias against these identifications.

when she was still living under her parent's roof.

the rules are different.

Jeez... /s

would have referred to "homosexual extremists."

Link to tweet

These have been out there well before her announcement. I know they were on her wikipedia page several months ago when I looked her up. Probably more accurate to say people recently read up on her to learn about her politics.

Anyway. I understand people's opinions and thoughts can change about these matters. I think both Clintons and Obama had some change of hearts with gay marriage during their political careers. But for me, Gabbard has a bit more explaining to do to make me consider her at all. One thing is that she is closer to my age than my parents age. When it comes to certain things I give more leeway to older generations who used to hold archaic views, but who came to change their opinion. Gabbard grew up in the same "world" as I did, though. I even come from a conservative home, and even as a kid under my parents influence I still supported gay rights across the board. So any arguments from her about growing up in a conservative home would have to come with very compelling details for me to accept that defense. Also, the fact she was in politics by the age 22 shows she likely took politics seriously. So, she wasn't just spewing whatever it was she heard her entire life. In other words, I feel it's likely she truly believed what she said she believed back then.

The other thing that gets me is that I never heard any other democratic candidate use the term homosexual extremist even if they were in opposition to gay marriage.

I agree that people can change and we should be willing to accept those who change, but she has some explaining to do for me to feel comfortable with her as a person.

And perhaps explain how she has evolved. She would have to be really good though.

But she still has been a shill for Butcher Al-Assad and his "barrel bombs for peace" program. I don't want to hear shit about how she stands for "peace" and against "interventionism." It's one thing to say we should not be involved in the messes over in the ME, it's another thing to flak for one of the worst war criminals on this planet.

Sorry to be a bit off the subject, but I think that perspective has to be kept in mind.

I say this as someone who would rather not see US troops in Syria, nor do I see much good from seeing the Assad government collapse. My take on that stems from a more pragmatic view of what happens if that did happen. I can't think of any, nor have I heard of any, great ideas of what to do if that happens. However, that view doesn't mean I think Assad is a great guy who is being wronged and maligned by the evil west. I just don't see there as being anything that we or any other nation can do that won't ultimately cause more suffering for the innocent people in the region.

But yeah, this sympathy for monsters like Assad is a problem. I would rather her be in the debate than not be in the debates, because we tend to gloss over important when it's only folks who tend to all hold almost the same views. One of my biggest concerns with Syria is that I don't recall any serious discussion about long-term objectives or discussion of the consequences of action/inaction.

where HER views against civil unions were extremist.

As the daughter of a gay man with three children of my own, I often took comfort from knowing that gay people WERE on the path to marriage equality because young people strongly supported it. And they would prevail in the end. Well, for someone as young as Tulsi, she has no excuse.

Also, you're right that neither Clinton nor Obama nor any other national Dem in modern times referred to, much less protested (with a sign) against "homosexual extremists." When Tulsi was out there protesting against CIVIL UNIONS, the only division between most national Dems was whether civil unions was enough, whether they should be a steppingstone to marriage equality, or whether we should go straight to Marriage equality.

who is both a misogynist and homophobic.

She'd do better against Spanky, especially since she's so much like him.

she doesn’t have Joementum

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2019, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

And that was held up as "proof" Hillary "was always a neocon."

Way more recent than the Iraq war resolution, the Welfare Reform bill, which were TOTALLY relevant for certain other POTUS candidates. Not all, but some.

"evolved" on the legality of it.. her personal feelings are still the same.

she is DOA anyway for her demagoguery on fox news against obama and clinton.