Tulsi Gabbard the Trans Candidate

• Fully transitioned — to swinging left
• Singing the tune ~~ I’m a progressive too!
• Her one-time supposed conservative positions had more wiggle room than a Hawaiian luau
• Her brush-up with selfish Hillary notwithstanding (that was just Hillary trying to clear the field for a possible run)
  
• Bottom line – by any stretch of her yoga pants, she’s a liberal Democrat

“Trust me – I’m one of you” (No & no you’re not)

So we have the Iowa Caucuses fast approaching and the press will be likely camped out here all next month until the caucuses are over. There will be conservative press here too and to the extent that they are pumping up Gabbard out of some bizarre need to say something nice about a Democrat – they are needlessly promoting if not an untrustworthy human being one who is essentially just as foursquare liberal as the rest. She has abandoned some positions that set her apart (if she was ever serious about them) only to adopt positions that are in all practicality essentially ultra-leftist Democrat positions on gay marriage, on drug legalization, on gun rights, on Keystone pipeline, on the right to life.**

Whatever her actual positions on those issues in the past there is little now to separate her from the Democrat herd. Sort of like how the differences between Ford and Mercury automobiles evolved — same platforms with fans of one or the other arguing over what amounted to nuances. The idea that she is meaningfully pro-life is belied by her position statement that supports the codification of Roe v Wade which obliterates any actionable prevention of third trimester abortion.  Indeed Gabbards opposed attempts under Roe to actually limit abortion.* Further she supports increased funding for Planned Parenthood the nations largest abortion syndicate.

The only apparent flip that may bother any Democrat constituency (driven more by their own particular favorite candidate) is that she opposed legalizing gay marriage at one time.  But she has now dutifully apologized for her previous position. The only difference between her and the rest of the pack is that they may desire to punish her for not being on the cutting edge of that issue.  Not so ironically she and Obama got the Democrat religion on that score about the same time.  On that we note she abandoned her more conservative father who organized opposition to gay marriage in Hawaii.  Her father is Catholic and apparently of the traditional variety.

On the right to life she abandons not only presumably her father but arguably her mother, or at least the religion of her mother, who is Buddhist, a religion that opposes abortion. Gabbard is also Buddhist so it is arguably a double whammy.

On guns she wants an assault weapon ban ala Clinton (a genuinely silly position for somebody supposedly familiar with the functioning of firearms as her Army veteran status would imply).  She also advocates closing the so-called gun-show loophole, and supports the essence of gun registry or at least the stalking horses for it.

And dutifully, not to religion or a republican form of government, but to party, she supports single-payer health insurance. Even Obama didn’t officially go that far out of the paddock. But then Tulsi was a Bernie supporter. There is no bigger power grab for government than that.

Any elected Democrat as president would surround herself with the party apparat, would have to, and that means further ratcheting of the country toward the socialist stranglehold in so many ways.

The clip below is from a progressive site that questions the authenticity of her claimed progressive positions.  It is a hatchet job but it is useful to identify where they are coming from. Going to Gabbard’s web site you will see that she claims the basic ultra-liberal positions on key issues.   Her core positions are fully conducive, fully in step with ultra liberal takes on the issues addressed.  Testimony to that is provided by the comments from progressives defending her which accompany the site where this clip was posted.  The second clip** is a little ditty we thought appropriate.

**The title to this article is misleading indeed belied by the the actual content:

Gabbard sat down with libertarian commentator Dave Rubin for a wide-ranging interview released Sunday, during which he brought up the subject of abortion. She described her overall stance as a “more libertarian” belief in government’s role, that “government really shouldn’t be in that place of dictating to a woman the choice that she should make.”

“I think that there should be some restrictions, though,” she added. When Rubin (who describes himself as “pro-choice” but growing more ambivalent on the issue) asked for a “cutoff point for that,” she answered, “I think the third trimester, unless a woman’s life or severe health consequences is at risk, then there shouldn’t be an abortion in the third trimester.”

Gabbard’s answer leaves significant wiggle room as to whether she would support a meaningful late-term abortion ban, given how current Supreme Court precedent defines how “health” is to be understood in the context of abortion.

“(M)edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health,” the Court declared in Doe v. Bolton, the companion ruling to Roe v. Wade. “This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

0

0