I hate to be the one to take away people’s heroes. The kid who sees through the emperor’s new clothes usually isn’t welcome at court.
But I’m willing to take a gamble that in the age of Trump, speaking the truth and “telling it like it is” are still considered political virtues. If I see a snake lurking in the grass, it’s up to me to sound the alarm — even if it means ruining everybody’s picnic.
With that preamble, let it be known that I’m unequivocally here to pour rain all over everyone’s Tulsi Gabbard parade.
Gabbard has emerged as something of a hero among many conservative and right-wing political observers. She’s seen as the “moderate,” “centered” voice among a field of progressive extremists vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.
She’s the “non-interventionist” who will bravely stand up to the military-industrial complex that has infiltrated both parties, putting America first and keeping our young people from dying in any more unnecessary (and illegal) wars.
A Drudge instant poll taken right after the first Democratic debate last week crowned the Hawaii congresswoman the event’s winner.
A Washington Examiner survey also gave the contest to Gabbard.
Of course, both of those outlets have largely conservative audiences, which makes them virtually irrelevant when it comes to gauging performance in a Democratic primary.
Claiming those two polls to be meaningful at this point in the race would be like giving credence in 2016 to a HuffPost poll showing Trump in last place.
Indeed, surveys that actually look at Democrats suggest Gabbard’s campaign won’t be going very far. Most put Gabbard’s support at or below one percent.
What the Drudge and Washington Examiner polls do tell us is that Republicans have taken a liking to the 38-year-old military veteran — even if Democrats couldn’t care less.
Right-wing outlets and commentators have been quick to jump on the Tulsi Train.
Pat Buchanan, an anti-establishment legend who can rightly claim to be a “Trump Before Trump,” penned an article in which he called on President Trump to replace his hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton with Gabbard.
“If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump’s victory at the Cleveland convention and in November,” Buchanan mused wistfully.
Ann Coulter, who has never been shy about breaking with the GOP’s establishment wing — particularly on the issue of immigration — cheered Gabbard on during the debate when the lawmaker fact-checked Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan over his claim that the Taliban, rather than Al Qaeda, was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Breitbart has run a number of pro-Gabbard pieces, including one entitled “Tulsi Gabbard on the Border: ‘Yes, This Is a Crisis’” (which, when read, reveals that Gabbard says nothing about reducing migration, building a wall, or securing the border) and three recent articles decrying alleged bias against Gabbard by the organizers of the Democratic debates.
And, as Breitbart notes, even libertarian champion Ron Paul has called Gabbard “good on foreign policy.”
Other bonafides typically pointed to by conservative Gabbard fans include:
• Meeting with then-President Elect Trump in 2016
• Rebuking President Obama for not using the phrase “radical Islam”
• Opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
• Voting with Republicans in favor of an “extreme vetting” bill for Syrian and Iraqi refugees
• Stating that she doesn’t want to pursue impeachment proceedings against President Trump
In conservative circles, these have effectively made Gabbard the “only sane” candidate among her Democratic colleagues.
But is Congresswoman Gabbard all that her admirers make her out to be? Or is the anti-war, anti-establishment persona merely a veneer hiding a globalist agenda?
Smoking Gun? The CFR Connection
One of the most alarming details to fly under the radar in discussions of Congresswoman Gabbard is her association with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
During my recent analysis of the first Democratic debate, as well as during a phone interview I gave for The New American’s Top Headline YouTube program, I brought attention to Gabbard’s membership with the CFR, per the organization’s own website.
Just a few days later, however, Gabbard’s name was removed from CFR’s online membership roster.
Interestingly, when I wrote my article and did the interview last week, Gabbard’s Wikipedia page included a mention of her CFR membership in the first paragraph.
