Gabbard Shows How DNC’s Commitment to “Impartiality” is B.S.

Gabbard Shows How DNC’s Commitment to “Impartiality” is B.S.


Minimal Right Bias
This article has minimal right bias with a bias score of 23.38 from our political bias detecting A.I.

Opinion Article
This is an opinion article. As such, the content below expresses the viewpoint of the author, not our site as a whole.

The next debate in the Democratic primary cycle will be held March 15 in Phoenix, Ariz. The Democratic National Committee changed the qualification rules last Friday, March 6, for the express purpose of excluding U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), whose anti-war stance has caused her to experience a near-total media blackout, especially on the part of such liberal “news” outlets as CNN and MSNBC.

This sudden rule change came almost immediately after Gabbard actually qualified for the debate by winning two delegates in American Samoa, her native territory, and stands in stark contrast to the rule change executed by the DNC to enable multi-billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s participation in the Nevada debate last month.

If the DNC’s treatment of Tulsi Gabbard seems unfair, don’t bother to tell them about it because they already know it’s unfair and they don’t care. Back in 2016 a class action lawsuit was filed against them and eventually dismissed on the grounds that the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” was merely political rhetoric and not enforceable in court, so why should they?

In 2016, Gabbard resigned her position as Vice-Chairman of the DNC in order to support Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) over Hillary Clinton, who nevertheless won the nomination and lost the general election to Donald Trump. Instead of fading from the limelight as every reasonable American would like her to, Clinton opened her mouth last November and implied that Gabbard was a “Russian asset,” whatever that means exactly.

Gabbard is currently suing Clinton for $50 million as a result of that slanderous accusation. Recently Gabbard called on Twitter for Sanders and the other leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, Joe Biden, to stand up for what’s right and pressure the DNC to allow her on the debate stage with them.

This might seem a little bit strange, but of course she had every right to make such a request, especially of Sanders, who can reasonably be assumed to owe her a debt of gratitude after her sacrifice on his behalf back in 2016. Biden doesn’t owe her anything, but, as has often been said, “It never hurts to ask.”

Neither Sanders nor Biden has any reason to demand that Gabbard be allowed in a debate with them. Indeed, it would be political suicide for either of them to do so — not because of the act itself, but because she would mop the floor with either of them. Gabbard is highly intelligent and her policy proposals make too much sense to too many Americans for either of the elderly candidates to reasonably refute.

It would, however, clearly be the right thing to do, in the spirit of impartiality and evenhandedness, even though those principles are optional in the politics of the Democratic Party. I personally fail to understand why Gabbard is messing around with the Democratic Party any more at all. Her policy proposals appeal to a much broader spectrum of American voters.

She has the support of a wide variety of people, from Green Party members to Libertarians and even Republicans. I personally know many Trump supporters who would gladly vote for her. This may seem odd, considering that among her proposals are a form of universal health care (called Single Payer Plus) and a universal basic income, but there you are.

Perhaps the reasons for Gabbard’s widespread support stem from her ability to compromise. Her Single Payer Plus proposal allows for private health insurance for those who want and can afford it, whereas Sanders’ Medicare For All proposal does not, for instance. The Green Party would likely nominate Gabbard for president in a heartbeat if she asked them to.

It’s quite probable that, if she campaigned for it at all, she could win the Libertarian Party nomination as well, and the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in every state. For reasons of her own, however, Gabbard continues to try and effect change in the Democratic Party. Whether her efforts will ever bear fruit remains to be seen.

The facts remain, after all of this, that Gabbard qualified for the next debate and the DNC simply changed the rules to exclude her. Whether Sanders or Biden like it or not, whether Democrat voters like it or not, and whether the DNC and Hillary Clinton like it or not, it is only fair to allow her to be heard by the American people in such an important forum.

Maybe Michael Bloomberg or some other liberally-minded billionaire should donate a billion dollars to the DNC on the condition that Tulsi be allowed to debate. Then I bet they’d change the rules back to what they were a week ago. Where is George Soros when the people actually need him?

Content from The Bipartisan Press. All Rights Reserved.

Please note comments may not immediately appear as they pass through our spam queue.