Image 01 Image 03

Democrats Furious With Tulsi Gabbard After ‘Present’ Vote on Trump’s Impeachment

Democrats Furious With Tulsi Gabbard After ‘Present’ Vote on Trump’s Impeachment

Gabbard continues to deny she’ll run as a 2020 spoiler candidate, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from sounding alarm bells in the aftermath of her “present” vote last week.

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has proven time and time again that she is not afraid to knock over a lot of chairs and turn over some tables to shake up the Democratic establishment.

She proved it again last week by voting “present” on the articles of impeachment against President Trump instead of marching along party lines with a “yea” vote. In an interview with The Hill the morning after the vote was taken, she explained why she decided to go her own way:

Gabbard, the sole remaining Democratic presidential candidate in the House, told Hill.TV that while she thinks Trump is “absolutely” guilty of wrongdoing, a vote in favor of impeachment “should never come about as a culmination of a highly partisan process.”

“This is something that our founding fathers warned us about,” Gabbard said.

“Making this statement, voting ‘present,’ taking a stand for the center. Standing for our democracy and really that this decision of whether to remove Donald Trump or not must be in the hands of voters,” she added. “I believe that they will make that decision.”

The Hawaii congresswoman noted she has instead introduced a resolution censuring Trump.

Watch the interview below:

During the same interview, she again dismissed the idea she was considering a third-party run for president and also criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for “mak[ing] up the rules” as she goes along by way of withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate.

Gabbard posted a video on Twitter on Thursday as #TulsiCoward trended on the platform and criticism by Democrats increased. She asserted both major political parties were trying to do “maximum damage to each other” for “a win,” and that if it doesn’t stop, “America is done for”:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was among the first Democrats to criticize Gabbard, although she didn’t do it by name:

“Today was very consequential, and to not take a stand one way or another, on a day of such great consequence to this country, I think is quite difficult,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters after the historic vote Wednesday, adding, “We are sent here to lead.”

To make matters worse for Gabbard among Democratic party officials and snide liberal commentators, President Trump praised her during a Turning Point USA speech on Sunday:

Former Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) said on Monday that Gabbard, who is not seeking reelection to Congress, should resign from her seat now and that a special election should be held to fill it:

“I believe people in the second district deserve representation and are not getting it and they are unlikely to be able to get it over the next year,” Abercrombie said during a press conference on the steps of the Prince Kuhio Federal Building in downtown Honolulu on Monday morning.


Abercrombie is a co-chair of State Sen. Kai Kahele’s campaign to claim Gabbard’s House seat, though he said he was speaking in his personal capacity as a former member of Congress.

Though she continues to deny she has plans to act as a spoiler third-party candidate in 2020, that hasn’t stopped Democrats from sounding alarm bells in the aftermath of her “present” vote last week.

Jon Chait wrote in NY Mag that Gabbard’s vote and her comments afterward “sets the stage for Gabbard to play the role of 2020’s Jill Stein.” Democrats have long believed that Stein played a role in Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016, though that theory has been debunked.

American Prospect editor at large Harold Meyerson opined that Gabbard “continued down her path to become next November’s independent Democratic spoiler” with her Wednesday vote.

Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow noted Gabbard’s Wednesday move “renewed speculation this morning about the congresswoman launching a possible third-party presidential campaign.”

I think the Hawaii congresswoman is on the up and up when she says she has no plans to play spoiler next year, but if Democrats keep questioning her loyalty to her country and party, she might change her mind in another act of defiance.

After the way they’ve treated her as a pariah and a “Russian asset” simply because she doesn’t view all Republicans as the enemy and thinks elections should be decided at the ballot box, would you blame her?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Tulsi is an idiot. Her policies are destructive and she doesn’t know it.

But she’s the only candidate on the Dem side who has earned a tiny amount of respect by thinking for herself (once in a while) rather than just competing to be the wokest one out there.

She proved it again last week by voting “present” …

I seem to remember this black Jesus guy from IL who also voted “present” quite a few times.

Voting “no” would have been infinitely better if one wants to go all in. “Present” is not a hill to either win on or die on.

As Mark Steyn says, the sideline is not the high ground.

    TX-rifraph in reply to alaskabob. | December 24, 2019 at 6:17 pm

    Voting “Present” seems to be one step lower than a participation trophy.

    Free State Paul in reply to alaskabob. | December 24, 2019 at 8:51 pm

    Maybe she respects the views of her super-liberal constituents. Voting present allows her to thread the needle between representing the voters who sent her to Washington, and staying true to her conscience.

Present is indecisiveness, not needed in a president

If she’d voted NO and had said “the process was partisan; the witnesses unconvincing; the articles lack specificity” I’d have respect. But she charted course down the middle, attempting not to aggravate either side and obviously failed with her side.

I could even have respected her if like Van Drew she refused to be strong-armed and voted according to her constituency – which I’m certain is also divided along partisan lines.

Abercrombie was once described by the Wall Street Journal as the least respected member of Congress. Then when he became governor, we got a double champ. The least respected Governor. This former cabbie (he drove a VW for crying out loud) makes Jesse Ventura seem normal.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to puhiawa. | December 24, 2019 at 6:36 pm

    If it was the diesel, that would have been a smart move.

    NavyMustang in reply to puhiawa. | December 25, 2019 at 7:42 am

    Whew, brah! Hawaii has plenty of pols like that to choose from. I lived there for quite a few years when in the Navy and as a Honolulu beat cop. Always shook my head at the no hostages taken politics.

“sets the stage for Gabbard to play the role of 2020’s Jill Stein.”

One of those traps the Dems set for themselves. They’re so busy moving left to get those Stein voters, that they’ve left the moderate half of their party behind. Their spoiler this year will probably be from the center.

    CorkyAgain in reply to txvet2. | December 24, 2019 at 4:14 pm

    Bloomberg seems to be the one most likely to make a third-party run if he’s denied the Democrat’s nomination.

    But I don’t know if he qualifies as “the center”.

      Free State Paul in reply to CorkyAgain. | December 24, 2019 at 9:04 pm

      It would be logistically difficult for Bloomberg , Gabbard or any other latecomer to run as a third party candidate. After Perot, most states made it difficult or even impossible to get on the ballot without a D or an R after your name. You either need lots of time, money, lawyers and volunteers, or you need the nomination of an established third party like the Green Party, which has already done the hard work of getting onto the ballot.

      What Bloomberg might be able to do is throw enough money at the easier states to get ballot access, then try to get enough electoral votes to deny anyone 270. But that strategy is best suited for someone with a Big Cause to push. I don’t see Bloomberg has any issues other than he’s not a socialist and he’s not Trump.

        I think Bloomie is going for the brokered-convention win. If he runs openly in the primary he’ll get called out over and over on “stop and frisk” which did keep down the mayhem in NYC, now he says he regrets it.

        Which may be enough if he’s inserted at the convention, and then the issue won’t be too bad in the general election.

    ConradCA in reply to txvet2. | December 24, 2019 at 10:56 pm

    They want to turn the USA into the USSR, but know that they have to hide their true intentions in order to win elections. Politicians like Biden know this truth and are good at lying their way into power.

Voting present was a mistake. She ended her POTUS run as a Democrat.

It would be fun to see her run as a 3rd party though even there I’d think she wouldn’t get any real traction.

another case of much ado about nothing, or making a mountain out of a mole hill. I seem to remember another presidential candidate I think he set the record for voting present in the senate and he became president. the fact is the Democrats just want to get Pres Trump, nothing else matters

She’s not a 2020 spoiler. She’s setting herself up for 2024, if the final narrative on 2020 includes the impeachment having been a huge mistake.

Voting present is a spineless action. Either he should be impeached or he shouldn’t. She’s just pandering to both sides.

Clintack is right. She has the right credentials with her military and political history. She does have some whacked out ideas but she probably realizes that Trump in 2020 is going to happen as the Dims don’t have a platform and have been alienating their base.

    artichoke in reply to Tsquared. | December 24, 2019 at 7:21 pm

    She has military grunt-level experience. That’s nice and all, honorable from everything I’ve seen, but it’s not enough to play on the big stage. As I said in another comment, she doesn’t even appear to understand things going on at that level.

Gabbard disagrees with all Trump’s best decisions. The Patriot missile barrage into Syria hurt nothing and proved the S-300 system could not intercept those missiles; Russia went nuts after that for some reason hehe. I wonder if Capt. Gabbard even understands that.

    ConradCA in reply to artichoke. | December 24, 2019 at 11:01 pm

    Why would we barrage Syria with Patriot missiles? The patriots shoot down missiles and planes.

      artichoke in reply to ConradCA. | December 25, 2019 at 3:46 am

      To test out the S-300 which we knew Russia had deployed around that airfield in Syria. Conveniently it’s the same S-300 or close that Russia was using to defend their own homeland. It was a stress test. We shot something like 55 missiles, aimed at harmless target zones but the missile defense system couldn’t know that, and we found that almost half got through.

      Remember that night? Trump was having the state dinner at Mar-a-Lago with another geopolitical rival, Xi Jinping, and the results of the barrage were available sometime in the latter part of dinner. We earned “respect”, the kind that counts, from both Russia and China that night.

      Trump’s like a mob boss. Which is good, because he’s OUR guy.

        artichoke in reply to artichoke. | December 25, 2019 at 3:51 am

        Think of it this way. We got respect from Russia as if we’d successfully landed a Patriot on their homeland, but without invading their territory or firing anything at them.

        Instead we fired at Syria, which was in the middle of years of multilateral war anyway, and we didn’t even really hurt anything. Very importantly, we did NOT fire at Russia.

    Free State Paul in reply to artichoke. | December 24, 2019 at 11:25 pm

    What was the highest rank YOU held in the US military, Arty? Just asking.

      “Free State” as used by commie Paul refers to the free state the brain cells are leaving.

      Choosing the tag “free state” when you are an outright commie means you’re trying to fool someone.

      No sale on this board.

        Free State Paul in reply to Barry. | December 25, 2019 at 12:23 am

        Merry Christmas, Barry!

        I’m happy to see that the staff of your assistive living facility have given you internet access on this most holy night. They are good people.

        May Santa stuff your stocking with those almost-pain-free catheters Medicaid still pay for.

      Used to design weapon systems.

I don’t expect it to happen, but if the Libertarians really wanted to screw with the Democrats they’d nominate Vermin Supreme, the Vermont performance artist and perennial joke candidate.

He’d be on the ballot in all 50 states, and his hilarious, goofy platform (a free pony for every American, etc.) and the upside down boot on his head would go viral.

I voted write-in for the Verm in ’16 and am going to do it again next year, given that I live in WA State and it’s locked up for the Ds anyway. I really think that if the Libertarians stuck the Verm on their ticket, he’d make a difference in a few of the blue states.

by voting “present” she has a future.
Perhaps she should join her colleague and swap parties and see if she can replace someone on Bolton’s old position so she can actually end the wars.

Free State Paul | December 24, 2019 at 8:44 pm

A Trump-Gabbard ticket would be great. Might be the only way to beat Michelle, should she decide to run.

I’d vote for Gabbard as a third party candidate if one of her campaign promises were to give the State of the Union speech in a bikini.

The present vote was a coward’s vote. She hasn’t gone anywhere in the polls.
While I am not opposed to looking a pretty woman, there needs to be far more qualifications for the highest office than what they look like.
I would hope that principles and policy ideas would count for far more than what they look like. How shallow to be swayed by an attractive face.

she clearly wants to stay in office and present is a safe vote. Not only does she want to stay in office she aspires to higher office.

    Free State Paul in reply to dunce1239. | December 24, 2019 at 11:37 pm

    If she clearly wants to stay in office, why did she announce she is leaving the House?

    You are living up to your handle, Dunce!

If Gabbard is truly a democrat, she had no choice but to vote “present” to keep some semblance of a connection to her party.

That said, how anyone with a semblance of mental health, common sense and a working knowledge of our history and Consittution remain a democrat nowadays?

Gabbard is between a rock and a hard place. However, her gamble may pay off, and she might become a palpable choice for liberals who cannot make it off the crazy reservation.

    Sticky wickets there. Liberals can’t get off crazy reservation. If they want off they aren’t liberal any more, or crazy. Once sanity happens, all that craziness was just “youth indiscretions”. Or trying to get laid.

Leftist love to chat up their difficult/problematic women, with their promotion of difficult women making history and all that jazz. However, leftist women fall in line. How often do boil, toil, and trouble, the three bags on the Supreme Court disagree? Senator Collins of Maine has her own ideas. Democrat women in the Senate always vote the party line. Remember the last state of the union address, and how the socialist women orchestrated their appearance and applause? Yet they all think they are so cookie cutter alike they are nauseating.

A “No” vote is clearly logical based on the absence of evidence.
A “No” vote is clearly moral based on the fraud and crimes committed by the deep state and the Democrat Party leadership.

Gabbard appears to lack the moral courage and the logical strength to be POTUS. She is qualified to be a Democrat, however.