At this point, going on CNN if you’re a progressive seems about as logical as a horse asking for directions to the glue factory. CNN (Referred to be me as the Chicken Noddle Network, Centrist News Network, Clinton News Network, and Kamala News Network) is currently the lowest of the low in pretend news. Of course, this surprises no one who actually follows what’s behind the scenes especially when (as I documented about a month ago) they hired former Sessions spokeswomen Sarah Isgur to run the coverage of the 2020 presidential election.
Over the weekend, I chose to take on the non-logic on the biggest critics of Rep. Gabbard. Most notably, the claim that if she did not qualify as a progressive, then I was unable to — in good faith — call myself a progressive. For this, I was told I was limiting who could be called a progressive while going after someone who insisted that Gabbard was not a progressive. It didn’t make much sense to me either.
Let’s start with this, she was sandwiched between two much lesser candidates. That night, CNN also held a town hall for John Delaney and Pete Buttigieg. Delaney — while not a bad candidate — is still blander than dirt with his “new social contract,” platform (whatever that even means). Meanwhile, Mayor of South Band Pete Buttigieg — who has not even officially announced a presidential campaign, by the way —is running on nothing other than being a “fresh gay face.” Meanwhile, both of there positions on war (the main thing Gabbard is running on) have been left to the dust.
Here are some of the questions she was asked:
- Is Assad bad?
- Is Assad bad?
- Is Assad bad?
- Congresswoman, to be clear, is Assad bad?
Of course, it is possible to question Gabbard’s connections with an oppressive leader like Assad. In fact, it should be done. However, it must be noted that a common sign of insecurity is having to repeat whatever you're insecure about is fine to the mirror every day.
Mainstream media pounced on the idea Gabbard would not call Assad a war criminal (a move I do disagree with), yet, no other candidate has been asked about Assad even half as much as Gabbard has. While you may say this is because of her connections, I respond with this: If Assad truly is a real danger to American security, shouldn’t a major part of our politics be based on finding ways to counter him instead of just condemning the one woman who is actually trying to do something?
Let us not forget, CNN’s favorite candidate Kamala Harris put the lives of people who had there houses illegally foreclosed by Steve Mnuchin in danger. Far as I have any reason to believe, Mnuchin has launched a much greater attack on Americans than Assad ever could.
For that matter, neither Obama nor Clinton were ever questioned regarding there connections with Saudi Arabia. Although, in the case of Obama I guess they had much more important matters such as rather he was friends with a communist or if he was born in America.
For that matter, Ms. Bash — the host of the town hall — made the mistake of assuming the intelligence agencies were always correct. This has been proven false time and time again, yet CNN doesn’t care.
Look, if I were to go through everything wrong with just this aspect of the “Tulsi loves Assad,” narrative, I’d be here all day. All you need to know is they’re clearly trying to build another Russia or birther conspiracy in case she wins so her presidency can never be legitimized.
This was the most substantive of the questions CNN gave her. Besides that, Dana Bash and her network of Obama bros in the audience seemed to be trying to waste the time of the audience as much as possible.
Another question involved rather Rep. Omar was antisemitic. (Another smear I’ve documented at length) I’ll admit, seeing the “liberal media” use talking points straight out of The Daily Wire is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.
There were also questions about her previous anti-LGBT comments. Of course, she has a 100% record from most LGBT organizations as a representative, but she was homophobic in 2001 so that’s all they seem to care about. Meanwhile, they had not asked a single question about Hillary Clinton’s anti-LGBT status while she was running, but I assume that’s just a coincidence.
Worst of all, CNN spent about ten minutes asking Gabbard about her religious affiliation. Why? About 1/5 Americans do not identify with any religion, most of them are Democrats. Do they really think Democratic primary voters care which God she believes in and how she chooses to believe in it?
At this point, Gabbard going back on this joke for a network is a kindness I’m not sure I would give them in her case.
Update: The line “Of course, it is possible to question Gabbard’s connections with an oppressive leader like Assad,” previously read “Of course, it is possible to question Gabbard’s connections with a theocratic monarch like Assad.” Since the original publishing of this article, I have been informed of evidence against these claims that I previously was not aware existed. I do not have the needed knowledge on Syria to properly defend these statements, and as such have removed them from the article.