A Conservative* Case for Gabbard

I know, it sounds insane, but just imagine a world where the Democrats nominated someone competent and likeable rather than someone they could bully or intimidate. I know, also an insane ask. Today, we look at what could have been if the Dems stopped touting ‘Orange Man Bad’ and instead touted ‘Highly Qualified Military Veteran Good’.

Yes, yes, you read that title correctly. A conservative (well a *conservative libertarian) case for how Tulsi Gabbard got shafted from actually trying bring America back together. I know I’m asking a lot when I say “if people just looked at policy instead of personality we’d be in a much better place…” but really, America, you left us the options of the presidential incumbent Donald Trump or slick tongued and disliked Kamala Harris (yes, Biden is irrelevant to this actual election…no one actually voted FOR Joe Biden, unless you did then correct me, but I think you’re lying to yourself.)

Tulsi Gabbard is only 39 and already has a career record that anyone on this planet, and especially in this country should be proud to show-off. This woman won a seat in her state (Hawai’i) House of Representatives at the age of 21. Yes, the age of 21 — when most of us were out being dumb kids, Gabbard was like “hold my beer” and then won a House seat. She’s been in the Army National Guard, done two tours of duty, and has been relatively moderate in her voting history.

Now, before anyone reading this tries to call me out for not being a “down-ballot” Conservative (I will openly call myself a conservative libertarian and then someone can fight me on semantics like libertarians love to do.) I have news for you — I. Am. A. Human. I. Have. Opinions. I am not required to fit into your small little boxes of what a left/right political ideology must entail. I am a registered Republican in my state for the sole purpose of voting in primaries to try to get the most conservative/constitutional candidates to be the front runners. In 2016, I wanted nothing more then for Senator Rand Paul to win the Republican nomination. When that fell short, I wanted nothing more than Austin Petersen to win the Libertarian nomination for the general election instead of Gary Johnson and his VP candidate Bill Weld, who basically told America if you’re not going to vote for the Libertarian — Vote for Clinton.

From a zoomed out view of Rep. Gabbard’s — she votes 90-95% in line with the Democrats. However, that that 5-10% she doesn’t is what appeals to those of us who understand there are social systems in place that cannot be removed and we need them, but for the most part want the Federal Government to stay away and stop getting involved with average Americans. I’ll get to social programs and my thoughts at a later date.


So, let’s break down some of Rep. Gabbard’s voting record for the 116th Congress (2019-2020) and then go over what happened in 2019 that caused her to drop from the race — or more like was chased out by the Establishment because she didn’t fall in line.

Tulsi Gabbard voted to ‘YES’ to terminating the border wall emergency declaration

I don’t agree with her ‘yes’ — I do not vote in favor of open borders, I do not think there is any reason to go live in a country, illegally, and try to live off it’s social programs (another post for another day). HOWEVER, I do not agree with an executive branch declaring an emergency to reallocate funds with a pen. Executive orders and declarations are out of hand and this is an example of that on all accounts. Unfortunately, I think this is a very grey area in terms of the federal government trying to keep its borders safe and secure.

Tulsi Gabbard voted ‘YES’ to not re-impose net neutrality rules

This is even beyond a resounding round of applause for Rep. Gabbard. Net Neutrality is another example of how Congress pushed off their job to an administrative agency to regulate the entire internet. This is worse though because by attempting to reinstate Net Neutrality, you’re letting a government agency basically rule the entire free web in the Untied States, based on the 1934 Telecommunications Act. Rather than Congress trying to write a new act specific to this new and historical technology…they lumped the Internet into a Act from 1934 and passed off regulation to the FCC. NINETEEN THRITY FOUR. Reinstatement of Net Neutrality would be thrilling news for Big Tech (Facebook/Twitter/Google) since they’re basically in bed with the Establishment. Can we imagine if they controlled and wrote the rules of the web. Does sound resoundingly Draconian to anyone else?

She did not vote on the impeachment of Donald Trump

I am sure this is where I lose a bunch of you…but I don’t know personally how she feels about the president. Quite frankly, how she personally feels shouldn’t affect her politics. And her voting “present” is the correct place to be when you’re skeptical of hyper-partisan pressure but you also believe there was wrong doing. So what I do know is that she chose to not stand up and parade around an illegitimate document about Russian collusion and attempt to use its falsehoods as grounds for impeachment. She. 👏🏼. Remained. 👏🏼. Skeptical. 👏🏼. And that is what we need in government — skeptics and critics of the system, not enablers and despots. The Russiagate investigation did find out the Russian’s spent $1.25 million on internet ads…however, in 2016 Clinton spent $1.2 BILLION on ads and Trump spent $617 million (these are over the course of the entire campaign).

Tulsi Gabbard voted AGAINST re-upping the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

The FISA act allows for the Federal government to collect business records and other documents during national security investigations WITHOUT a warrant. No, hell no, what insane person wants to give that much power to the government?! The Patriot Act being an extension of FISA alone should have made people concerned – the fact that people willingly gave over their privacy for what was a horrendous terrorist act on the United States is not something that we should be applauding.

Just some fun extras:

She also recently tweeted out that President Trump needs to pardon Assange and Snowden and I am here for it. I am 100% in favor of exposing every side of the aisle and letting the American people see the truth.

Tulsi Gabbard also recently applauded the Supreme Courts ruling that stated the governor of NY was violating the First Amendment by not allowing places of worship to operate on the same playing field as secular “essential” businesses. There are already so many red flags with Gov. Cuomo — but that’s for another day. We can go back and forth about the “party” of the Court, but the sheer fact this wasn’t a 9-0 decision is rather telling about the view of the Court and Constitutional rights and liberties.


So how did America get to once again in 2020 vote for an 87 year old white guy or a 74 year old incumbent white man? I mention gender and race here solely to point out that the party of “diversity and inclusion” had many chances to not put up an old white guy. Instead they put up an old white guy and assumed an overtly liberal/leftist woman as VP would check enough intersectionality boxes to overlook the fact that he (Biden) hasn’t done anything in 47 years. Yet he somehow appealed to the middle/moderates because he’s totally a moderate and he was Obama’s VP so he must be good at political stuff. Yea, anyone with 3 brain cells doesn’t believe that.

With that being said — I’m not saying I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the general election if she had won the nomination — but I can say that America would be MUCH LESS divided and would be TRUSTING of the voting process if she had obtained the nomination, compared to the 3 ring circus we have going on today. Hell, I think that even if socialist Sanders would have got the nomination the election wouldn’t look so reality show in real time.

So, after all that, what’s the other big reason I like Rep. Gabbard is because she [Gabbard] refused to kowtow to the Democrat/Establishment machine and instead called them out on their pandering/warmongering BS. Okay, more like Gabbard called out Clinton, who in typical Clinton fashion, returned the favor by making a very libelous claim stating Rep. Gabbard was being “groomed” by Russia. Once the Clinton machine speaks out against you — good luck getting anywhere with the Dems or Media in Washington. And I think that was the main driver for me to start reading and learning more about Gabbard — the fact that she has the strength to tell those in her own party she won’t be bullied or intimidated by their defamation and partisan buffoonery. She instead wants a united America and to ultimately try to find compromise on both sides of the aisle — which a lot of younger conservatives also want, if you’d sit around long enough to ask. I will say, I am upset she dropped her lawsuit against Clinton’s comments, but I also think Gabbard is concerned with getting “Clinton’d” (this is very much my personal opinion) so I understand.

I don’t like partisan hacks, I don’t like identity politics. I like people who want to make America the best it can be and who understand sometimes, you have to make concessions for the greater good, BUT that doesn’t mean sacrificing your core principles just because you want to be president, and for that I commend Rep. Gabbard.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s