However, it all died down by later that day. No one was sure what to chirp in the comments by then because they weren't getting any direction from the 'party elite' who were implicated in Representative Gabbard's complaint.
It was as if Hillary Clinton and the establishment wing of the party had hired the Pot Brothers as their attorneys, and that their advice was the same for them: "shut the fuck up."
While the establishment wing of the party tries to appeal to those who every four years figure out whose name they recognize from those who are running, and who then quickly get tired of politics, so they just vote the way they always have, the progressive wing has both instituted some offensive plans to gain power within the party and some defensive plans to prevent the issues of 2016 from being repeated.
The establishment has laughed and wondered how that will be done. When a group of Bernie supporters sued the party for unfair representation, the party argued it had no obligation to be fair. That was the argument that won, and it is true. The Democratic party is a registered 523 non-profit corporation, and not an agency of the government. It has the obligation of having committees and directors, but it does not have the obligation to be fair.
They got to gloat over the victory, and got several of its ilk re-elected, including the party's former chair who resigned in disgrace before the convention. They got her re-elected again in 2018, but they did not get the number two ranking Democrat behind Nancy Pelosi re-elected. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took Joe Crowley's seat, which gave the progressive wing that vote for committees and directors. Crowley was in line to be the next Speaker. Ayanna Pressley also took out an establishment incumbent simply because Michael Capuano was a superdelegate who voted for Hillary Clinton and Pressley supported Bernie Sanders.
The progressive wing has never been quiet about the objective of the political revolution: taking over the identity of the Democratic party. Neither has the progressive wing been covert about executing the plan. Quite the opposite is true. The establishment wing of the party doesn't want their reasoning exposed, and they have been giving speeches to Wall Street, to arms manufacturers, and to health care and pharmaceutical executives without telling us what they are telling them. It is all secretive and covert, and they rely upon people who pop their heads out of their shells long enough to pick up some replies that fit on bumper stickers and then get tired of having to think to buy the party line.
One of the covert things that the establishment wing does that the progressive wing exposed is they charge Congressional members $250,000 in annual dues to be paid to the DCCC. The DCCC is a PAC that uses its resources to help fund the re-election campaigns of incumbent Democrats.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has refused to pay the dues putting forth the argument that it violates her right to free speech, and that she will exceed the obligatory amount supporting Democratic candidates she supports. She supports Jamaal Bowman over incumbent Eliot Engel in the Bronx, and she supports Jessica Cisneros over incumbent Henry Cuellar in Texas. The DCCC will support the incumbents over their primary challengers without considering the platforms or voting records of the incumbents, provided they pay their annual dues.
If you think that is not a big deal, think about whether or not they (meaning the rich who run the party) want to put the PAC that exists as a result of Citizen's United up against the argument that won Citizen's United. So far, I think they get that point, even if the average Democratic voter doesn't.
We are now at a critical point in the 2020 nominating process. In less than a month, it will be clear who is still in the race and who isn't. There are the four obvious front runners: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg.
There is one candidate who has not been so obvious despite performing admirably, and much of it has to do with her summarily being dismissed because of the baggage she will carry into the process: Tulsi Gabbard. She didn't support Hillary Clinton in 2016. She resigned her vice chairmanship on the national committee. She visited Trump after he was elected and before he was inaugurated. She went to Syria on a secret mission.
Now it turns out that she's a Russian asset and is really a Republican.
But how do you know that? More accurately, why do you think that?
None of it will be from evidence you can gather about what Tulsi Gabbard says or does. You cannot prove it with any videos, votes, or historical evidence you can gather about the candidate who preaches and lives the aloha spirit. Tulsi Gabbard is a 38-year-old Major in the Hawaiian National Guard and has deployed twice as a medic to the middle east. She is a vital young person who sits on some of the most important committees in the House of Representatives, and she has never had her credentials or top-secret clearances challenged. Her visit with Trump did not result in a personality change, and the secret mission should be considered a high compliment for the respect she has from military and world leaders.
The reason you think you know that Tulsi Gabbard is really a Republican are from articles about her father raising her with conservative values, and not looking at her values or her family's values. They support the argument with the proof that she appears on Fox more often than other candidates, but they cannot go to those Fox interviews and draw out proof that she is either a Republican or even conservative.
Still, these are the people who told you that the only reason Donald Trump is the president is because people who said they wouldn't vote for Hillary didn't vote for Hillary, and that likely makes sense to people who don't think about it too deeply. That would include those who pop their heads out every four years and have to figure out who all these career politicians are. They are the people who are putting the "vote blue no matter who" bumper stickers on their cars because they are that wishy-washy about who they support.
It's catchy. It's easy to remember. It's not thoughtful, but politics get old quickly. Besides, the sticker is already on the bumper.
Now, why did you think she might be a Russain asset? That came from one source, and it came out of spite and with malice. It came from a source that many people regard as credible, and someone who would know information that most people are not allowed to know.
The $50 million lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for defaming Tulsi Gabbard will serve as the final notice to the establishment wing of the Democratic party that 2020 will be handled differently than 2016. She has shut up one of its prime spokespeople, and, with it, the same forces whose marketing slogans sway the typical voter with easy-to-remember replies that sound a bit like responses. There is a pre-trial hearing set for March 6th, which will keep establishment forces watching what they say as they try to figure out a way to spin a direct statement into a statement of opinion.
Anybody who thinks the progressive wing's plan is divisive to the party is correct. Anybody who thinks that is a bad thing and it gives Trump a better chance at re-election is drinking the Kool-Aid. The best chance to beat Trump in November is to run a candidate who is widely supported by the biggest voting bloc in the nation, and to get in behind that candidate. That sounds like I am talking about Bernie Sanders, but the description also fits Tulsi Gabbard - unless you agree that Hillary's statements have damaged her chances.
If you are thinking, "Yeah but . . .", remember to shut the fuck up. What you are about to follow with is the reason Hillary Clinton is being sued.
That will not be the end of the differences in the way 2020 will be handled, in my opinion. I expect that attempts by the party to doctor the outcome of primary and caucus elections by purging voter registration rolls or creating inconveniences designed to disenfranchise progressive voters will also be met with lawsuits.
The political revolution is in motion. It cannot be stopped. Besides, who wants to be on the side of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton when they can be on the side of Tulsi Gabbard, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ayanna Pressley? It truly is the rich elite versus common people, and old people against young people.
Tulsi Gabbard merely served the rich, elite, old people their final notice, and the playing field just got a lot more level! In her typical aloha spirit, Tulsi Gabbard planted a tree the shade from which she may not enjoy. Better than that, though, the tree she planted took the place of a bunch of thistles the establishment were planting and blaming on progressives!
