Call someone by the wrong pronoun, or deny a biological male the right to use the women’s toilet and a person will feel the unbridled wrath of the Liberal inquisition. Ban an anti-war candidate in your own ranks, however, and that’s just par for course in the Democratic club.
‘Bad publicity is better than no publicity,’ as any marketer worth his salt understands. Yet Tulsi Gabbard, the anti-war, anti-interventionist Democratic presidential candidate, who should be the darling of every progressive, has virtually disappeared not only from the debate stage, but from the news cycle as well.
During Super Tuesday, the Iraq War veteran managed to pick up two delegates, which, under previous terms would have qualified her to participate, alongside Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, in future Democratic debates on the road to the November elections. As predicted, however, the DNC changed the rules mid-game.
The DNC has banned the only woman left from the next Democrat debate. I don’t hear any complaints from the same women — Warren, Harris, Pelosi, et al — accusing “the country” of sexism.https://t.co/0DMVbMeLYp
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) March 7, 2020
Xochitl Hinojosa, head of communications for the Democratic Party, apparently in a preemptive strike against the hope that Gabbard would be given a podium at the upcoming debates, tweeted on Super Tuesday: “We have two more debates – of course the threshold will go up. By the time we have the March debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated. The threshold will reflect where we are in the race, as it always has.”
Since then, the DNC has ruled that candidates must get at least 20 percent of the delegates as of March 15. Gabbard’s two delegates don’t meet this requirement.
Had Hinojosa and the Democratic Party elite reflected a bit longer about “where we are in the race,” however, they may have come around to a different conclusion. Like, for example, is it really the best optics to have two geriatric white male contenders steal the show from an upstart female who, having witnessed the atrocities of war firsthand, has acquired a soft spot for peace in the Middle East.
It’s just not the DNC elite, however, that is preventing Gabbard from participation. Even before Super Tuesday, CNN had seriously hampered any chance Gabbard may have had in getting her message out by refusing her an invitation to the (CNN sponsored) town halls.
I’m in Manchester, New Hampshire, where @TulsiGabbard is holding a demonstration against @CNN for excluding her from a series of town halls despite polling higher in NH than other candidates in the race. pic.twitter.com/A5udL4jQDZ
— Andres Del Aguila (@Andres_DAguila) February 5, 2020
That move on the part of America’s first 24-hour news channel, founded forty years ago this year by Ted Turner, was unconscionable considering that Gabbard had been polling at the top among New Hampshire voters. According to Real Clear Politics, Gabbard had been polling ahead in New Hampshire of Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer and Deval Patrick, all three of whom were invited to the debates. Where exactly is the democracy when a media corporation is empowered to determine who among the presidential candidates is allowed to participate?
Funny too how the rule changes never seem to hurt establishment powerhouses, like the mega-wealthy Michael Bloomberg, who was given the green light to debate after donating $300,000 to the DNC. Following that unprecedented act of ‘philanthropy’ by Bloomberg, the DNC quickly declared that candidates no longer need to have a minimum number of donations to appear on the debate stage.
.@JoeBiden @BernieSanders I’m sure you would agree that our Democratic nominee should be a person who will stand up for what is right. So I ask that you have the courage to do that now in the face of the DNC’s effort to keep me from participating in the debates. #LetTulsiDebate
— Tulsi Gabbard ? (@TulsiGabbard) March 7, 2020
Once again, the social justice warriors inside of the Liberal rage machine were silent. Not a peep from them as a rich white male, the epitome of the patriarchy, paid his way into the process ahead of a much more deserving female contender.
In his 1957 book ‘America as a Civilization,’ journalist Max Lerner described a liberal as someone who has “a passion for battle – against the ‘octopus’ of the big corporations… for wage-and-hour legislation, for women’s rights, for social security.”
Those individuals who call themselves ‘Liberals’ are fighting for a raft of radically different issues, few of which could be confused with what Lerner was speaking about.
Today, the masses are receiving an education courtesy of the ‘woke’ industry on things they never realized they needed educated about, like the nuances of acceptable pronoun usage, for example, or the importance of open toilets (regardless of biological sex) and open borders for everyone (regardless of legal status). The brave days of true progressive politics are over. In its place is an emotion-fueled Inquisition where issues truly worthy of liberal consideration never make it on the radar.
For the up and coming females in the Democratic ranks who really deserve support, the ugly new face of liberalism, usurped by Cultural Marxism, is doing them a huge disservice, while preventing the Democrats from becoming a real party of the people, for the people and by the people.
