to me back then because of it.

Link to tweet

has no business being in the October debate. What does she hope to accomplish? I guess muddying the waters of the actual Democratic candidates is her main goal. Apparently she believes her astoundingly lackluster career in Congress qualifies her to be president. She's too hawkish for my tastes, and doesn't seem to mind stabbing other democrats in the back without warning.

Go away Tulsi, just go away.

to simply admit she is a Republican.

Most of the policies she supports are not merely Dem, but on the left side of Dem, closest to Sanders/Warren. She has one of the more liberal voting records in congress. She's votes with Trump 19.5% of the time... which is less often than Beto (30.1%).

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/

votes 75% of the time with progressives, despite coming from such a blue district. (Beto comes from a red state; Tulsi doesn't.)

She was often critical of Obama during his Presidency, and right-wingers like Gowdy and Bannon have strongly praised her. Also, she met with Trump in the Tower a couple weeks after his election, and she was one of the last holdouts among the House Democrats before finally calling for the impeachment inquiry.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?x=0&y=0&house=house&party=D&sort=crucial-lifetime&order=down



Also, 538 doesn't say Gabbard has a similar record to Warren's or Sanders's. They gave Tulsi a "Trump score" of 19.5%; Elizabeth, 11.9. Bernie, 13.1.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/

re:

from strong blue districts have worse records than she does.

146 Democrats score better than she does -- most from strong blue districts, but even some from blue leaning or swing districts.

She may rank 147 in how left she is compared to her constituency (which is strongly Dem to begin with), but the VERY MOST progressive Republican rates 233 on that same metric. (And the worst Dems rate at 237.)

There's just no way to look at any of these numbers and conclude she's better aligned with Republicans than Dems.

This is my point, and you keep directing elsewhere.

A couple of differences with Obama still doesn't make her more Republican than Democrat. (And I had my differences with Obama too.)

Not every politician aligns 100% with what you might expect from someone of their party. But look at the sum total of her votes and the sum total of her positions, and there's FAR more Dem positions than non.

But she's on the less progressive end of the party.

...and s/he's not the only person here who puts forth that position. So can we at least agree that Tulsi is indeed more Dem than Republican?

As for her being on the "less progressive end" of the party, in terms of domestic policy, I just don't see it. Please check this link... this looks more in line with Sanders/Warren than Biden/Klobuchar/etc.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/tulsi-gabbard/

And on that basis she's nowhere near the Sanders/ Warren end (with A scores). Klobuchar, who has a B rating, also votes more often with progressives than Gabbard does.

Biden is no longer included here because he's not currently a member of Congress, so I don't know where he would stand compared to Gabbard -- but her record isn't the strong progressive record you think it is.

...because

(a) one votes in the House, the other in the Senate, so they're not voting on the same set of bills

(b) the letter ratings are not based on their votes, but rather their votes relative to their constituency, which means even if they were in the same house (allowing a direct comparison), and voted identically, Klobuchar would rank higher because she comes from a less blue district.

But getting back to the main point, remember that I said Gabbard's DOMESTIC positions are at the Warren/Sanders end of the party. The Progressive Punch rating does not distinguish between votes related to domestic vs. foreign policy.

The facts remain that her voting record is far more Dem than Republican, and her domestic policy positions lean decidedly left. That's all I"ve been trying to say, and I don't think that's disputable.

Especially because she says she hasn't really changed her mind -- just her political position. That's a bit too convenient.

When she was asked to come home and campaign on the state marriage-equality bill with Mazie Hirono and others in 2012, she refused to, saying she wouldn't get involved in state politics. Given her past very vocal anti-LGBT stance, that was telling.

This first article was from 2016.

The second article was from Jan 2019. It talks about how she defended a judicial appointment by Trump by calling Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris "religious bigot" because they questioned his membership in the Knights of Columbus (a group on the right end of the Church). As a Catholic, I believe Mazie had every right to ask him whether his membership in that far right group would have any bearing on his judicial decisions. All he would have had to say was he would decide based on the law, period, but Tulsi strenuously criticized Mazie for even asking the question.

Yes, she apologized for her past positions when she began her run for President. Not good enough.

://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/surfing-with-tulsi-gabbard-long-before-her-presidential-bid/62604

She’s not “reflexively partisan,” says Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, with whom she’s worked on privacy bills, among other topics;

SNIP

About 10 years ago, Gabbard violated some of the tenets that now make her so popular as a Democrat with an EMILY’s List endorsement to boot — she was neither pro-choice nor pro-gay-marriage, and in fact fell in line with her erstwhile Republican father. “She’s definitely distanced herself since,” says Jacqueline Lasky, professor of state politics at the University of Hawaii. “She wouldn’t have been successful otherwise.” (Nationally, there’s little talk about it; Kennedy told me he “didn’t really know” about Gabbard’s early conservative stances.) Hawaii bloggers and reporters widely have Gabbard on record as referring to the agendas of “homosexual extremists” at one point; when I ask her, she replies, “That thing I said ages ago?” Yes, I say. “Honestly, I’d have to go back and look,” she says. After repeated follow-ups, the congresswoman replies with a note about her sponsorship of the Equality Act (adding sexual orientation to categories of prohibited discrimination) and of her support for equal treatment of gay service members’ spouses.

Fittingly for her narrative, though, the explanation for her changed ideology feints us back onto familiar territory — the military. It was, she says, the days in the Middle East that taught her the dangers of a theocratic government “imposing its will” on the people. (She tells me that, no, her personal views haven’t changed, but she doesn’t figure it’s her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others.)

https://thinkprogress.org/tulsi-gabbard-regrets-her-history-of-opposing-lgbtq-equality-c9bbb4b01b8d/

Still, progressives might have reason to be concerned about her more recent social positions. In an op-ed just last week, Gabbard excoriated fellow lawmakers who “incite bigotry based on religion.” Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) had criticized Brian Buescher, one President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees, for his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization that has campaigned heavily against LGBTQ equality and a woman’s right to have an abortion. Gabbard accused them of engaging in anti-Catholic religious bigotry for questioning his affiliation with the controversial group.

Opponents of LGBTQ equality have long claimed that its advances infringe upon their “religious freedom.” Indeed, several cases seeking Supreme Court review involve businesses refusing service or employment to LGBTQ people based on their religious beliefs. Despite this claim, studies have shown that those who defend such discrimination do so regardless of whether it’s motivated by religious beliefs or not. Gabbard seems to subscribe to the same disingenuous interpretation of “religious freedom” to defend a powerful and politically influential organization like the Knights of Columbus.

First, there's that same oxy article again that has been mentioned before. There is no quote there of her exact words NOR what they were said in response to. For example, maybe she was talking specifically about still being personally against abortion (a not uncommon position among pro-choice politicians), we don't know. Without any further substantiation, I discount your "personal views haven’t changed" assertion altogether... we don't have ANY exact quote, and even IF she wasn't wrongly paraphrased, we don't know exactly what it is she was referring to when she said whatever it was she said. Between the paraphrase (lack of actual words spoken) AND lack of context for whatever it is she DID say, journalistically, that line from oxy is void of meaningful content.

As for the thinkprogress piece, you omitted this relevant info: