Democratic US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) set off a firestorm on Sunday with a one-line Tweet on a third rail topic. The aftermath continues four days later. Canadian philosopher and public intellectual Marshal McLuhan famously observed that “the medium is the message.” How is messaging changing with the advent of such radically different mediums? Is news/reality accelerating? Ludwig von Mises Institute President Jeff Deist joins the discussion…in today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
The only thing Omar did wrong is apologize.
I think there’s a good chance that she broke something loose that is going to bounce around the 2020 election.
NOBODY is going to out-pro-Israel Donald “Most Pro-Israel President in History.”
So Democratic contenders have the choice of taking on the Israel lobby or just being see as Trump Mini-Me-Toos. I think at least one major contender will decide to do the former.
Tulsi.
Highly unlikely. She’s an associate of the Adelsons, of Christians United for Israel/John Hagee, etc. She was one of the few “progressive Democrats” who attended Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress.
Also, if she did switch sides and take on the Israeli lobby, she’d probably end up having to confront questions about her association with Modi’s nationalists in India and her promotion of THAT “special relationship.”
Then who?
Hell if I know. I just hope it happens.
The first major Democratic contender to take on the Israeli lobby may not win the nomination or the presidency, but he or she will change the conversation.
“She’s an associate of the Adelsons, of Christians United for Israel/John Hagee, etc.,” you write. Reference please. Sounds a bit strange since she visited Assad and has been in the forefront of getting the US out of Syria, not exactly Israel’s dream – and ceasing all our other wars and nation building in the Middle East. With friends like that, Israel does not need enemies. So I would like evidence since there is an apparent contradiction.
p.s. I find her association with Modi is not entirely convincing. True she was photographed with him but also with his opposition, I believe. (I do believe she is a serious Hindu and I suspect that is where her heightened sense of duty comes from.). One must be very careful because the Establishment hates her and has been either ignoring her or undermining her from the day before she announced. Lots of garbage about her out there.
She’s had her picture taken with the Adelsons and her campaigns have been funded by them. I forget whether the picture was when she gave a speech to Christians United For Israel, or when she accepted the pro-Israel “Hero” award from Rabbi Boteach’s organization.
A big part of her large donor base is Sang Parivar/Hindutva/Vishwa Hindu Parishad events which raise money for her campaigns with BJP politicians as speakers. She’s a board member of Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, the US wing of the violent anti-Muslim group based in India.
In fairness, these are things that would only really move to the front burner as issues if she became a strong competitor for the Democratic nomination. In the RealClearPolitics polling average, she’s in 11th place with 1.3%, ahead of only Kirsten Gillibrand.
Yes, there are come-from-behind victories in some contests, and a strong anti-establishment feeling among Democrats this year that she began tapping into in 2016 when she resigned as a DNC vice-chair to endorse Bernie Sanders. But that doesn’t mean a US Representative from a small state is likely to be one of those come-from-behinds. Her problem is not a problem with her policy positions, etc. — it’s a problem with her position when it comes to the ability to run a strong campaign.
There’s a reason why presidential nominees are usually former or sitting governors, Senators, or vice-presidents. They’ve already got name recognition. They’ve already got important contacts and likely big donors lined up for ANYTHING they decide to do. They’ve already got friends at RNC or DNC to pull the strings that get them more spotlight within their parties.
If Gabbard can get past all that and at least into the middle of the pack, THEN the big attack guns roll out. The anti-gay stuff, etc. deployed right when she announced to see if they could shove her out right away. She’s weathered that, but she’s weathered it in place, not bounced up in the polls from it.
I’ve been hearing about these weird shadowy connections for years but as Cratylus pointed out, it doesn’t seem to have had a big affect on her maverick policies. It’s possible Adelson just threw money at her because he believed it would weaken the DNC. That doesn’t make excepting it any less gross but I doubt Adelson would support her in a serious presidential bid. The Hindu nationalist stuff does creep me out. I mostly just want to get her on stage close enough to punch Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren in the tits, metaphorically speaking, of coarse.
She doesn’t look a thing like Jesus, but she talks like McGovern, like you remember when you were young….
No fans of The Killers here? Oh well. Tough crowd.
In fact, what she did really really wrong and caused the apology is that she ran for the Demolican Party. Of course, there’s a tradeoff, because she wouldn’t get elected otherwise, but it guarantees her eventual silencing.