Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, speaks during the second of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN Wednesday, July 31, 2019, in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
As Brandon Morse wrote last Thursday, 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) defended her “present” vote on the articles of impeachment by stating that impeachment “should never come about as a culmination of a highly partisan process.”
She also told The Hill that using impeachment was a political tool was something the founding fathers warned against:
“This is something that our founding fathers warned us about,” Gabbard said.
“Making this statement, voting ‘present,’ taking a stand for the center. Standing for our democracy and really that this decision of whether to remove Donald Trump or not must be in the hands of voters,” she added. “I believe that they will make that decision.”
She later posted a video to her social media accounts, explaining her decision a little more detail, asserting both major political parties were trying to do “maximum damage to each other” for “a win”, and that it was destroying America:
My ‘present’ vote was an active protest against the zero-sum game the two opposing political sides have trapped America in. My vote and campaign is about freeing our country from this damaging mindset so we can work side-by-side to usher in a bright future for all #StandWithTulsi pic.twitter.com/nmhEL5bi4Q
— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) December 19, 2019
Gabbard’s explainers on why she decided to vote “present” were not good enough for “journalist” and prominent TDS sufferer Soledad O’Brien, who took to the Twitter machine to call Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, an “American Coward”:
American Coward https://t.co/7RTJyKyqhO
— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) December 19, 2019
In addition to retweeting people who agreed with her about Gabbard, O’Brien doubled and tripled down on her description of the Hawaii congresswoman as a “coward”:
And if you cannot clearly state that foreign interference in a US election is wrong. And if you fail to fight for the Constitution you swore to protect, whether you’ve served or not, whether you’re in public service or not. Whether you’re a mom or a CEO—then you are a coward.
— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) December 20, 2019
Twitter users let O’Brien have it:
Not sure breaking with your entire party on the most important issue of the moment is cowardly. Then there's the whole serving in the military thing.
— Tim Stanley (@timothy_stanley) December 20, 2019
Calling a military veteran a coward because she dared to not toe the party line is peak Soledad O’Brien.
If only Tulsi was so brave as to be a partisan “journalist.”
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) December 20, 2019
No one braver than a keyboard warrior. Am I right Soledad?
— Janice 🍟🐶🏀🏈 (@jannyfayray) December 20, 2019
Hey, Soledad —
There were Dems who voted with an actual “no”. Vote. What is the term an objective non-biased journalist has for those votes??? https://t.co/KgyOVssVoN
— Brad Slager: aka Wuhan Solo (@MartiniShark) December 21, 2019
Wonders the most courageous thing is that you have done to judge others so?
— Cullen Tiernan 🦉🌺 (@CullenYossarian) December 20, 2019
Yeah, she’s only a member of the military who served in a war. She nowhere as brave as a biased tweeting teleprompter reader like you.
— Anthony Amore (@anthonymamore) December 20, 2019
Yours truly also weighed in:
2nd time in six months Soledad O'Brien has called a military veteran a "coward." Of course she conveniently does this from the comfort of her phone/computer on social media instead of saying it to their faces which, you know, kinda makes *her* look like a coward. Just sayin'. https://t.co/kUTfUMGX4w
— Sister Toldjah 😁 (@sistertoldjah) December 23, 2019
The other war veteran she called a “coward” earlier this year was decorated war hero General James Mattis for, as Bonchie noted at the time, “refus[ing] to break his personal rule of verbally bashing presidents still in power” in his memoir.
To be sure, military veterans are not off limits from criticism if they say things others disagree with, but calling someone you disagree with who volunteered to serve in harm’s way a “coward” is not exactly what I would call a smart way of trying to prove your point.
In fact, if you haven’t volunteered to serve yourself – as is the case with O’Brien – it’s an extraordinarily stupid tactic. Then again, you shouldn’t expect too much from a partisan shill who couldn’t even cut it on a Democrat-friendly news network like CNN.