Michael Tracey writes on X:
So now [Tulsi Gabbard] randomly dumps this trove of 2016 “Russian interference” documents to Fox News, in a clumsily-concocted PR scheme — then she jumps on Hannity to accuse Obama of “treason” (laughable), and pretends Obama could face criminal prosecution. In other words, she takes everyone to be an absolute idiot, as she desperately implements her bogus little political diversion tactic at the behest of Trump…
But it’s just not factually accurate that Obama himself ever claimed voting systems were tampered with, or that he “suppressed intelligence” to that effect. Could it be argued that Obama should’ve been *more* proactive in tamping down on the insane proliferation of Dem conspiracies? Sure. There are plenty of legitimate critiques to be made of Obama, on the “2016 election interference” issue, or any number of other issues.
But that’s not what Tulsi Gabbard is doing. She’s doing another simpering political shtick — to appease Trump and promulgate bullshit. That’s her clear MO so far as Director of National Intelligence.
First off, two things:
- I don’t like Michael Tracey.
- I was saying that Russia collusion is a hoax from the first moments it was inflicted on the public notice back in 2016. I was very anti-Trump back then but, as blog long-timers will confirm, I was always adamant that Russia collusion was stupid and fake.
I do, however, agree with this analysis by Michael Tracey. The problem with Tulsi Gabbard is not that she’s a Russian agent. The obsession with Russian agents is like a disease. People need to get over it. Gabbard’s problem is that, at heart, she’s a hippie lefty bimbo. This conspiracy stuff she’s peddling is typical Boomer lefty stuff. She’s weak, that’s her main problem. And that’s Trump’s problem, too. Granted, he’s been less weak in the second term than in his extremely impotent first one. But we’ve seen some slippage into weakness recently, and that’s disturbing.
Of course, Tulsi is only doing what Trump is telling her. And so is Pam Bondi. These weak, embarrassing threats to publicize, reveal, and arrest that never get anywhere all come from the same source.
On the positive side, it’s heartening that conservatives are a lot less gullible than liberals. Leftists ate the Russia collusion hoax (and every other hoax) right up. There are, of course, stupid, low-information people on the Right. But there’s nothing like the Left’s gullibility where every outré hoax gets happily picked up and eagerly repeated. Rightist influencers bash Trump all day while I can’t think of any leftist opinion-maker who would dare to peep anything against Kamala.
Clarissa's Blog 
“Don’t vote for a cop” was pretty standard in leftist social media discussions of Harris. Maybe you’re confusing the “vote blue no matter who” liberals / Democrats for leftists.
LikeLike
Do you honestly not see the difference between criticizing somebody for things that happened a long time ago and can’t be remedied and criticizing over something a person is doing right now?
The former situation is fake criticism that is aimed at pretending one is objective. But since the reason for criticism can’t be removed, it’s all pretense. Criticizing over what’s happening right now is serious criticism. Or was Kamala so godlike that she made zero mistakes while she was VP of the US?
LikeLike
And, “She’sd do anything stay in power, including a cover-up” is also not going to count as “a peep” for some other reason, I sippose.
I wasn’t that keen on in-group / out-group theory before, but this conversation is a great demonstration of it I see fractures on the left that you don’t, but to me the right looks way more monolithic than you see it.
LikeLike
Yes, conservatives generally lump leftists together with liberals. But there’s a huge ideological difference between leftists like Zohran Mandami, Catherine Liu, Aaron Mate, Adolph Reed, etc., and liberals like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and MSNBC reporters.
LikeLike
These people are all neoliberal. They concentrate on different parcels of reality that they want to neoliberalize. This is what you mistake for ideological differences. But they are all completely and utterly neoliberal.
LikeLike
Nope. People like Catherine Liu, Adolph Reed, and Walter Benn Michaels are explicitly anti-neoliberal–they are socialists (and not DSA-type socialists). You may argue that they’re really neoliberal and they only think that they’re not, but I don’t agree.
LikeLike
Nobody considers themselves neoliberal. It’s one of those ideologies that keep scoring major victories without being able to boast any adherents.
You don’t have to call yourself a neoliberal (which, in fact, almost nobody does) in order to be one.
It’s kind of embarrassing to say things like “no, he’s not a neoliberal because he doesn’t use that word to describe himself.” I hope you now understand why I’m saying it’s embarrassing.
LikeLike
Right, I agree that no one calls themselves “neoliberal.” People usually pin that label on others. But how would you consider a socialist “neoliberal”?
LikeLike
Neoliberal is:
opposed to the institutions of the nation-state
pro-austerity (eg “defund the police”)
pro mass migration
believes that freedom and choice trump everything else (eg if you choose to live “as a woman”, you should be able to do so)
is heavily opposed to tradition
doesn’t like or accept the limitations of human biology (eg “race is a social construct,” men in women’s sports, “girl dick”)
believes that everything should be fluid (eg gender identities or the concept of citizenship)
believes that words can remake reality
is very uncomfortable with the idea of objective reality (especially if it thwarts human will) and immutability
A person like this can call himself a socialist or a pink cow with purple spots. He’s still a neoliberal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“No true Leftist”
LikeLike
metylethyl being clear and succinct as always.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Rightist influencers bash Trump all day while I can’t think of any leftist opinion-maker who would dare to peep anything against Kamala.”
Nothing Obama, Biden, Kamala has done or being accused of, come close to the likely chance of Trump being highly involved in an elite pediphile ring and doing everything in his power to cover it up.
LikeLike
Of course! It’s because leftist leaders are so perfect that there’s nothing to criticize them for. That’s the real reason. Saints they are, veritable saints.
I’m so glad we’ve solved this mystery.
LikeLiked by 2 people
😂😂😂
LikeLike
Evergreen.
LikeLiked by 1 person