As Rand Celebrates, Mitch and Bernie Vote Against Tulsi - For the Same Reason

#12 There is no daylight between Senators McConnell and Sanders when it comes to new DNI Gabbard.

Gage Skidmore

Once upon a time, America had “progressives.”

They were anti-war, defenders of civil liberties, distrustful of the intelligence community and really hated George W. Bush.

Democrat Tulsi Gabbard was one of them. She ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 precisely to highlight these issues.

Obviously, many of her fellow progressives liked her. So did many libertarians.

This is nothing new.

Historically, progressives and libertarians have found common cause on matters of war, peace and constitutional liberties.

One of Ron Paul’s closest friends and allies during his time in Congress was progressive Democrat, Dennis Kucinich, for the same reasons I’ve cited here.

In fact, both now retired from Congress, they’ve remained friends to this day.

It’s no secret that Ron Paul’s son, Republican Sen. Rand Paul, is also a libertarian.

When Tulsi Gabbard was confirmed as President Donald Trump’s new Director of National Intelligence on Wednesday, Sen. Paul celebrated her victory and congratulated her.

Sen. Paul voted with every other Republican to confirm Gabbard, except one.

Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell.

A longtime loyal defender of the Washington establishment, the former GOP Senate leader has always guarded federal agencies, particularly the defense and intelligence communities, against anyone who might challenge or expose them.

The DNI has authority over all of American intelligence agencies.

There was no way McConnell was over going to vote for Gabbard - despite her being an Army veteran, despite her being a former member of Congress - because the entire purpose of Trump choosing her is to challenge the status quo.

She’s a reformer, the exact opposite of what McConnell and his federal agency friends want.

Libertarians like Ron Paul and Rand Paul, along with the remnant of progressives of old, like Dennis Kucinich and journalist Glenn Greenwald, look forward to seeing what Gabbard might accomplish.

But if all Republicans except one voted to confirm Tulsi, ALL Democrats voted against her.

Including Bernie Sanders.

But isn’t Sanders a progressive?

He used to be.

Functionally, he’s now not much different from McConnell.

When Sanders ran for president in 2016, his hard Left campaign attracted large crowds of young people and others who were energized by his progressive rhetoric. The self-described socialist was boldly antiwar and pro-civil liberties, and even some libertarians who had supported Ron Paul for president in 2008 and 2012 ended up backing Bernie later precisely because of those issues.

That’s what brought Tulsi Gabbard on board with Sanders too. After Hillary Clinton rigged the 2016 Democratic primaries in a way that was unfavorable to Sanders, Tulsi resigned from her post as DNC chair and immediately endorsed Bernie.

She had his back. After all, he was the antiwar candidate taking on the hawkish and neoconservative candidate in Hillary Clinton, so, of course, she was going to support him. Especially over her.

When Clinton later accused Gabbard of being a “Russian asset” in 2019, Sanders defended his old friend.

As a female Bernie Bro, Gabbard said in 2016 about Sanders and his primary opponent, "There is a clear contrast between our two candidates with regard to my strong belief that we must end the interventionist, regime change policies that have cost us so much. This is not just another 'issue.' This is the issue, and it's deeply personal to me.”

Sanders gave her the love right back, saying nine years ago in his acceptance of her endorsement, “Congresswoman Gabbard is one of the important voices of a new generation of leaders. As a veteran of the Iraq War she understands the cost of war and is fighting to create a foreign policy that not only protects America but keeps us out of perpetual wars that we should not be in."

If Sanders thought Gabbard was such an “important voice” back then, publicly defending her against Clinton even, why didn’t he vote for her for DNI?

Again, for the same reason McConnell didn’t.

Bernie finds other voices more important now.

The biggest sign of how much Sanders had changed, rejecting his old progressiveness for a more comfortable Washington experience, was something that happened in 2022.

In October that year, the Progressive Caucus in the House sent a letter to President Joe Biden urging diplomatic talks and a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine.

This is a position most progressives, being antiwar, of any era would hold regarding a prolonged and seemingly unwinnable war. The letter urged a “proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a cease fire.”

It read, “The alternative to diplomacy is protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.”

In other words, the Progressive Caucus was simply being… progressive.

In another era, certainly during Bush-Cheney, most progressives and large numbers of Democratic voters would have nodded in unison.

BUT… this was post-2016, when the Trump era began.

The parties had already flip-flopped on foreign policy in some significant ways.

So the Democratic establishment put a stop to the Progressive Caucus’s letter REAL quick.

The letter was retracted within 24 hours.

And Bernie Sanders was one of the loudest voice in his outrage against…

The Progressive Caucus.

He was angry that they would even suggest that the United States stop sending billions to Ukraine to prolong this unwinnable war.

Sanders insisted that the Russian invasion had “to be resisted” and of the letter itself he said, in seeming disgust, “I don’t agree with that, and they don’t agree with it, apparently. It was withdrawn today, so it becomes a non-issue.”

When some remaining progressives, antiwar groups like Code Pink, called Democrats war-mongers for continuously funding the war, Sanders replied, “Democrats, war mongers?”

He continued, “When you have Putin breaking all kinds of international laws, unleashing an incredibly disgusting and horrific level of destruction against the people of Ukraine?”

Sanders’ view of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and what should be done was indistinguishable from Mitch McConnell’s and the neoconservatives in both parties.

They don’t want the war to end. They really don’t want any war to win.

It’s what war-mongers do! By definition.

Once a progressive icon, Sanders is now clearly on the other side, serving the Washington establishment. He was a rabid supporter of every bit of the billions of dollars the U.S. sent Ukraine would be embarrassing to the man who ran for president in 2016.

That establishment absolutely hates Tulsi Gabbard and what she represents.

So that means a “no” vote from Mitch McConnell.

That also means a “no” vote from Bernie Sanders.

By the way, that “proactive diplomatic push” for peace that the Progressive Caucus briefly hope Biden might accomplish?

It appears President Donald Trump just got to work on that…

Today.

Biden could have done the same at any time during his presidency, but he and his party didn’t want a negotiated peace.

So, sorry, Mitch McConnell and Bernie Sanders, it looks like peace might be coming to that region.

Naturally, Tulsi Gabbard supports diplomacy over war in Russia-Ukraine, and will dutifully help carry out Trump’s agenda in her new role as DNI.

So, again, congratulations to Tulsi Gabbard.

And shame on you, Bernie Sanders.