Sunday, October 13, 2019

New York Times Hit Job On Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard
By Robert Wenzel

I am only a lukewarm supporter of Tulsi Gabbard but a new New York Times hit piece on her is way out of line.

I am told that Gabbard is not surprised by the hit.

In a piece titled, What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?, NYT tries to paint her as attracting nothing but fringe support. (Naturally, they take a swipe at Ron Paul for good measure and identify him as part of the fringe):

Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her “libertarian instincts,” while Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her “refreshing.” 
And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich see a certain MAGA sais quoi.
“She’s got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person,” Mr. Cernovich said. “She seems very Trumpian.”..

Perhaps strangest of all is the unusual array of Americans who cannot seem to get enough of her.

On podcasts and online videos, in interviews and Twitter feeds, alt-right internet stars, white nationalists, libertarian activists and some of the biggest boosters of Mr. Trump heap praise on Ms. Gabbard. They like the Hawaiian congresswoman’s isolationist foreign policy views. They like her support for drug decriminalization. They like what she sees as censorship by big technology platforms...

Then there is 4chan, the notoriously toxic online message board, where some right-wing trolls and anti-Semites fawn over Ms. Gabbard, calling her “Mommy” and praising her willingness to criticize Israel...

Brian Levin, the head of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino, said Ms. Gabbard had “the seal of approval” within white nationalist circles. “If people have that isolationist worldview, there is one candidate that could best express them on each side: Gabbard on the Democratic side and Trump on the Republican side,” Mr. Levin said.

Ms. Gabbard has disavowed some of her most hateful supporters, castigating the news media for giving “any oxygen at all” to the endorsement she won from the white nationalist leader David Duke. But her frequent appearances on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show have buoyed her support in right-wing circles.
It is pretty clear from what can be publicly surmised, and a bit of inside info I have, that Gabbard is staying away from all these groups. They comprise near zero of the support she is getting.

What NYT did to Gabbard in this piece could have been done to any candidate. It is a low-grade news media Russiagate-type narrative attack. It has almost nothing to do with reality. It is a smear of someone who is signaling she is against forever wars. It is what is causing the establishment to attack.

NYT correctly identifies these three key issues that are part of Gabbard's campaign:
  • An  isolationist foreign policy
  • Support for drug decriminalization
  • Challenging censorship by big technology platforms
Does NYT think these issues are not worthy of even discussion but a smear deserves frontpage coverage?

Will they ever ask her why she supports these positions, rather than just launch a smear campaign that has nothing to do with the issues?

To ask these questions about the establishment is to answer them.



Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.comand Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert and is author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bankand most recently Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics and on LinkedIn. His youtube series is here: Robert Wenzel Talks Economics. More about Wenzel here.


  1. What will become of these awful CIA/DNC propaganda machines in the months after Trump leaves the White House and their clicks rapidly dwindle? Hopefully millions in lost revenue and hundreds of job cuts.

  2. "An isolationist foreign policy" That ole line that suggests if you are not in favor of always bombing random foreign countries, killing or displacing millions around the world, and stealing trillions from US taxpayers to support the Military Industrial Complex, you're just a loon.

    There is a difference between isolationism and nonintervention. Maybe you can start by looking in a dictionary NYT.