Tulsi Gabbard is never afraid to break from the pack. And her early answers at the CNN Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night was no exception — she took a divergent approach, at least rhetorically, when discussing impeachment.
Debate moderators, unsurprisingly, opened by asking every candidate about his or her stance on impeachment. Most took the opportunity to grandstand and morally preen, citing everything from the failed “Russiagate” collusion hoax to more serious and troubling concerns regarding the president’s dealings with Ukraine. From Kamala Harris saying she “knows a confession when she sees one” (um, she tried to make an innocent man register as a sex offender) to Elizabeth Warren pretending that “some things are just more important than politics,” it was ultimately clear.
Gabbard, while she does support an impeachment inquiry, broke with the pack to push back against their partisan narratives. “If impeachment is driven by these hyperpartisan interests … it will only further divide the country,” she said.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: “If impeachment is driven by these hyper-partisan interests, it will only further divide an already terribly divided country.” https://t.co/zR9cyoISvY #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/bSPKSSaHLV
— ABC News (@ABC) October 16, 2019
Tulsi Gabbard, one of the last Democrats to back the impeachment inquiry, says it’s “the only way forward” but she worries Trump will be exonerated by the Senate and claim vindication.
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) October 16, 2019
The Hawaii Democrat is right to call for restraint. On the debate stage, she noted that “calls for impeachment really began shortly after Trump won his election, and as unhappy as that may make us as Democrats, he won that election in 2016.” She’s spot on. As I wrote previously, “Gabbard is right that Democrats ought to come to their senses and focus on beating Trump at the ballot box in 2020.”
Of course partisan hacks hate the fact that Gabbard focuses on unifying rhetoric. They immediately jumped down her throat for it online. But when your enemies respond to well-reasoned objections with visceral personal attacks, you know you’re onto something.
