"Tulsi Gabbard: “Legalize ALL Drugs!”"
The Jimmy Dore Show (January 23, 2019)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzh9_DfRaHg

Jimmy Dore: “The reason we’ve got you on Michael, today, is because you’ve been following Tulsi’s campaign. And I just want to highlight something that Tulsi’s been pushing lately.

[shows screen shot with headline reading: “Tulsi Gabbard Endorses Legalizing Drugs”]

This says that “Tulsi Gabbard Endorses Legalizing Drugs.” Not just marijuana. But legalizing drugs. So here’s a tweet that you put up:

So she says [shows screenshot from Forbes]

Jimmy Dore: “And I agree with her 100%. That’s a big leap. Not just saying Marijuana. Saying ‘All Drugs.’ And she’s talking about the Portugal model. Which if you don’t know about that, they’ve tried this experiment of legalizing drugs in their country and it turns out, it works.”

[shows screenshot of those for legalizing marijuana and those who say “let the states decide”]

Michael Tracy: “Bloomberg.”

… [some verbiage about the politicians shown and their positions] ...

“There is only one person who says “decriminalize” which is different from “legalize.” So Tulsi says legalize and regulate. Joe Biden says decriminalize.

Steph Zamorano: “What’s the difference?

Jimmy Dore: If you legalize and regulate, that means you can go to the store and buy it. If you decriminalize it, there’s still a black market. Because now it’s not legal and regulated. So you still can’t go buy marijuana or buy cocaine. So there’s still going to be a dark market.”

Steph Zamorano: “So Biden’s still last century.”

Jimmy Dore: [shows screen shot from TIME and reads]:

[2:44] Jimmy Dore: “Michael. That’s bad, right?" Ron Placone: “He’s so with it. Grass is wet, daddy-o. It’ll make the hair on your legs stand up straight."

Jimmy Dore: “That sounds like something a centrist politician would say in 1984.”

Ron Placone: “That was the last time Joe Biden was “with it” on anything ... I saw an advertisement where they were trying to defend Joe Biden on Climate Change. ‘Oh, no. He’s not so bad.' They had to reference something from 1986. He was kind of on top of it in 1986 but hasn’t changed since."

Steph Zamorano: “I hear that Biden is on fire with Climate change.”. . .

[3:20] Jimmy Dore: “So , Michael, tell me what you’ve seen on the campaign trail.

Michael Tracy: “Well, this statement from Tulsi that I picked up on and then someone from one of the leading drug reform groups contacted me and I gave them the audio and they wrote that article in Forbes which I thought was good. That’s an example of why I felt it to be so personally necessary to devote some time to just covering Tulsi closely as the first voting approaches. Because we can’t rely on the corporate media to cover her in a way that sheds light on some of the unique traits that she brings to the table. As far as I could tell, there weren’t any other journalists at this event a couple of days ago when she made this statement on drug prohibition who would have had the presence of mind to note that it was actually a significant prescription that she offered. Because drug prohibition only ends if you end prohibition. And that’s essentially what she advocated there. Because more and more as I’m watching her, she always reverts back to this theme of needing to address the structural underlying causes of various societal ills that we’re afflicted with. And the way to structurally end drug prohibition is to upend the entire criminalization regimen. But if she had just said that without me there, I don’t think it would have gotten outside the room in the high school auditorium where she was doing her event.

[5:02] Jimmy Dore: “So let me get this straight. She says it. You’re there to cover it. You tweet it out. And then somebody from Forbes magazine contacts you and you provide the audio, and then they write that article on it.

Michael Tracy: “Correct.”

Jimmy Dore: “OK. Wow. So it is important that you’re there.

Michael Tracy: Yes. And I’ve been at all of her events in New Hampshire since December 29th. And again, I’m doing it because I have zero confidence in any of the journalists who might swoop in and report on one or two of her events to do a competent job, and recognize that when she says something which cuts against prevailing conventional wisdom in the Democratic party which she often does or just more broadly within the American political system. And she said a lot that doesn’t get a whole lot of attention. Maybe that’s because people don’t think that she’s high enough in the polls, but in New Hampshire in particular there is reason to believe that she could over-perform what the expectations are for her because New Hampshire allows for independents to vote in the open primary which is more suited to her appeal and she has relatively limited resources so she couldn’t invest in a massive ground game in Iowa which you’d need to be competitive there, so they decided to focus on New Hampshire.

I’ve been to many of her events. And it’s just amazing to me how – to the extent that journalists do go to her events – they just want to use her as sort of a pretext to weigh in on the broader dynamics that play in the race, right? So, she did an interview a couple of days ago with politico and all they’re really asking her about is whether she’s worried she might draw votes from Bernie. It’s a legitimate argument, but at that very same event, Tulsi gave a statement on impeachment, which I also shared with your producer, that is just far and above what anybody else, Republican or Democrat with any stature in the American political landscape has said about impeachment. Meaning that she delved into the adverse consequences of the articles of impeachment that were ratified in terms of the future of American foreign policy. Because what was done in those impeachment proceedings which I guess is now almost forgotten. But what they did was that the Democrats decided to elevate these national security state functionaries, like Lt. Col Vindman, like George Kent, these names are not that significant because it’s not really important who they are individually, it’s that they are representatives of the permanent security state bureaucracy who were trotted out by the Democrats, and they are denouncing Trump from the standpoint that Trump did not adequately adhere to what was called “official U.S. foreign policy.” Now, you can reject Trump’s conduct of foreign policy, you can criticize it. But the idea that he does not have a democratic mandate to enact foreign policy as he sees fit, and if you don’t like it you can vote him out, that’s dangerous, because it means that there is a precedent enshrined for future presidents, whether it’s Bernie or anybody else, where now these sort-of holdovers who have just career jobs within the federal government can say, ‘Oh, look, Bernie is not sufficiently in accordance with what we perceive to be the official U.S. foreign policy of the government.’ And Tulsi is really the only one who has enough discernment, who can give a very really penetrating statement about the ominous implications of that in a town-hall event style gathering. And I don’t see anybody else reporting on it. I don’t see anybody else, even if you don’t like her, I think you could recognize the unique qualities that she brings. So I said that: ‘You know what? I’m going to do it myself.’ So I’ve been in New Hampshire for three-plus weeks because I just feel like it’s important. It’s the one person who is running a campaign entirely predicated on an anti-war message. Everything else kind of fits under that umbrella thematically for her. And it’s not something that comes along very often in my experience so I said I’m just going to go and fill that void myself.

And it’s interesting because whenever I go to one of her events – and a lot of people love Jimmy Dore, obviously, and they come up to me and tell me they love Jimmy Dore, and also say that they watch me – and you’ll have a mix of people where there will be former Trump supporters who are contemplating maybe voting for Trump again and are disillusioned in certain ways saying that Tulsi is the only Democrat that they would ever even consider voting for.

[10:38] And then you also have like these left-wing, anti-war, peacenik vegan types who are also showing up and like breaking bread with these Trump supporters. And if you look at the way that confluence of divergent political instincts in terms that the Tulsi support base is generally depicted in the popular media, it always is cast with sinister overtones, like there is something evil or suspicious about the fact that these types of people could in a sense unite behind their shared affinity for a certain candidate. But to me, when I see it in person and when I talk to these people, and when they tell me their reasons, it strikes me more as a political breakthrough that really should be regarded as a reflection of, for one, Tulsi’s political skill in being able to cultivate a support base along those lines, because I thought that you wanted a wide variety of people of different ideological dispositions supporting you in order to be viable to win a national election. In the past that would have been touted as something impressive. For her, it’s sinister because its under the umbrella of a theme that challenges the military-industrial complex, the foreign policy establishment, the sort of consensus thinking within both political parties. And the media doesn’t know how to process that and so all they do is denigrate and delegitimize and ignore her.”. . .

Jimmy Dore: “So, the whole point, Michael, of them saying we need to run Joe Biden or we need to run a centrist. We can’t have your Bernie Bros. Grow up. And you’ve got to run a centrist. You’ve got to grow up and vote for a centrist. Which means a corporatist, a right-winger. And you have to vote for Hillary. Or you have to vote for Joe Biden because they can appeal to the right wing and centrists. So here comes along a woman of color who is actually in the military in those bullshit wars that they started and engineered. And she appeals to the people on the right. And all of a sudden that’s bad. And why is that bad? It’s because her message is actually populist. It actually appeals to people on the left and the right which is anti-military-industrial complex. So that’s why they’ve got to say that it’s bad that she appeals to right-wingers. Because she’s doing it in the right way! But if Hillary Clinton appealed to right-wingers it would have to be an appeal to them because she’s kind-of for guns, or she’s for the military-industrial complex, she’s for Wall Street, she’s for private health insurance. Do you see what I’m saying?”

[13:08] Michael Tracy: “Right.

Jimmy Dore: “So, the whole point, Michael, of them saying we need to run Joe Biden or we need to run a centrist. We can’t have your Bernie Bros. Grow up. And you’ve got to run a centrist. You’ve got to grow up and vote for a centrist. Which means a corporatist, a right-winger. And you have to vote for Hillary. Or you have to vote for Joe Biden because they can appeal to the right wing and centrists. So here comes along a woman of color who is actually in the military in those bullshit wars that they started and engineered. And she appeals to the people on the right. And all of a sudden that’s bad. And why is that bad? It’s because her message is actually populist. It actually appeals to people on the left and the right which is anti-military-industrial complex. So that’s why they’ve got to say that it’s bad that she appeals to right-wingers. Because she’s doing it in the right way! But if Hillary Clinton appealed to right-wingers it would have to be an appeal to them because she’s kind-of for guns, or she’s for the military-industrial complex, she’s for Wall Street, she’s for private health insurance. Do you see what I’m saying?”

[13:08] Michael Tracy: “Right. So she’s not making her appeal based upon this typical equivocating centrism that normally gets touted as the type of political sensibility that has broad purchase across the political spectrum. She’s doing it because she sort of combines a number of unusual political assets, Right? Number one, she has a generally left-wing policy platform. She’s the only candidate other than Bernie who is promoting Single Payer Health Care. Her twist on it is slightly different than Bernie’s but you can debate whether the Australia model or the Canada model is optimal. But it’s still single payer health care. . . .”

[13:50] Jimmy Dore: “No one else is proposing Single Payer. Besides Bernie. Only her and Bernie, the two people who are proposing an actual Single Payer program, right?

Michael Tracy: “Right. So, I’m talking to libertarians who in principle would be 100% diametrically opposed to any Single Payer program. But, because they have some affinity for Tulsi’s foreign-policy-centric message, they then begin to conceptualize Single Payer in different terms. They then begin to think about it as, ‘Well, we’ve wasted trillions of dollars in the middle east and we still have our federal government basically run by people who are fully committed to wasting further trillions of dollars in the middle east. So in light of those trillions of dollars being spent by the government anyway, maybe it makes sense to direct those moneys into something that’s actually beneficial for the populace such as a public, universal health care program.’ So she actually compels them to sort of reorient their view of what is possible in the political realm. And there’s nobody who really points that out to a degree that, at least, I’m satisfied with. So I want to go do it myself and have been doing it. One of her top volunteers in New Hampshire is a libertarian. He ran, actually, in New York, as a libertarian. And I asked him ‘How do you reconcile that with her support for stuff like Single Payer Health Care?” And he said, basically, a variation of what I just laid out. If the government is going to be spending money anyway, then at least spend it on something that benefits the lives of people. Right? And that’s the opportunity, and that’s the new approach that she has sort of championed, which has resonance, maybe not among a critical mass of the Democratic primary electorate yet, but enough that you would expect it to engender some curiosity on the part of the political media to just do a fair assessment of what she’s bringing to the table. And you don’t see that happen at all, and that’s incredibly frustrating to me.”

[16:05] Jimmy Dore: “Do you think that now that Elizabeth Warren is falling in the polls because of her attacks, her disengenuous attacks on Bernie Sanders, do you think that Tulsi will be able to benefit from this at all? Do you think that any of that support from Elizabeth Warren will go over to Tulsi Gabbard?

Michael Tracy: “I haven’t met any Warren-Tulsi crossover voters yet. I guess it’s possible that they exist somewhere out there in the universe. But I think it helps her in the sense that it has caused some Bernie supporters to remember why they believed in her to some extent when she first became a national political figure in 2016 when she basically risked her career to support Bernie when it actually mattered and Warren infamously stayed on the sidelines and just calculated her way into this sort of middle ground position and eventually endorsed Hillary after the primaries were over when she was being begged by the Bernie faithful in 2016 to get involved and announce her endorsement of Bernie and she refused. So, for the people who feel that there is a synergy between Bernie and Tulsi, I think it has caused them to, again, sort of be re-enlivened in their vision of what a synergy of that kind can result in.”

[17:36] Jimmy Dore: “Again. Maybe I’m naive, but I know that a Bernie/Tulsi ticket would crush Donald Trump. I know that. I don’t even think that that’s debatable that that would crush Trump. Because it would. The question is, of course, Bernie feels a need to constantly capitulate to the establishment in situations like this. And so, will he do that? Which would piss of such a big faction of Hillary voters. But you know what Hillary would say: Where else have they got to go? And that’s certainly what Bill Maher would tell the leading Democrat about the far left: Where else have they got to go? So my fear is that Bernie will never tell Hillary voters ‘Where else you got to go? And he’ll capitulate and pick somebody who’s not half as inspiring as Tulsi Gabbard and it will be a nail biter then. What do you think?

[18:31] Michael Tracy: “Yeah, I mean, I think that’s best symbolized by this live-stream that Bernie did a few days ago which, it seemed like his handlers forced him into. It was the day that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court waltzed into the Senate chamber and like formally initiated the impeachment trial. And Bernie got on his youtube stream and was essentially just reciting all the standard Democratic party Maddow-like talking points on impeachment. Really. Does Bernie have a burning interest in Lev Parnas?”

Jimmy Dore: “No shit.”

Michael Tracy: “… and it was sort of depressing just to hear him articulate it in that way because, I don’t know, I can understand the logic for it in a sense [J.D: Jesus Christ] that you need what you might call those “normie” Democrats in a primary to support you on some level. But I think everybody kind of understands that’s not really where his heart is. So to see him in this hostage-style video talking about the threat of Russia hacking, the oil business in Ukraine, or the energy company in Ukraine that is implicated Joe Biden in corruption, that kind of thing, it’s like, really – Tulsi actually has the opportunity to peel off a significant share of Trump voters, I would say, who fall into a category, where they’re not really ideological, they sort of like Trump’s rejection of political correctness and the fact that he just says what’s on his mind. And Tulsi scratches a similar itch in that she rejects a lot of these sort of standard-faire identity politics obsessions of the Democrats. She cuts against the grain on a lot of the generic talking points that every other Democrat essentially, and even Bernie to some extent, constantly indulges in. So I feel like it would make a lot of electoral sense for her to be on a ticket with Bernie, but that’s in the future, and I think now obviously what they’re trying to do is show her viability in New Hampshire by saying: Look, you actually can forge a coalition without necessarily relying exclusively on just the same old Democratic primary voters who want you to be a Maddow puppet and there is appeal that you can find elsewhere, and we’ll see how it transpires.