0:14

Hello, everyone. I'm here today with

0:16

Telsey Gabbard. An American politician

0:19

commentator and a lieutenant colonel

0:21

in the US army reserves. She

0:24

served as the US representative for

0:26

Hawaii's second congressional district

0:28

across four terms. From

0:30

two thousand and thirteen until two thousand

0:32

and twenty one, she was the first female

0:35

combat veteran to run

0:37

for president as well as the first

0:39

Hindu member of congress and the

0:41

first Semoan American voting

0:43

member. Both,

0:45

during and after her terms, in

0:47

office, Gabbard has been a formidable

0:50

voice in the political space, leaning

0:53

right of center Despite her

0:55

democrat origins with continued

0:57

appearances on Fox News, while retaining

0:59

more progressive views on topics such

1:01

as drug legalization. She is the

1:03

host of her own program, Tulsi

1:06

Gabbard Show, where she continues

1:08

to speak on relevant issues with

1:10

the following Acxiom firmly

1:12

in mind, country before

1:14

party. Thank you very much for agreeing

1:17

to talk to me today. I'm looking forward to this conversation.

1:20

I thought maybe we'd start by talking about

1:23

your experience,

1:25

your history with the Democrat. If

1:27

you could just walk us through that. I mean, you've had

1:29

a well, you had a stellar rise

1:33

within the confines of the of

1:35

the of the party and then

1:37

a certain amount of friction and maybe

1:40

you could just walk us through

1:41

that. You were elected very very

1:43

young

1:44

Yes. And

1:44

so maybe we could start with that. And and

1:46

and could you just tell the story of being involved

1:48

with the Democrats? Well,

1:51

I so so I growing up

1:53

here in Hawaii. It's

1:56

a beautiful place and and from a

1:58

young age. How

2:00

to pretty deep appreciation for

2:03

the importance of protecting

2:06

this place, you know, protecting our oceans

2:08

and preservation of clean water.

2:11

We we get our water here from water aquifers

2:13

and as the most remote island

2:15

chain in the world, protecting

2:18

those resources are essential

2:20

for life. And so my my

2:24

motivation and drive to run

2:26

for the state House of Representatives here

2:28

in Hawaii when I was twenty one years old

2:30

in two thousand two really came from

2:33

from that motivation to wanna be in

2:36

a position where I could

2:38

actually do that. You know, I previously

2:40

had they wanted to

2:42

build a big landfill over one of our big water

2:44

aquifer here, which, you know,

2:47

even for me as a teenager seemed like

2:49

such an absurd idea

2:51

and risk because once that water is contaminated,

2:54

then it's it's done. And

2:56

so was part of, you know, I went out and

2:59

got petitions and signatures and

3:01

joined others to be able to try to stop

3:03

that. Because it was being the

3:07

wheels are being greased by a corrupt politician

3:10

essentially. He was trying to help his buddy who

3:12

ran the landfill business. And it

3:14

was a great experience for me as

3:16

a young person to be a part

3:18

of stopping that from

3:20

happening. And that's what drove

3:22

me to to run for

3:24

office when was twenty one years old. It was not

3:26

out of any kind of design.

3:28

Like, oh, I'm gonna have this big political career

3:30

and This will be the first stepping stone to get

3:33

to somewhere else. It was really driven by

3:35

a desire to be of service and make that positive

3:37

impact. I

3:40

chose to be a Democrat. And my family

3:42

was it wasn't one of those, like, legacy

3:45

party affiliation things that you

3:47

just did. I really was thoughtful

3:49

at that time about which

3:52

box I wanted to check and filing

3:54

those papers to to

3:56

run for office. And for

3:58

us here in Hawaii, the origins of the Democratic

4:01

Party really came from

4:04

a party that fought for people.

4:08

Kind of a more populist perspective.

4:10

We had plantation workers who were being

4:14

absolutely abused and take advantage

4:16

of by the huge landowners

4:18

here in in the state that was essentially being

4:21

run by elite wealthy Republicans

4:23

at the time. And it

4:26

was a Democratic party that fought for

4:28

those who didn't have a voice. It was a Democratic party

4:30

that celebrated civil liberties, that celebrated

4:32

freedom, and individual thought. This

4:34

big tent party that really was rooted

4:36

in kind of those those traditional liberal

4:38

JFK esque ideals.

4:42

And it was a party that had

4:44

many voices that spoke out for peace. And

4:46

so all of these different things really drew

4:48

me to the Democratic Party as party

4:50

that would fight the voices of the

4:51

people. Mhmm. You know, in Canada,

4:53

we have a socialist

4:56

tradition, the new Democratic Party,

4:58

and I worked for them when I was a kid.

5:01

The man I worked for was the

5:03

father of Alberta's last

5:06

premier, second last premier,

5:09

and a lot of the people that were

5:11

involved in the NDP, were

5:13

labor leaders. You know? It was well

5:15

known in Canada that the conservatives were

5:17

the party of establishment and the Liberals

5:19

were Well, they played both sides against

5:21

the middle very effectively. And the socialists,

5:23

the NDP, British socialists, rather

5:26

than the communist type. We're really They're

5:28

really the voice of the working class. They're the voice

5:30

in the unions, and the working class

5:32

needs a voice, obviously.

5:35

And I think the NDP did provide

5:37

that to some degree in Canada, and the Democrats

5:40

historically did provide that. That

5:42

seemed to go pretty damn sideways with Clinton.

5:45

And I think it looked to me from from

5:47

an outsider's point of view, and I

5:49

was rather appalled by this that the democrats

5:51

had decided to sacrifice their traditional

5:53

base, the working class, you

5:57

know, the the committed working class

5:59

for something approximating the politics

6:02

of division in this whatever

6:04

this new narrative is of of oppression

6:06

and victimization. And I don't think

6:08

that worked out very well either as far

6:10

as I could tell because My sense

6:13

of the Clinton Trump debacle was that

6:15

it wasn't so much that Trump won, although

6:17

he certainly did. It was definitely the case

6:19

that Clinton lost. And

6:21

I think she did that by sacrificing the

6:24

interest of the working class. Trump just vacuumed

6:26

that up in no time flat, masterfully, I

6:28

thought. He seemed to have that ability

6:30

to communicate with working class people

6:33

interestingly enough, and they trusted

6:35

him, at least they trusted him in comparison

6:37

to Clinton. Yeah. So Okay. So you

6:40

were you were interested in the democrats because

6:42

of that working class voice tradition.

6:44

And you worked with the democrats for a

6:46

long

6:47

time. How long was your how long

6:49

you you you ran when you were twenty

6:51

one. That was in when two thousand

6:52

thousand and two thousand and two.

6:54

Two thousand and two. Right. So and

6:56

when did you formally severed ties

6:58

with the democrats?

7:00

In October of last year?

7:03

Twenty twenty two.

7:04

Right. So it was basically twenty years. Yeah.

7:06

Yeah. I did not

7:08

spend all of that time in politics

7:11

I left the state house

7:13

when I volunteered to

7:15

deploy with our Hawaii

7:17

Army National Guard Unit because

7:20

The events of nine eleven, like so many Americans,

7:23

you know, changed changed my life, changed

7:25

my

7:26

perspective, and and I

7:28

had enlisted in the military motivated by

7:30

what happened there to go after the the

7:32

Islamist terrorists who attacked us on that day.

7:35

And so I was was campaigning for reelection

7:37

here in Hawaii in two thousand and four,

7:42

which looked to be a pretty easy reelection

7:44

here and to continue the work I was doing, our

7:47

unit or the the National Guard unit was

7:49

activated for a deployment to Iraq.

7:51

I was told by my commander, you

7:53

know, congratulations. You don't have to go.

7:55

Your name is, you know, we've already got someone filling

7:57

this job in the medical unit where I was serving.

8:00

So you can stay home and and you can continue

8:02

doing what you're doing, but I

8:04

knew that there was no way there

8:06

was just no way that I could stay back

8:09

and work in some plush office in

8:11

the state capital and watch my brothers and

8:13

sisters in

8:15

uniform, go and deploy to

8:18

war, and he's the other side of the world. And so

8:20

I I left my reelection campaign

8:22

and volunteered to deploy, got

8:25

trained in a different job that they needed filling

8:27

in that medical unit

8:30

and went off on an eighteen months long deployment.

8:33

Mhmm.

8:34

So what do you what do you learn? What do you learn

8:36

from that?

8:37

Exactly. Pulled

8:37

out of your life. What what did you learn so

8:41

much so much about

8:44

the cost of war? Both

8:47

in in in the loss of

8:49

people who I was close to, people who I

8:51

served with, as well as people who

8:53

I I had never met. One one

8:55

The very first thing that I did in my job

8:57

while I served any rock. We were we were in a camp

9:00

about forty miles north of

9:02

Baghdad And the very first thing that

9:04

I did every single day that I was there

9:06

was to go through a list

9:09

of names of American service

9:11

soldiers who were serving

9:13

all across that country who

9:16

had been injured or or hurt in combat

9:19

the day before. Than previous twenty

9:21

four hours. And I had to go through that list name

9:23

by name to look to see if there

9:25

were any of the soldiers from our brigade, which was

9:27

about close to three thousand people who are serving

9:29

in four different parts of Iraq at

9:32

the time to make

9:34

sure that, okay, well, this person has been injured.

9:36

They've been hurt. Where are they?

9:38

Are they getting the care that they need? Are

9:41

they able to get

9:44

what they need in country and return to duty?

9:46

Do they need to be evacuated quickly and

9:48

basically make sure that they had what they need,

9:50

whether they were staying in country. We we eventually

9:52

got them back home to their families

9:55

if they had to leave, but every single day

9:57

being confronted with the the high

9:59

human cost

10:01

of war that

10:04

is is just so often not discussed

10:06

or talked about in the headlines or even thought about

10:08

by politicians even if they might give lip service

10:11

to it. And also therefore

10:13

coming from, you know, serving

10:15

in the state house and even

10:17

some of our local politicians in Hawaii, they

10:20

would come out and visit the troops get the photo

10:22

op, be on the ground for maybe twenty four,

10:24

forty eight hours, and then go back and

10:26

say all of these things as if they knew what was happening.

10:28

And and just the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy

10:30

of the politicians in Washington that voted

10:33

for that war in Iraq

10:36

but really without any care

10:39

for the consequences of that

10:41

decision or even thinking through what are

10:43

we actually doing

10:44

here? Is it serving the interests of the American

10:46

people. Is it Yeah. Well, what and what were you doing

10:48

there? As far as your concern, you know, you've had lots

10:50

of time to think about it now, and you were actually

10:52

there. And

10:54

So for our our our unit, so our specific

10:57

unit there was

10:59

there to go after different

11:01

terrorist elements. This was kind of where

11:03

al Qaeda was growing

11:05

stronger and obviously the rise of ISIS would

11:07

occur a little later after after

11:10

we left, but we

11:12

had a number of different infantry units

11:14

that were going around

11:16

in different areas and trying to seek out

11:18

those insurgents. That

11:21

were attacking Americans.

11:24

And that was that was the specific

11:26

mission that we had. I was served in a medical

11:28

unit And so we were

11:30

providing care primarily for

11:32

our American troops, but

11:35

also going

11:38

out and and trying to help provide care for

11:40

locally Rockies in the area where we were.

11:43

I visited Abu Gray Prison. This was

11:45

after after the scandal

11:48

occurred, but I visited the hospital Abigail

11:50

Prison and was struck there about the medical

11:52

care that was being provided there. To

11:55

the prisoners, which was

11:57

exactly the same kind of care that

11:59

we were providing to

12:01

injured service members who were also in

12:03

the country. But

12:06

it was it was seeing past

12:08

kind of the day to day tasks

12:11

there in in

12:13

the being exposed on the literally

12:16

on the front lines to the

12:18

war profiteering in the military industrial

12:21

complex The

12:23

the monopoly of KBR Halliburton

12:26

making an immeasurable

12:29

amount of money off of

12:31

this war. Again, this was I was there for

12:33

all of two thousand five in Iraq, and

12:36

I was in the early days. And

12:38

you look at what has happened

12:40

since over the ensuing decades

12:43

in Iraq and Afghanistan, And

12:45

and again, you know, my exposure in

12:48

in Hawaii as a state legislator was very

12:50

limited when it comes to foreign policy. There wasn't

12:53

you know, a lot that I knew, but

12:55

being there, experiencing it and at

12:57

a basic level understanding government

12:59

spending and taxpayer dollars and how are we

13:01

using it the accountability and going

13:03

and talking to these, you know,

13:05

they called them they labeled them third country nationals.

13:08

They would import in from places like Nepal

13:10

and the Philippines and Sri Lanka pay

13:12

them pennies essentially

13:15

compared to how much they were charging the

13:17

federal government to do things like Okay.

13:19

Well, we're gonna cook food for the troops

13:22

every day. And, you know, I started asking,

13:24

well, how how you know, if I walk into the Chow

13:26

Hall tent or building or whatever and

13:29

get a bowl of cereal and a banana for

13:32

breakfast. How much is how

13:34

much is KBR Halliburton charging

13:36

the US federal government for that? And it was some outrageous

13:38

price in two thousand five, it's like

13:40

forty dollars per service

13:42

member, per meal. They serve four meals

13:45

a day. And then started. We

13:47

made friends with with these people from the

13:49

Philippines and the Polish dog who were working

13:51

there after I was

13:52

like, how much you getting paid? Of five

13:54

hundred dollars a month. Right?

13:56

Five hundred dollars a month. So so that that actually answers

13:58

one of the questions I wanted to bring up later.

14:01

You know, I guess you've answered it in two ways,

14:03

is that one of the reasons I

14:05

have a certain sympathy

14:07

for people like Bernie Sanders and

14:09

more recently for people like both

14:12

Russell brand and

14:14

Joe Rogen is because there's

14:16

a there's a necessary voice

14:18

on the left that targets

14:21

something like corporate governance,

14:25

government, media, collusion

14:27

at the highest levels. Right? Construction

14:30

of these gigantic, tentacle,

14:33

multilateral organizations that engage

14:36

in regulatory capture and then

14:38

turn into, let's say, what Eisenhower warned

14:40

everybody about in relationship to

14:42

the military industrial complex. And

14:45

there's a necessary voice on the left

14:47

that I don't think precisely should

14:49

be striving against capitalism per

14:52

se. I think that's the big mistake, but

14:54

should be striving against fascist

14:57

corporate government collusion. And

14:59

we should all be striving against that. That's

15:01

for sure. It'd be nice to get that straightened

15:04

out, but you did. Yeah. I think answer

15:06

some of my question about why

15:08

I was gonna ask you later about why you supported

15:10

Bernie Sanders, but we'll get back to that. So

15:12

Yeah. I'd like to talk about that later.

15:14

Yeah. Okay. Okay. So I got

15:16

a question for you also. Now,

15:19

I'm curious about what

15:21

how your views developed and what they are now

15:24

about the issue of women in combat. You

15:26

know, we've opened up the military to

15:28

female participation and generally speaking,

15:30

it appears that opening up

15:33

avenues of participation to women

15:35

has immense benefits for women

15:38

If handled correctly for children, certainly

15:40

on the economic front, it doubles

15:42

the pool of available talent for everyone.

15:45

I know the best predictor of development in

15:47

the third world is rights according to women,

15:49

especially on the economic Crony. So

15:51

that all looks like a good thing. But

15:53

then you know, I have my skepticism about

15:56

the practical and ethical

16:00

utility of placing women the front

16:02

lines, for example, in battle positions, and

16:04

there's obviously a huge disparity in

16:06

physical strength. And pro

16:08

probably an innate aggression and, you know,

16:10

not could go one way or another because it

16:12

isn't completely obvious

16:15

that the most aggressive soldiers are

16:17

the best even though that might seem self evident.

16:19

Mhmm. Now you you've well,

16:22

you've been there. So what did

16:24

you conclude about the the

16:26

the integration of women into the armed forces?

16:28

What's good about that? And and what's not

16:30

good about it? Assuming there is anything not

16:32

good about

16:33

it. Howard Bauchner: My

16:36

position on this, and this is based on my

16:38

experience, is that we

16:41

should have the best people for

16:43

the job. Whatever that job

16:45

may be, the people who are best

16:48

equipped, who are best trained, who have

16:50

the capabilities, both, you

16:52

know, mental, emotional, and physical.

16:55

And that women on

16:58

their face simply for their gender

17:00

should not be disqualified from

17:03

various jobs simply because of that.

17:06

I have served alongside obviously

17:08

many men and women, people

17:12

who have been very good at their

17:14

jobs because of their skills and their capabilities

17:16

and others who who don't have those

17:18

skills and capabilities. And

17:20

so whether those jobs are serving as

17:22

an infantry soldier or

17:25

an artillery soldier whether you're serving

17:27

in a combat unit

17:30

or a support unit what

17:33

I want, both as a soldier, who

17:35

I want to be serving alongside, but also I

17:37

think when you look at this from a

17:39

policy perspective, what we should want as

17:41

country is we we need the best people who are

17:43

going to do who are best equipped

17:46

to do the job. Mhmm. Not all

17:48

women are best equipped serve in a combat

17:50

unit, not all men are best equipped to serve

17:52

in a combat unit. Yeah. So there

17:54

should not be

17:56

an arbitrary standard simply based

17:59

on gender, but rather set the standard.

18:01

And if you meet the standard whether you're a man or

18:03

a woman, then

18:05

you want the job, go get it. I I don't

18:08

need You know, it's pure merit based evaluation.

18:10

Correct. Or as you're concerned? Correct. Yes. That

18:12

would bring up that brings up two problems

18:14

I suppose as one is that there are

18:16

physical standards set for jobs

18:18

like firefighter and police and -- Right.

18:20

-- and of obviously military practitioners,

18:23

soldier, and those standards,

18:25

especially in elite units, are extremely

18:27

high I mean, they're high enough so most men

18:29

can't manage them at all. And because of

18:31

the difference, especially in upper body strength,

18:33

women have a lot of stamina, but difference in upper

18:35

body strength really differentiate men from

18:37

women. If the physical standards

18:40

are set high enough to exclude, say,

18:42

ninety five percent of men, they're deaf.

18:44

They're gonna exclude virtually all women.

18:46

And then the question comes up, well, should you

18:48

keep the standards? And obviously, some

18:50

level of physical prowess

18:53

is necessary, but If the standard

18:55

is one hundred percent exclusionary on

18:57

the sex front, then it raises the question of

18:59

whether the standard itself is sexist,

19:02

let's say, in a counterproductive

19:03

manner. And so -- Sure. --

19:05

I think think the question is the question

19:08

is what is what is the basis for

19:10

the standard? I and I know that there

19:12

are some standards that have been set traditionally

19:14

in in the military while this is

19:16

an elite unit, so the standards must

19:18

must be exclusionary. So we only get

19:21

the most elite people. But are those

19:23

standards simply based on a concept

19:25

of eliteism, I

19:27

guess, in this context? Or are

19:29

they set based on the conditions

19:32

that soldiers serving in that particular unit

19:34

will be likely to face? Are they based

19:36

on on the reality of the the requirements

19:39

of the job? And so if we're in

19:41

a situation and there are jobs both in the military,

19:43

as you mentioned, first responders and others,

19:46

If those standards are set on realistic

19:48

assessment of what this job will require,

19:51

and it turns out that, hey, one

19:53

out of a hundred women who apply

19:56

actually qualifies, then

19:58

so be it. You know, whatever

20:00

if there are greater number of men who qualify,

20:03

then so be it. If

20:05

you have people who get these jobs,

20:07

who cannot do the job, then it's pointless

20:09

and it puts themselves and it puts

20:11

the entire unit and mission at

20:14

risk

20:15

in doing so. Well, there's

20:17

a measurement science that's being devoted to this

20:19

for a long time. And there are actually guidelines

20:21

for psychologists who do

20:24

assessment, let's say, in relationship to

20:26

a particular job. Some of those are

20:28

enshined in appropriate law.

20:30

And then the notion is, first of all,

20:32

that you have to do a job analysis, which

20:35

is okay, what is it that the

20:37

people who are doing this job, who are good at

20:39

it, spend the bulk of their time doing.

20:41

Sure. You can measure that. Although that's not easy.

20:43

For example, it's not that easy to measure

20:45

their performance of a middle manager, for

20:47

example, in a corporation because the

20:49

outcomes are difficult to specify. But

20:52

but you can do a better or worse job

20:55

of that. And if you do a good job, then you can

20:57

find out what predicts prowess

20:59

and you can do that statistically. And then

21:01

you can then you define merit.

21:03

Right? Merit is what makes you makes

21:06

it likely that you will do very well

21:08

doing whatever this job is for.

21:10

That's merit. And and

21:13

that can be handled properly. The problem

21:15

is, as you alluded to, if you

21:17

accept merit defined in that manner

21:19

as the gold standard, then you're going

21:21

to have to accept the outcome, which

21:24

is that there isn't going to be

21:26

radical equity at

21:28

all levels of analysis in the candidate

21:31

pool. And so you have to forego

21:33

that and it certainly seems, I would say,

21:35

that on the left side of things

21:37

now, people are almost entirely unwilling

21:40

to forgo that equity outcome. I

21:42

mean, even Kamala Harris, who should have

21:44

known better tweeted out a

21:46

few weeks ago, her support for

21:48

this concept of equity, and people

21:50

who aren't paying attention think that means a

21:52

quality of opportunity, which is not what

21:54

it means at all, which is why it's a different

21:57

word. It means that if the outcomes

21:59

of the selection process aren't equal

22:02

across all conceivable combinations

22:04

of ethnicity and gender at sex, etcetera.

22:07

That intersectional morass

22:10

then the system is by definition exclusionary

22:13

and prejudice. And that well,

22:15

that just kills that just kills merit.

22:18

Assuming that merit is not completely

22:20

equally distributed. Now one other question

22:22

on the female Crony. So one

22:24

of the things that's disturbed my conscience

22:27

with regards to women on the front lines is

22:29

that there's always the possibility

22:31

that you'll fall into the hands of

22:33

the enemy. And it wasn't

22:36

very much fun for, let's say, British

22:38

and American prisoners of war in

22:41

Nazi camps in World

22:43

War two. Although there were some Geneva

22:45

Convention, arrangements that were still in

22:48

place, but I can't imagine what

22:50

it would be like to be a Crony line woman

22:52

who fell into enemy hands. I mean,

22:55

that's a level of absolute bloody

22:57

catastrophic hell that I

23:00

think that that we should

23:02

be very, very cautious about exposing

23:04

anyone too. And so I have

23:06

a proclivity to think that women are differentially

23:10

susceptible to exploitation on

23:13

the captured enemy Crony.

23:15

And I don't know exactly you

23:17

know, given credence to what you say about

23:20

making sure we have the most qualified people.

23:24

You know, maybe you can ask people to

23:26

face their death I don't know if you're

23:28

if it's okay to ask them to face

23:31

endless gang rape and

23:33

then death. You know, that's

23:36

That's pushed in the envelope. And so I don't know what

23:38

you think about

23:39

that. I imagine you that

23:41

thoughts of that sort must have gone through your

23:43

mind from time to time. Sure.

23:46

It is it is the most war

23:50

war is tragic and

23:52

ugly to say the least,

23:55

and you're facing some of the most

23:57

horrific conditions, which

24:00

is one of the reasons why I don't

24:02

support the draft. Is because

24:04

as a soldier, I don't

24:06

want to be serving alongside

24:09

anybody who hasn't made that

24:11

choice to be there who hasn't made that choice

24:13

to be willing to make

24:15

those sacrifices, not only to give

24:17

up one's life, in service to

24:19

our country, but to face

24:22

the plethora of what could be the

24:24

absolute worst case

24:26

scenarios. That's

24:29

my perspective. And so whether it's

24:33

those scenarios are facing a

24:35

male or a female soldier. These

24:38

are some of the things that, you know,

24:40

both the training of of the practical

24:42

implications, but obviously, the

24:45

mental preparation for

24:48

how anything could possibly go

24:50

bad. Is essential before

24:52

sending troops into that situation. Okay.

24:55

So your sense your it sounds like your

24:57

sense is that if

25:01

people have been fully apprised of the

25:03

risks, and I think we outlined the most substantive

25:05

risk on the female side if people

25:08

are fully apprised of that risk and there's

25:10

evidence that they actually understand what that

25:12

means, which is no simple matter,

25:14

that it's okay to allow

25:16

them to make that choice. But

25:18

you that's partly why you introduced the idea

25:21

that there's no compulsion in military

25:23

conscription. Also partly because

25:25

you don't get the best out of people if they're compelled,

25:27

obviously. So okay. So

25:30

so anything else on combat

25:32

Crony, or can we turn back to the

25:34

Democrats? I I'd like you to do it. Well,

25:36

let's I'll I'll I'll walk us back

25:38

into that because it

25:42

it it it is what motivated me to run

25:44

for Congress. We talked about, you know, Kayla, I've

25:46

been with the Democratic Party for for twenty

25:48

years. I chose to join the Democratic Party

25:51

my experience on two Middle East deployments

25:54

is what really drove me to

25:57

to run for Congress. It wasn't something

25:59

I had great any ambition for, frankly,

26:02

when I ran for the state house in two thousand

26:04

two, but being exposed to the

26:06

cost of war, being exposed to the

26:09

both the military industrial complex. But what

26:11

you described very well earlier

26:13

is this this collusion in

26:15

the narrative and the push coming from

26:17

elected officials in Washington,

26:20

the establishment of people in

26:22

both political parties who are part of

26:24

this warmongering unity party

26:27

the so much of of, I guess, the mainstream

26:29

media or legacy media that we have

26:31

seen, you know, amp up

26:33

and beat the drums for War over Renover,

26:36

not not interested in actually exposing

26:39

the truth or asking any tough questions

26:41

as it comes to foreign policy and the decisions

26:44

to go to war. And of course, now even more

26:46

so we're seeing big tech being a major

26:49

contributor in in this

26:52

establishment narrative. It's what drove

26:54

me to to run for Congress

26:56

to be able to be in a position where I could

27:00

actually serve in a place to help

27:02

make decisions that would prevent us

27:04

from continuing to go and wage these costly

27:06

counterproductive wars that that actually

27:08

end up undermining our own country's national

27:12

security. One of the main

27:14

decisions why I chose one of the main

27:16

reasons why I chose to leave the

27:18

Democratic party is because

27:20

the Democratic party has become

27:24

the war party those voices

27:26

that we talked about a little bit on the left who

27:29

challenged the the military

27:31

industrial complex, challenged this

27:33

pro war narrative

27:35

that we're seeing across the I

27:39

I don't see them anymore and worse yet.

27:41

We have leaders in the Democratic Party

27:44

who are the ones who are actually amping

27:46

up these these counterproductive

27:48

wars, who are amping up these new cold

27:51

wars against Russia and China were amping

27:53

up and escalating and pushing

27:55

us to the brink of of

27:57

nuclear war, which is

27:59

where we sit right now

28:01

as a nation, which which threatens us and and

28:03

threatens the world, frankly, and

28:06

doing so without any thought

28:08

or consideration for the

28:11

reality of something that was was very eye opening

28:13

for us here in Hawaii back in January

28:15

of twenty eighteen when we had

28:18

a missile alert, where we thought that

28:20

North Korea was sending a nuclear missile to

28:22

us and that we had fifteen minutes to live

28:25

the government telling us, oh, seek

28:27

shelter immediately. This is not a drill,

28:29

missile inbound to Hawaii, but

28:31

we were confronted with the reality that there is

28:33

no shelter. There's literally a

28:35

real place to go. To go.

28:37

And so so not only have our

28:39

leaders failed us in the sense of getting

28:41

us to this point where that is now a reality

28:44

that every single one of us lives with

28:46

right now. But also, they

28:48

tell us, oh, seek shelter. Get inside.

28:50

Stay inside. There is no shelter. They

28:52

may have some fancy shelters where they may be able

28:55

to survive and continue to wage war

28:57

in the event that we get there.

28:59

But the vast majority of people in

29:01

this country and people around the world will be the ones that

29:04

suffer the catastrophic consequences

29:07

of a nuclear holocaust. There is

29:09

no shelter. They have not provided that

29:11

shelter. And so this

29:14

question of of how my

29:16

experience is there on these deployments. The

29:19

the experiences that I've had throughout this

29:21

time was one of the

29:23

main reasons why I left the Democratic party

29:25

and frankly was one of main reasons that that

29:27

back in twenty sixteen, that

29:30

I saw the necessity to

29:33

leave as vice chair of the DNC

29:37

to go and and speak out against

29:40

Hillary Clinton's warmongering record

29:42

as was trying to become our country's

29:44

commander in chief and the dangers of what would happen

29:47

if that became a reality. Mhmm.

29:49

Okay. So it was primarily a consequence

29:51

of concerns about well, concerns about the

29:53

military industrial complex. Okay. Let's segue

29:56

for a minute then. I

29:58

made a couple of videos about the Russia, Ukraine

30:01

war. You know, making a foray into a

30:03

domain that's obviously contentious

30:05

enough to produce a war, let's

30:07

say. And here's my

30:09

problem. I

30:13

don't understand. Now, I've listened

30:15

to a lot of hawks on the American side

30:17

talk about, well, two things

30:19

about the fact that It appears likely,

30:22

and this is independent of the merits of this

30:24

claim. It appears likely that the

30:26

Ukraine supported by the west

30:28

in the manner it has been supported can

30:31

do serious damage to Russia's

30:35

conventional arms force. And

30:38

think there is evidence that the Ukrainians

30:40

and the West are pushing

30:42

the the Russians back, and

30:44

God only knows how far that will go.

30:46

And the hawks that I've talked

30:49

to said that's a good thing. It's in our interest

30:51

to ensure that Russia is

30:53

no longer a conventional military threat.

30:56

And, no, I have

30:58

a certain degree of sympathy for that viewpoint,

31:01

but then here's the counter problem as

31:03

the as I see it. So I try to

31:05

look forward into the future and I think, okay,

31:08

what is a victory for the

31:11

west look like? Forget about Ukraine.

31:13

Ukraine victories. They get their territory

31:15

back, and there's a wall between

31:17

them and the Russia Russians and the pesky

31:19

Russians leave them alone, and they go back to whatever

31:21

level of calling corruption they had managed

31:24

before the war. Right. So that's the Ukraine

31:26

victory. The west. Well,

31:29

let's say we could do this two ways. Okay?

31:31

So Putin is

31:33

deposed. However,

31:36

that happens and then and then

31:38

what? And then we have a better leader in

31:40

Russia We have a more trustworthy leader. Yeah,

31:43

I don't think so. The Russians haven't got

31:45

a great history of that, and no matter what

31:47

you think a Putin, it's definitely the case that

31:49

he isn't the worst leader that emerged

31:52

in Russia in the last hundred years by

31:54

any measure. So that's a big problem.

31:56

And then I think, well, instead

31:59

of Putin being replaced by

32:01

someone who couldn't be better, but

32:03

probably won't be, we'll have

32:05

a Russia that's really fragmented and

32:07

that you know, the the country in some ways

32:10

collapses. And that's a

32:12

really bad idea because there's a lot of nuclear

32:14

bombs there and If you get the fragmentation

32:17

of that power structure into multiple

32:20

chieftains, let's say, and a

32:22

few of them emerge armed with nuclear

32:24

arms, then we have a major problem

32:26

on our hands. And that seems to me to

32:28

be a highly likely outcome.

32:31

And so And then if we weaken

32:33

Russia severely and

32:35

permanently, then

32:37

we have the problem of a severely and permanently

32:40

weakened Russia That's a big problem because

32:42

they produce a lot of fertilizer

32:45

and the Europeans happen to be

32:47

dependent on them for a lot of their energy needs.

32:49

So that doesn't look very wise. And then

32:52

we have the absolute bloody

32:54

catastrophic probability that

32:57

if Putin starts to lose, in

32:59

any serious way. And

33:01

so starts to believe that Russian

33:04

territorial integrity is threatened.

33:06

However, he defines that that

33:08

he has an immense array of unbelievably

33:11

powerful next generation weapons

33:13

at his disposal, and why

33:16

the hell wouldn't he use them? And

33:18

so so let's walk through that. I

33:20

mean, imagine the west

33:22

winds Okay? What does

33:24

that mean? I don't see what

33:27

that means. I I don't and

33:29

I I haven't heard anyone describe to

33:31

me what the the

33:34

goal of this war is. You know,

33:36

we're supporting the heroic Crony. It's

33:39

like, yeah, you're a you're a moralizing

33:42

scoundrel. That's not a plan. That's

33:45

that's idiot hand waving

33:47

as bad as the environmental, you

33:49

know, doomsayers. It's the same thing.

33:52

Cheap moral victory. Make

33:55

make a pro can you make

33:57

a pro and then a cautionary

34:00

war case? In relationship to

34:02

the Russia and Ukraine. What's in America's

34:04

true interests as far as you're

34:06

concerned? Well well, this is this is

34:08

exactly you have very clearly

34:10

laid out not only

34:12

the problem with how this

34:16

president Biden and, frankly,

34:18

Democratic and Republican leaders in

34:21

congress who are applauding

34:24

and pushing for and escalating this

34:26

war is how short sighted

34:28

they are, but also this has been

34:31

the problem in US foreign policy from

34:33

our leaders for so long is is

34:36

they are not actually thinking

34:38

clearly if they're thinking at all

34:41

about what is what is our goal

34:44

What is our objective? What you

34:46

you said, what does a win look like? How

34:48

is it five? Even theoretically. Even

34:51

theoretically. Yeah. Whether it's whether

34:53

it's realistic or not just saying, well, we're fighting

34:55

for democracy. That that's not that's

34:57

not a goal. Also, It's

35:00

in direct it's in direct

35:02

conflict with the reality of their actions

35:05

even here in the United States about

35:07

how many undemocratic decisions

35:09

and increasingly authoritarian decisions they are

35:11

making. But on this question of

35:14

of the war in in what

35:16

is essentially a proxy war against Russia? The

35:18

United States is waging a proxy war against

35:21

Russia. Ukrainian

35:23

people are paying the price.

35:26

They have not outlined what a

35:28

win looks like. Anytime anyone

35:30

asks President Biden or anyone in the Biden administration

35:32

is when does this end? How

35:34

does this end? Mhmm. We throw out this

35:37

this cheap one liner of saying,

35:39

well, well, that's up to

35:40

Putin. Whenever Putin stops Oh,

35:42

good. That's good. That's up to the guy with hydrogen

35:45

bombs. Exactly. That's a brilliant. That's bloody

35:47

brilliant. Look, I know what I would do if I

35:49

was Putin. I know it. I know it.

35:52

As soon as I felt that I was in

35:54

danger of a true loss, see, I think Putin

35:56

will settle for the devastation of Ukraine.

35:58

I think he could claim that as a victory. The

36:00

utter devastation of the Ukraine because

36:02

it stays out of Western hands. But

36:05

if Putin ever believed that

36:07

his people even believed that

36:09

they were now under attack. Let's

36:11

say, by German tanks, let's

36:13

say, the probability that he's

36:15

used a tactical tactical Battlefield

36:19

Nuclear Weapon seems to me to be extraordinarily

36:21

high. It's like, well, it

36:23

is. For me, it's like, well, why

36:25

wouldn't he? And the issue is why you don't wanna

36:27

escalate. It's like, yeah, that's

36:30

already factored into the decision.

36:33

I don't There there is this theory. I don't know if

36:35

you've heard it before of escalate to

36:38

deescalate. And so

36:40

so the the response from the US

36:42

government is always, well, we don't think he'll

36:44

we we don't think he'll resort to that or

36:46

or we don't think that you

36:49

know, we're we're not striving here people. So we're not

36:51

even sure that his nuclear weapons are that

36:53

great or or will really work in the way

36:55

that that we think could

36:57

cause cause major damage. The fact that they're

36:59

even theorizing about any

37:01

of this without recognizing the

37:04

the very direct and real

37:06

cost to human civilization on

37:08

this planet is exactly the

37:11

problem. They're living in some fantasy land

37:13

that it's hard to connect it's hard

37:15

to connect with because it's not based in the

37:17

reality of the situation you're facing.

37:19

And and you have laid it out very clearly of

37:21

the different possible outcomes. We've

37:23

heard President Biden say and others in

37:26

the Department of Defense. Well, we gotta get rid of that

37:28

guy, Putin. But not actually -- For what?

37:30

-- for who for

37:32

who and and to

37:35

what end, to what is the alternative. They have

37:37

no idea who will step up or what

37:39

kind of Russia will exist in the aftermath of

37:41

that. We can look throughout history

37:43

to see how US foreign policy,

37:46

especially in regime change wars, have

37:48

failed so spectacularly in

37:50

different regions around the world because they go

37:52

and pick which dictator they like

37:54

or don't like, well, we'll take this guy out, replace

37:57

them with this guy and then

37:59

all of these disastrous unintended

38:02

negative consequences come both for the United

38:04

States and the people in these countries and

38:07

and get here we are now

38:09

where we are facing that exact same

38:11

prospect with the country that has

38:13

the most nuclear weapons

38:16

in the entire world.

38:18

Right. So look at what happened when

38:21

when after the Germans went into

38:23

France in World War one and

38:25

wreaked Cavoc in that idiot

38:27

war, World War one. Their

38:31

their entire industrial machine

38:35

was devastated. They had a period of

38:37

hyperinflation. They were subject to

38:39

that extraordinarily punitive Versailles treaty

38:42

and -- Yes. -- that could be imposed upon them

38:44

because they were devastated. And hypothetically, we

38:46

could do the same thing with Russians if they're

38:48

beat very badly on the conventional Crony, and

38:50

they emerge weak. And we

38:53

put punitive measures in place

38:55

to keep them weak. And then we might

38:57

remember just exactly what happened to Germany

38:59

as a consequence of the Versailles treaty. Because

39:01

they didn't stay weak for long. And, you

39:04

know, maybe the Russian nuclear weapons

39:06

are no better than anything else the Soviets built,

39:08

but that doesn't mean a few of them won't go

39:10

off. And It's really not gonna take that

39:12

many because after all they are nuclear weapons.

39:15

And so even when it doesn't work that well,

39:17

is gonna be a lot more spectacular than

39:19

anything that happened in nineteen forty

39:22

five in Hiroshima. We can be absolutely

39:24

certain of that. So again, you know,

39:26

the mystery is, fair

39:27

enough, man, we want victory. Okay.

39:30

No problem. What's the victory?

39:32

One of the common responses

39:35

that you you hear from both

39:38

people in the White House from politicians

39:40

in Washington, both

39:42

when talking specifically about Russia. But you

39:44

hear this very often whenever they

39:46

see there's a there's a bad actor on the world

39:48

stage where the United States needs to take action

39:51

to punish them, to send them

39:53

a message and whether this is through economic warfare

39:55

or kinetic tactical,

39:57

you know, warfare direct.

40:01

Whether indirect or direct, this is a a line

40:03

that they have. Well, we have to punish them. We have to punish

40:05

them. And so they're making decisions about,

40:08

well, we gotta make life hard for them, punish them,

40:10

and whatever means that we can, but

40:12

not actually thinking about within

40:15

the context that they should be, which is for

40:17

us in this country, what action

40:19

should we take that is in the best interest for

40:21

the well-being of the American people in our

40:23

country, international security and our freedom.

40:25

Mhmm. Mhmm. And who's the them?

40:27

That's the other things. Well, we need to punish

40:29

the Russians. It's like, well, who

40:32

exactly are you talking about here? Are

40:34

you talking about the elites that are in control?

40:36

Are you talking about the whole damn population? For

40:39

how long? And as you already pointed

40:41

out, to what end to

40:43

what end. So to what end to what

40:45

end is all this? And Well, we

40:47

we we touched on that a little bit. You can't

40:49

you can't help but and this is where I

40:51

suppose I turn into a leftist in

40:53

some real sense, at least

40:56

in relationship to what you might describe

40:58

as a stance against Gigantism. It's like, to

41:00

what end? Well, how about military

41:02

industrial prophets that are staggering?

41:05

How about that end? And if there's no other

41:07

end in sight and I'm not particularly skeptical

41:10

about capitalism except in its gigantism

41:12

forms, it's like if there's no other end,

41:15

being outlined, well, I'm gonna go

41:18

with profit as the motive because

41:21

if you have a better theory, man lay it out,

41:23

but I don't see anything And, you know,

41:25

given given that it was Eisenhower who

41:28

who knew what he was talking about, having

41:30

been supreme commander of the allied forces

41:33

when he warned about the military industrial

41:35

complex being the biggest threat we faced

41:37

back in what about nineteen fifty nine,

41:40

that was something to take seriously and

41:42

It's something to take seriously again. Yeah.

41:44

So so what do you have any sense?

41:47

And have you talked to anybody who,

41:49

as far as your concern, has some reasonable

41:52

vision about what actually might be

41:54

done in a sensible manner on

41:56

the Russia Ukraine

41:57

Crony, Well, the more reasonable

42:00

people who are rooted in reality and

42:02

not fantasy understand that the

42:04

only way to bring about an end to this

42:06

war is through diplomatic means

42:09

of bringing together the different stakeholders

42:12

and actually coming to an understanding

42:14

whether it's through the form of a treaty or whatever

42:16

that agreement may look like where

42:19

no one is gonna walk away happy,

42:22

but there is there is

42:24

a reasonable approach to being able to find

42:26

that agreement. You'll hear from the Biden administration

42:28

anytime this is possible. Well, well, Zelensky and

42:30

Ukraine have to be the ones to drive

42:32

this. They're the ones

42:33

-- Yeah. -- write your terms and everything else. The

42:35

only way that they're able to continue doing

42:37

what they're doing is through

42:40

the means that the United States largely

42:43

the United States, but also some other countries in

42:45

Europe are providing them with the weapons

42:47

and the money and the ability to

42:49

do

42:49

so. So the United States

42:51

had president Biden And we could definitely stop

42:54

lying about we could definitely stop lying

42:56

about the fact that this is Ukraine. Yeah.

42:59

Exactly. Nobody in there nobody with any sense

43:01

at all believes that. I mean,

43:03

we're in a proxy war for sure, and we have seen

43:05

from the beginning. And so we might as well be crystal

43:07

clear about that. Exactly. So, hey, so

43:09

Trump popped up the other day as he pro has

43:12

a proclivity to do, and he said, if

43:14

I was president, I'd stop this

43:16

war in twenty four hours. And,

43:18

you know, that's typical Trump

43:20

overstatement, I would say, but it

43:22

is the case that the war emerged on Biden's

43:25

watch and not Trump's watch, and that's

43:27

not nothing. And so

43:30

what do you make of what do you make of

43:32

that? What do you make a Trump? When

43:35

we diagnose the democrats a

43:37

bit, let's let's turn to the Republicans. Only

43:39

Trump only Trump knows what what

43:41

Trump would be doing in this situation.

43:44

But as we're talking about a diplomatic

43:46

end to this war, something that should have happened a

43:49

very long time ago, something the Biden administration

43:51

has been blocking, categorically blocking

43:54

even efforts between Russian and Ukrainian

43:56

officials on their own who are trying to

43:58

come

43:58

together. It's been the United States that has been blocking

44:00

them, telling Ukraine, no, leave the table,

44:02

don't in a go. How how

44:04

have they been blocking? Do you whether

44:06

there are there are multiple reports

44:08

publicly of of

44:10

Biden administration officials telling you,

44:12

Craig, not to negotiate as well

44:14

as other countries who have been also

44:16

sharing that they've been getting that same

44:18

message. Going all the way back to

44:20

I think March, you

44:22

know, shortly after this war kicked off when

44:24

they're

44:25

Yeah. I heard the same thing. I heard that from people

44:27

I was talking to. Who knew what they were talking

44:29

about? Exactly. Do that the Russians There

44:31

were there were avenues open quite

44:33

early in the conflict where diplomatic diplomatic

44:36

maneuvering could have, hypothetically

44:38

proved proved useful and that that was

44:41

blocked. Now I'm not saying it would have been useful,

44:43

but I couldn't understand when this

44:45

all broke out why the number one priority

44:47

of western leaders who instead

44:50

gathered to, you know, make

44:52

fun of of Putin's hyper masculinity,

44:55

and it was a pretty sad bunch of

44:57

wimps gathered around the g seven table

44:59

who are managing that. I might say -- Right. -- instead

45:01

of noting that if they had any sense

45:04

at all, they'd be trying to broker something

45:06

like an intelligent arrangement so that we didn't

45:08

face the the likely

45:10

possibility being dragged by our

45:12

shirt sleeve into the maw of the military

45:15

industrial complex and end up all torn

45:17

to shreds as a consequence, which I think

45:19

is the most likely outcome of what's happening

45:21

now. Because what I know

45:23

something about World War one and World War

45:25

two and one of the and the other wars

45:28

we've been in sense is that what tends

45:30

to happen is you get pulled in one

45:32

stupid step at a time, especially

45:34

if if you're also turning a blind

45:37

eye to the chicanery of

45:39

your wealthy friends who are profiting like

45:41

mad on the war And so people

45:43

always I think they said, you know, when World War

45:45

one started, it was like, the troops will be

45:47

home for Christmas. It's like, yeah,

45:50

guess that didn't happen. And then it's

45:52

many, many years later, and it's not like that

45:54

didn't happen in Vietnam or Iraq. Afghanistan.

45:57

Exactly. This will be over soon. It's like,

45:59

yes. Yeah. I don't think so. That is not

46:01

these things

46:01

worse. Work. No. And and who

46:04

walked away who walked away with the

46:06

most prophets in the war in Afghanistan

46:08

alone. Major

46:11

defense contractors. What does the Department

46:13

of Defense have to say about the money that was spent

46:15

there? They can't even account for

46:18

vast majority of money

46:19

that was spent there. Can we Yeah. We're talking Billy

46:21

billions of dollars. Billions are hundreds

46:24

of billions of

46:24

dollars. Yes. Right. Hundreds of billions of dollars.

46:26

Trillions, if I remember correctly.

46:28

Overall, what was spent? Yes. Truly understand

46:31

what was spent on that Gabbard the

46:33

unaccounted for. Exactly. Spend an unaccounted

46:36

for. Right? So that's pretty damn convenient.

46:38

For who --

46:38

Oh. -- trillions of For

46:40

the military industrial complex.

46:43

And and them, you know, you have these defense contractors

46:45

again saying

46:46

publicly, War is good

46:48

for business. Yeah. Well,

46:50

there's no doubt about that. Exactly. You're not

46:53

on the Crony line. Or

46:55

because your bank account is not useful to you

46:57

when you're dead. But if you're if someone

46:59

else is dead and the consequence of that

47:01

is that your bank account is accruing profit quite

47:04

nicely. Well, you know, that's that's all well and

47:06

good, especially if you're a psychopathic narcissist,

47:09

and it's all about you. And That's

47:11

right. And so and there's no shortage

47:13

of that going around at the highest echelons

47:15

of of what would you call it, fascist

47:17

collusion, and we're seeing that pretty much

47:19

everywhere. Yeah. So Okay.

47:22

So let's turn to the Republicans. We

47:24

okay. We've we've we've we've had our

47:26

shot at the warmongering Democrats,

47:28

let's say, although I think

47:30

we'll return to their problems. But

47:33

let's look at the Republican side. Now,

47:35

you're sitting out as an independent at the moment.

47:37

That's Correct. I've got that right. Yes. Good.

47:41

And so you're not aligned with the Republicans

47:43

or the Democrats, which either makes you extremely

47:45

hard to get along with and someone no one

47:47

likes or Right.

47:50

Because that's a possibility. Yeah. Or,

47:52

you know, or you're in a neutral position.

47:54

In some sense at the moment with a lot of experience

47:57

on the Democrat Crony. Right?

47:59

A lot of detailed experience. And so

48:02

What what do you think is good about the Republicans

48:04

and what do you think they're

48:05

lacking? Well, I think

48:07

there there are a number of Republicans who are

48:11

obviously who are a part of this

48:13

permanent Washington establishment that

48:15

whether we're talking about the issue of war and

48:17

peace or we're talking about you know,

48:20

the the crony capitalism, I'm not I'm

48:22

I'm I'm I'm not against capitalism either,

48:24

but you look at the crony capitalism

48:26

of of industries like big

48:29

pharma, the so called healthcare industry

48:31

that really doesn't care about people's

48:33

actual health and well-being.

48:35

You could go kind of across the board of

48:37

what is wrong with the corruption

48:40

in permanent Washington or politicians are

48:42

essentially paid off and therefore

48:44

working for the interests of these industries rather

48:46

than interest of the people that they've been elected

48:49

to serve. And there are both Republicans and Democrats

48:51

who are not only entrenched in

48:53

this, but who are in those

48:55

positions because of this

48:58

this

48:58

system. And and it is what That's

49:00

outright fascism by by definition.

49:02

Right? Yeah. Because the fascist the definition of

49:04

fascism is essentially corporate

49:06

government collusion at the highest

49:08

levels. And so, yeah, the deep

49:11

state that everyone paranoid is paranoid

49:13

about, and for good reason, is essentially a

49:15

collisionist, fascist regime.

49:18

And us increasingly an international collusionist,

49:21

fascist regime. And when people say crony

49:23

capitalism, you know, it's a weak

49:26

it's a weak phrase for what's

49:28

essentially a fascist enterprise. Right.

49:30

So and as you said, you know, there are

49:32

people in the Democrat Party and in the Republicans

49:34

who are pulled into that web of

49:36

collusion and and it's easy for that to happen

49:39

too because it

49:39

is. Yeah. Yeah. We'll sucked

49:42

into the system quickly and you think, well, this is just

49:44

the way it works. And so if I wanna know anything

49:46

in Washington, if I wanna get anywhere, even people

49:48

who people who I know who came in, I got

49:50

elected with best of intentions.

49:53

Yeah. It it is very

49:55

quickly inculicated, like, within the first

49:57

few days of being there that this

49:59

is where the world works, buddy. And if you

50:01

wanna get anywhere to be able to Yeah.

50:03

-- what you came here to do, well, this is the game

50:06

and the rules you've gotta play by. Yeah.

50:08

And then very quickly before you know it,

50:10

those those good intentions that you

50:12

came up with are are

50:15

lost, and you are no longer

50:17

serving the interests of the people. You are serving

50:19

you have become a puppet of those

50:22

who are the puppet

50:23

masters. Well, you are an ideal fight when

50:25

you first enter the ring, you know, even once

50:27

your elect I mean, in terms of the constituents

50:30

you represent, you're sort of at a pinnacle. But

50:32

as a newbie in Washington, you know,

50:34

what You're a little freshman. They're literally

50:36

called freshman. You get a little Exactly. Very freshman

50:39

class. And you've got no knowledge

50:41

and you've got no allies and And and

50:43

then there's also gonna be the part of you that one

50:45

hangs out wants to hang out

50:47

with the cool kids. Exactly. And so right.

50:49

Absolutely. And some of that actually just

50:51

humility, you know, is that because you don't

50:53

have any allies or friends, and you do need

50:55

to know how the system

50:57

operates. And so that's a big problem.

50:59

So what did you have to be grounded in principles.

51:02

You have to go there and be grounded

51:04

in your principles and your your

51:06

mission and your purpose. Which

51:08

was not just to go and, like, get along

51:11

and be around this interesting group of people

51:13

and get the fancy title, though that is some people's

51:15

purpose. But in order to be

51:17

truly effective there, you

51:20

have to go there and be very grounded in

51:22

your principles and purpose so that

51:24

you don't then become the puppet

51:26

for these

51:29

other powerful interests. And and that that frankly

51:31

is exactly what I went through is when I got

51:33

to Washington, you

51:34

know, I was lauded as like,

51:37

oh my gosh. She's a rising star. The headlines.

51:39

She's

51:39

a rising star of the Democratic Party and,

51:41

you know, checking all the different boxes

51:43

of all the things that they look for, the labels

51:45

that they're look for. She's a woman of color, she's

51:47

a veteran, she's this, and she's that. And

51:50

then they realized

51:52

like, oh, hold on a second. She's

51:55

not just going to allow

51:57

us to control her. She's not just gonna read the

51:59

talking points that we send out in the morning

52:01

email. She's not just gonna vote based

52:03

on the way that we tell her to

52:05

do they realized that I did I

52:07

wasn't

52:08

there. And we and was we was

52:10

we the was was we the DNC?

52:12

Essentially, I mean, my experience with

52:15

talking to congressmen in Washington

52:17

is basically it's it's actually been somewhat

52:20

it's been disenchanting, and I've also developed

52:22

more sympathy for the congress people

52:25

because, well, they have hard

52:27

jobs. It isn't obvious that anyone sensible

52:29

would ever take that job even though it's necessary

52:31

that they do. Well, The

52:35

new congressmen, they spend twenty to thirty hours

52:37

a week fundraising. They can't do that in their offices.

52:40

They have to rent another office and they spend all

52:42

their time on their phone. So they're basically

52:44

glorified televangelists or

52:46

telemarketers. Forty

52:48

percent of them don't live in Washington and

52:51

sleep in their office so there's no community

52:53

there. They have to run for reelection

52:55

every two years, which means that not only

52:57

are they, you know, in a job that very

52:59

difficult as newbies, but it's a very unstable

53:02

job. They've destabilized their families by

53:04

doing so. It's hard for them to move their spouse

53:07

to Washington. And then, a

53:09

witness, think, is especially true on

53:11

the Democrat side, but it's also true on the Republican

53:13

side. They're facing constant pressure

53:16

from the powers that be who are very entrenched

53:18

to do nothing but raise money for the damn

53:20

party, even though they waste almost all of that,

53:23

and to tow the bloody party line.

53:25

And of course, you have to have a certain amount

53:27

of party discipline or you don't have a party.

53:29

So Anyways, that's Now,

53:32

so what are you What what

53:34

real temptations did you face?

53:37

And you know, how did that

53:39

warp you? Because there's no way you

53:41

get through this without a certain degree of warping.

53:43

And and how did you And

53:45

and to what degree were you successful

53:48

in resisting that? And and why did you manage

53:50

it? So let's start with that. What were the

53:52

major temptations facing you when you

53:54

first went to

53:55

Washington? Well,

53:58

like I said, within the first few

54:00

days of arriving there before even being sworn

54:02

in as a member of congress, there

54:05

was a bifurcation. We had we had

54:07

eighty four people who were elected to

54:09

congress in two thousand twelve, new members

54:11

of congress. I believe fifty

54:14

numbers are right. I think there were fifty Democrats and

54:16

thirty four Republicans. And so for

54:18

the first week that we were there and what they

54:20

call freshman orientation, we were going through

54:23

different policy briefings with

54:25

people presenting on, you know, a whole host

54:27

of the issues that we face and

54:29

people presenting from different sides,

54:32

different perspectives. And

54:34

we all went through that together. And then

54:36

after that, it was, okay, Democrats, you're gonna

54:38

go here, Republicans, you're gonna go there.

54:40

And that's where two things happened.

54:43

Number one is, is

54:45

the partisan direction coming

54:47

to members of Congress basically preaching

54:50

in a nutshell, it is

54:52

party first. You will -- Right.

54:54

-- what is best for the party first.

54:56

Rather than thinking about, well, what's in the best

54:58

interest of my constituents?

55:01

Or what about if I disagree

55:03

with the party and this is decision that I wanna

55:05

make, you will make your decision based on what's best for

55:07

the party. If you have an idea to introduce

55:09

a bill, best not to go work with someone

55:11

from the other party because that'll make them look

55:13

good. It'll make it harder for us to beat them in next

55:16

election. So not about how do we solve problems,

55:18

not about how do we be effective in

55:21

serving our constituents, all about

55:23

the party power, keeping power, getting

55:25

it back. Those are the two things. And both

55:27

of us got those same messages from

55:29

our respective political party leaders.

55:32

Part and parcel of that was exactly what she

55:34

talked about. There was this a PowerPoint

55:36

slide that was put up. I remember it

55:38

very distinctly because it was so shocking

55:41

about here's what your day

55:43

will look like and

55:45

how many hours of the day

55:48

morning, noon, and night will be

55:50

spent either at fundraisers with

55:53

lobbyists representing different industries or

55:56

as you said on the phone off-site

55:58

making calls to those lobbyists to try to get

56:00

more of them to come and give you money at the next

56:02

days, fundraisers, breakfast, lunch,

56:05

and dinner. And as I was looking at this slide,

56:07

it was split up hour by

56:08

hour. Here's what your days will look like.

56:11

If you're

56:11

doing sixteen hour days. Exactly.

56:14

And how the vast majority of

56:16

a single day was not spent

56:19

studying issues that you would have to tackle in

56:21

committee or, you know, working

56:23

on legislation that you're going to introduce,

56:25

the vast majority of hours of that day

56:27

would be spent fundraising from

56:29

lobbyists representing special interest.

56:32

And that's the expectation to

56:34

get on certain committees that you wanna get on.

56:36

You've gotta give them you gotta give the party a

56:38

certain amount of money and all of these

56:40

different things. And and that's the frustration

56:43

that the American people have with our politics

56:46

right now. And obviously, it's been going on for a long

56:48

time is They know We

56:50

know this. We can see

56:52

through their results that they don't actually

56:55

care about making decisions that that are

56:57

in the best interest of the people who are actually solving these

56:59

problems. It's being reactive. And ultimately,

57:01

when it comes down to it, when you

57:03

you hear what they are saying, the

57:06

the for example, like, oh, well, prescription

57:08

drug prices are flying through the roof and people

57:10

can't afford insulin. Diabetics can't afford

57:12

insulin. And seniors can afford the

57:14

medicine that they need, but when you actually look at

57:16

the results, even though politicians complain

57:18

about it, there's not a regulation

57:21

of big pharma that would actually seek to start

57:23

solving some of these problems in the ways that people

57:25

need

57:25

help. And that's just one example of many. Mhmm.

57:28

Well, you know, here's here's

57:30

maybe part of the underlying problem. So

57:32

I went to the Republican Governors

57:34

Association meeting in November, and

57:37

I remember one of the people who presented they

57:39

were trying to rally the troops to some degree

57:41

sharing policy information amongst

57:44

themselves as governors. And a lot of the Republican

57:46

governors are pretty good at implementing you

57:49

know, micro policies, and and there's

57:51

something to be said for that, right, to that boots

57:53

on the ground pragmatic competence.

57:57

They weren't very good at putting

57:59

forward a vision, and they weren't really

58:01

very good at even rallying the

58:03

fundraisers, you know, with a rousing call to

58:05

action. And I think that's a problem on

58:07

the Republican side. But one of the

58:09

presentations was extremely interesting

58:12

to me as someone interested measurement because

58:15

the person got up and talked about how

58:17

effective the Republicans had been in certain

58:20

jurisdictions, in certain key elections,

58:22

in outspending the democrats on the

58:24

advertising front. And I

58:27

thought I thought three things at the same

58:29

time. The first thing I thought is There is

58:31

almost no evidence that election spending

58:33

has any effect whatsoever on the outcome

58:35

of the election. It's a marginal effect

58:37

at most. And so and it's it's

58:39

so marginal that political scientists have been

58:41

debating for twenty years about whether or not election

58:43

spending helps at all, whether you're

58:45

an incumbent or a challenger. And so

58:48

the fact that and then so that's a big

58:50

problem. It's like, it is not obvious

58:52

that what you're paying for works. That's

58:55

a big problem. Second, why

58:58

in the world did we ever assume that

59:00

the right metric for electoral

59:04

competence in in in

59:06

running a campaign is how much money

59:08

you spend. No one in their right mind

59:10

thinks that the right measure for doing a bathroom

59:13

renovation properly is the fact that it cost

59:15

million dollars when it could have cost ten thousand.

59:17

Sure. That's just preposterous. So

59:20

it's a so it's a you

59:22

know, it's a measurement problem in the fundamental

59:24

analysis, and then even worse on

59:26

the Republican side. And I think I

59:28

asked this question, which didn't make me very

59:30

popular, at the meeting itself, which

59:32

is I don't know if you noticed, but

59:35

ninety five percent of the legacy media

59:37

to whom you're devoting all this money actually

59:40

really can't stand you or anything

59:42

you stand for and is completely one

59:44

hundred percent tilted against you. So

59:47

on what grounds do you base your

59:49

claimed that spending more money

59:51

than the Democrats feeding this god

59:53

awful legacy media machine is, well,

59:55

it's not effective, and It's counterproductive

59:58

and they hate you. So what are you

1:00:00

doing? And and so then what happens

1:00:02

in Washington? It's very similar is

1:00:04

the The parties devolved to

1:00:07

the simplistic notion that

1:00:09

those junior congressmen who

1:00:11

can beat the drum most effectively to raise

1:00:14

money are Epsofacto, the most

1:00:16

loyal and competent. And that's all

1:00:18

based on a whole misapprehension of It's

1:00:21

a measurement problem. It's like, The money

1:00:23

you raise is not an indication of your competence.

1:00:25

It's the same problem we were talking about with relationship

1:00:27

to women in the military to begin with. What the

1:00:30

hell are you measuring? No. Okay.

1:00:32

You Now for whatever reason, you

1:00:35

got on a lot of democrat committees and you ended

1:00:37

up as vice chairman. You had pretty stellar

1:00:39

career, very rapidly celebrate. Now

1:00:41

you claimed that you weren't one of the

1:00:44

junior congresspeople that

1:00:46

could be, you know, subsumed

1:00:48

all that easily into the military.

1:00:50

It does real complex for lack of a better

1:00:52

word. So if

1:00:54

that was the case, then

1:00:57

why in the world were you also

1:00:59

able to to

1:01:01

move into leadership positions in the Democrat

1:01:04

Party. Because hypothetically, you

1:01:06

would have had to go along, and I I'm sure

1:01:08

you went along to some degree but

1:01:10

you would have to go along, that's what they're telling

1:01:12

you. You have to go along to get something done. But

1:01:14

you're saying you didn't particularly go along

1:01:17

or at least not always, and yet you

1:01:19

had a stellar

1:01:20

career. So so how how

1:01:22

is that possible? These

1:01:25

opportunities these,

1:01:29

you know, vice chairman of the DNC. We'll

1:01:31

we'll we'll start with that one because

1:01:33

I was. I was a top official of

1:01:36

the National Democratic Party.

1:01:38

From two thousand,

1:01:41

I guess, I was sworn in January twenty thirteen

1:01:44

up until my choice to

1:01:46

leave that position in in twenty

1:01:48

sixteen. I was

1:01:50

sitting in a the back seat of a car

1:01:53

shortly, it was around the time of of president

1:01:55

Obama's reelection inauguration.

1:01:59

I got a phone call saying,

1:02:01

hey, what would your answer be if

1:02:03

you were asked to serve as vice chair

1:02:06

of the DNC? I had been in

1:02:08

office for less than a month. And

1:02:11

my response to this person who called me

1:02:13

was, I

1:02:15

don't know. What is a vice chair

1:02:17

of the DNC? What do they do?

1:02:20

What what would the expectations be?

1:02:22

What would, you know, what

1:02:24

kinds of things would I be able to do? Is this

1:02:26

just to buy a name thing? Or would I actually be

1:02:28

able to do something? I I didn't have

1:02:30

any idea what that was. But

1:02:33

I was offered that position and I thought, well,

1:02:35

hey, I agreed to do it because

1:02:37

I thought maybe this is an opportunity from able

1:02:39

to be bring some and affect some

1:02:41

change in the democratic national party.

1:02:43

So these a lot of these different things

1:02:47

came

1:02:48

came to me without me seeking them

1:02:50

out at all.

1:02:51

Why? Why? Why? Because of what

1:02:53

I talked about. They excuse

1:02:55

me, they saw

1:02:58

they saw the superficial and

1:03:01

they thought Well, this is somebody

1:03:03

who we can, you know, if I did

1:03:05

go along, III

1:03:07

can imagine. I think it would be a safe assumption

1:03:10

to say that that they would have continued

1:03:12

to push me up into the highest

1:03:14

levels if I had been someone

1:03:17

that they thought I was, that I would just go along,

1:03:19

and I could tell the story that they wanted to tell

1:03:21

and say the things that they wanted me to

1:03:23

say. And so when they asked me to be vice president of the

1:03:25

DNC, I had been in office less than a month.

1:03:28

And who's

1:03:28

they? Who's the they that are asking?

1:03:30

It is. It is it is, you know, the the

1:03:32

Democratic leadership in congress. Democratic

1:03:35

leadership within within

1:03:38

the DNC. And also, I

1:03:40

got a lot of media coverage that

1:03:42

I I didn't have a press secretary. I didn't have

1:03:44

a publicist. I didn't seek any of this stuff out,

1:03:46

but I kept getting calls. Hey, we want you

1:03:49

on our show. We wanna feature you in this magazine. We

1:03:51

wanna do this. Wanna do that. And

1:03:53

and it I I questioned it little

1:03:55

bit, but ultimately I was like, hey, look, this is

1:03:57

an opportunity for me to be able to reach out to

1:03:59

people and say what I wanna say and get

1:04:01

across what I wanna get

1:04:02

across. So I took advantage of those opportunities. Well,

1:04:05

you check the identity boxes -- Exactly. --

1:04:07

presume that they they were hoping

1:04:09

that you might be, well, I wanna

1:04:11

get back to this issue of they too. You

1:04:13

know, my experience with organizations

1:04:16

and activists for that matter is that

1:04:19

the they turns out to be

1:04:21

a very small number of people who are very

1:04:24

well connected, who are continually maneuvering,

1:04:26

and Sometimes that's a consequence of

1:04:28

their unbelievable competence and sometimes

1:04:31

it's a consequence of their unbelievable capacity

1:04:33

to manipulate and and capitalize

1:04:36

on narcissism. And that's a probably

1:04:38

a problem in politics and entertainment

1:04:40

and media more than anywhere else for obvious

1:04:42

reasons. And I don't want to paint

1:04:45

everyone with the same brush because that's

1:04:47

that's foolish. But that they

1:04:49

that are looking at you and thinking, well, you know,

1:04:52

we can certainly look use someone with an

1:04:54

image like hers for us,

1:04:56

and that's not all cynical by the way.

1:05:00

Who who are the who are the people

1:05:02

who are making those decisions as far as you're

1:05:04

concerned. If we go back, say,

1:05:06

well, when you were asked to serve as vice chairman,

1:05:09

who are making

1:05:10

those? Who is making those decisions? Well, I

1:05:12

mean, obviously, Nancy Pelosi is one of

1:05:14

them. You know, Debbie

1:05:16

Wasserman Schultz was the the head

1:05:18

of the the DNC at the time. There

1:05:21

were people in the Obama administration. There

1:05:24

are people who were not elected

1:05:26

officials and and within the DNC.

1:05:28

I'm sure there were probably political donors

1:05:30

as well who had a part a part of that.

1:05:33

But but, you know, we'll we'll start with Nancy Pelosi.

1:05:35

I had won my primary election here in

1:05:37

Hawaii in August

1:05:40

of twenty twelve. And

1:05:43

that in Hawaii, Hawaii is very strong

1:05:45

Democratic state. That was essentially the election. I

1:05:47

did have a Republican opponent and still had to go

1:05:49

and win the general election, but it

1:05:51

was a safe assumption that I was going to I

1:05:53

I had de facto already won the

1:05:55

election. And within a few

1:05:57

weeks of winning that election, I had

1:06:00

gotten a call from Nancy Pelosi saying,

1:06:02

would you like to come and speak during prime time

1:06:04

at the Democratic National Convention that was

1:06:06

gonna happen shortly shortly

1:06:08

after

1:06:08

that. This was in Charlotte, North Carolina

1:06:11

in twenty twelve. Someone

1:06:14

who had not even yet been elected to Congress

1:06:16

for the first time being invited to speech

1:06:18

to be in prime. It was.

1:06:20

I was surprised. I was very surprised.

1:06:23

The topic she was asking me to talk about is one that

1:06:25

is obviously near and dear to my heart to talk about

1:06:28

veterans. And and so I said,

1:06:30

yes. Of course, I will do that.

1:06:32

I went there and I spoke and I

1:06:34

did interviews with just about every media

1:06:36

channel that was out there and but but

1:06:38

all of these different things you

1:06:41

know, there were not opportunities that

1:06:44

were given to the vast

1:06:46

majority of people. I guess, I'll put it that

1:06:48

way. Yeah. Yeah. But my decision my

1:06:50

decision to leave as vice chair

1:06:52

the DNC was one of those pivotal moments

1:06:55

where in the lead up to making that decision,

1:06:57

it was It was driven by

1:06:59

a couple of things. One was the recognition

1:07:01

of the rules of the DNC is

1:07:03

that you're you're as an officer of the DNC

1:07:06

you were not involved in tilting

1:07:09

the scales or getting involved in Democratic

1:07:12

primaries, especially Democratic presidential

1:07:14

primaries that you have different candidates they

1:07:16

go out, they make their case, and then the party coalesces

1:07:19

around whoever the winner of that

1:07:21

primary is. Well, in the lead up

1:07:23

to that twenty sixteen primary election,

1:07:26

I started to see very quickly

1:07:29

that the decisions that

1:07:31

were being made, not in consultation

1:07:34

with us as vice chairman of the DNC, but unilaterally

1:07:36

by deputy deputy Washington Schultz who was the chair,

1:07:39

who was very close with Hillary

1:07:40

Clinton, were made to give an advantage

1:07:42

to Hillary Clinton. For example, limiting the number

1:07:45

of debates where she would have

1:07:46

to raise -- Right. -- Bernie Sanders. Putting

1:07:49

them at times where, you know, I think there

1:07:51

was one that was scheduled during, like, the

1:07:54

Super Bowl or something like that when nobody

1:07:56

was gonna be watching or paying attention. To

1:07:58

a presidential debate.

1:08:00

There were there were a new newly

1:08:03

implemented rules that said any democratic

1:08:05

presidential candidate that participates

1:08:08

in a debate that is not sanctioned

1:08:10

by the DNC will be

1:08:12

banned from participating in any future

1:08:14

DNC. Debate. And

1:08:16

and for me, I'm just thinking, like,

1:08:19

if our if our purpose and our cause

1:08:21

is to increase involvement

1:08:23

and engagement in our democracy to get more

1:08:25

people to pay attention, to learn

1:08:27

more about these different candidates, to

1:08:30

actually have a real dialogue about

1:08:32

these important issues. Why would you be punishing

1:08:34

someone for going out and trying to engage in

1:08:37

doing exactly that? Why would you be trying

1:08:39

to limit the debate? That the American

1:08:41

people can be exposed to and involved with.

1:08:43

And it was very clear why those

1:08:45

decisions were made to give an advantage

1:08:47

to Hillary Clinton who was designated as

1:08:49

the one that the Democratic Party powers

1:08:52

that B wanted to win

1:08:54

that election. And so their lack

1:08:56

of integrity coupled

1:08:59

with the fact that Hillary Clinton wanted to be

1:09:01

our commander in chief. I

1:09:04

still serve in the army reserves now

1:09:06

for almost twenty years. So for me, as someone

1:09:09

serving in the reserves, at the time,

1:09:11

as well as member of Congress as well as an American

1:09:14

to have her in a position where

1:09:16

both Democrats and the mainstream media refused

1:09:19

to challenge her on her record.

1:09:22

Both as senator in every position

1:09:24

she had held, chief secretary of state, and so forth

1:09:26

previously, on on

1:09:28

her, she is she is the queen

1:09:31

of warholics. She is the queen of warmakers. No

1:09:33

one challenged her. They just said, well, she's got all these

1:09:35

positions. She's the most qualified I

1:09:37

and so many of my brothers and sisters in uniform

1:09:40

were like, hold on a second. You need

1:09:42

to ask her and hold her to account for the

1:09:44

toxic disastrous consequences. For

1:09:46

the decisions that she has made, the wars that

1:09:48

she has advocated for, the things

1:09:50

that she has done that has not only

1:09:52

undermined our national

1:09:53

security, but come at great cost. To the

1:09:55

men and women who -- Why all in service?

1:09:57

Why do you why do you think okay. Two questions

1:10:00

on the Hillary Crony. I mean, one of the reasons

1:10:02

she Terrified

1:10:05

me, I suppose, is

1:10:08

that it was pretty damn obvious

1:10:10

that she's been aiming at the presidency

1:10:12

for fifty years.

1:10:15

Sure. And that's a long time.

1:10:18

Right? And you've gotta ask yourself, what

1:10:22

is driving someone who's

1:10:24

that committed to that goal?

1:10:26

Like, and the goal is clearly the

1:10:29

presidency. It's not what

1:10:31

could be done with the presidency. And

1:10:33

it's not like she was dragged

1:10:35

in kicking and screaming by people

1:10:37

who were overwhelmingly impressed

1:10:39

by her prowess and who

1:10:42

you know, and joined upon her for more

1:10:44

reasons to consider a career in government.

1:10:46

It's like, no. No. No. She's been laser

1:10:48

focused on being the

1:10:50

first female president of the United States

1:10:53

for God only knows how long. And so

1:10:55

that that's concerning to me.

1:10:57

But then But

1:10:59

then that doesn't answer the next

1:11:01

or address the next mystery, which is well,

1:11:04

given that she's a democrat and given that

1:11:07

the crowds should in principle be somewhat

1:11:09

skeptical, let's say, of the of fascist

1:11:11

collusion between corporation and government

1:11:13

and little bit skeptical on the military

1:11:15

industrial side. Why do

1:11:18

you think that her record indicates

1:11:21

that she's such a hawk on the military front

1:11:24

Like, is that a compensation? Is she

1:11:26

attempting this is a cheap, you know, psychological

1:11:28

interpretation. Could easily be Is

1:11:30

she trying to look tough on on

1:11:32

the foreign policy front to, you know,

1:11:35

to mitigate against any criticism of the

1:11:37

fact that she might not be capable of

1:11:38

that, or what's going on? Why should

1:11:40

we? Do not. I don't think that's such

1:11:43

a cheap analysis

1:11:46

or assumption to make because that that

1:11:48

that is a reality and that is

1:11:51

one of my fears, not only about her,

1:11:53

but also about some others

1:11:55

who have been in those types

1:11:57

of position. You look at someone

1:11:59

like Kamala Harris. For example, she's a

1:12:01

breath away from the

1:12:03

presidency. And I I have lost

1:12:04

track of how she works. Unfortunate. Yes.

1:12:07

Exactly. Which is incredibly

1:12:09

concerning. I I have lost track of how

1:12:11

many service member American

1:12:13

service members I have spoken with

1:12:15

who are absolutely terrified

1:12:18

about the prospect of a president, Harris.

1:12:21

For that reason, she's she's You mean facing

1:12:23

off against someone like Vladimir Putin, for

1:12:25

example. Wouldn't that work? Lovely. Am

1:12:27

a virus versus --

1:12:28

Exactly. -- out of your Putin -- Oh, yeah. or

1:12:30

or anyone. But somebody like her

1:12:34

who is weak who

1:12:36

lacks understanding in foreign

1:12:38

policy, who feels the need to

1:12:40

prove herself, to prove her

1:12:42

strength, to to stand up with the

1:12:44

big boys and look tough and somehow

1:12:47

believe that, well, hey, the best way to

1:12:49

do that is to go drop some bombs somewhere

1:12:51

and start a war. This

1:12:54

this is a a terrifying

1:12:57

prospect for someone

1:12:59

and and you see this yes with with

1:13:01

some women who feel like they have to go

1:13:03

and look

1:13:04

tough, but that only happens if they're not actually

1:13:06

strong, internally strong individuals

1:13:09

themselves but we also see the way see

1:13:11

this with some of the the the male leaders

1:13:14

in this country. We saw how -- Yeah. -- you know,

1:13:17

how how people react again, like in the media

1:13:19

and in media, how they media and politics,

1:13:21

how they react when

1:13:23

we go to work. We saw how Nancy Pelosi

1:13:25

and Brian Williams and others declared

1:13:28

Donald Trump. This is the first time

1:13:30

he seems presidential when he decided

1:13:32

to go and launch some rockets and missiles against

1:13:35

Syria. People who hated

1:13:37

him, people who could not stand

1:13:39

him and were obsessed with trying to destroy

1:13:41

president Trump. All of a sudden,

1:13:43

he goes and launches some bombs in there all over

1:13:45

the television saying, well,

1:13:46

finally, he's acting like a president.

1:13:49

Give me a break. This is the problem

1:13:51

with the lack of leadership that

1:13:53

we have and how you, you know, you started

1:13:55

this question asking about how is it the Democratic party

1:13:57

that should be the party that is

1:13:59

at at a minimum skeptical and cynical

1:14:01

about the military industrial complex

1:14:04

and going out and starting new wars and regime

1:14:06

change and all of this stuff, well, they have

1:14:08

become party to a part

1:14:10

and parcel of it and have become that machine

1:14:13

that benefits from all of this.

1:14:15

And so they can't. It would be self defeating

1:14:18

for them to now exercise skepticism or

1:14:20

challenge. And this, you know, I wanna I wanna jump

1:14:22

back to question you asked earlier, we didn't get to finish,

1:14:24

which was what are some of the positive things

1:14:26

that I'm seeing in the in the Republican Party

1:14:28

right now? We see

1:14:31

at a minimum there

1:14:33

are dissenting voices within the Republican

1:14:35

Party, for example, on the issue of this proxy

1:14:37

war against Russia. There are

1:14:39

not enough to be able to make a

1:14:41

legislative change at this point. I hope that changes,

1:14:44

but there are a growing number of Republicans

1:14:46

who are saying no. Expressing a

1:14:48

lot of the concerns that we are.

1:14:51

And from a Republican party perspective,

1:14:53

there's no I'm not aware of any punitive

1:14:57

measures being taken against those members.

1:14:59

So even though they are not

1:15:01

part of the establishment in the Republican

1:15:03

Party, there

1:15:05

is that room for descent.

1:15:08

There is and I've experienced this myself. There's

1:15:10

that room for open conversation and

1:15:12

dialogue. Whether you agree or disagree, there's

1:15:15

a growing movement of

1:15:17

concern about, you know, these wars and

1:15:19

a movement for peace and a response a responsible

1:15:22

foreign policy Whereas the Democratic

1:15:24

Party has moved in the opposite direction

1:15:26

where you were not allowed to ask questions.

1:15:29

You were not allowed to challenge their narrative

1:15:31

or their position you're not allowed to

1:15:33

hold a dissenting view because

1:15:36

if you do, then they will seek to

1:15:38

destroy you and cancel you and smear you

1:15:40

and and take away away

1:15:43

your voice. And and it's it's really sad

1:15:45

and unfortunate because there's there's nothing more

1:15:47

undemocratic than

1:15:48

that. Right. Right.

1:15:50

Well, look, I would love to continue

1:15:53

talking to you on the YouTube platform,

1:15:56

but we're I know you have a hard out in

1:15:58

about half hour. And I would have really

1:16:00

liked to have talked to you some more about Trump.

1:16:02

We should do this again. We should do this

1:16:04

again. We'll find a we'll find a time that's

1:16:06

appropriate and do it again, wonderful. I

1:16:09

would just I'd just ask you one

1:16:11

final question on this -- Sure. --

1:16:13

in this episode. Then for everyone watching

1:16:15

and listening, I'm gonna continue talking

1:16:17

to Tulsi on the

1:16:20

daily wear plus platform. I'm gonna do a little

1:16:22

bit more biographical interrogation, let's

1:16:24

say, and that'll be available for

1:16:26

those of you who wanna go over to the daily

1:16:28

wear plus side of the world, let's

1:16:30

say. And but but I'll maybe

1:16:32

we could close with this So what

1:16:35

do you what what are your future plans

1:16:37

at the moment? Where do you see yourself going? Because

1:16:39

you're in an odd political position at the moment

1:16:41

to say the least, you have this immense wealth

1:16:44

of experience and and

1:16:47

reputation Gabbard earned and and

1:16:50

you're in idiosyncratic position.

1:16:54

And you're quite young as well, all

1:16:56

things considered by political standards.

1:16:58

And so Where

1:17:00

do you foresee yourself going and where

1:17:02

would you like to go and

1:17:05

in the next few years and maybe even longer

1:17:08

than that?

1:17:11

I will the short answer

1:17:13

is is I don't exactly know specifically,

1:17:16

but what I do know is that

1:17:18

I will continue to do what I've done

1:17:21

throughout throughout my life, which is seek out

1:17:23

those opportunities and

1:17:25

places where I feel I can make the

1:17:27

most positive impact and be of

1:17:29

service, be of service to god,

1:17:31

be of service to to our country and and

1:17:33

the American people. I always like talking

1:17:36

to you Americans. You're so good at that sort

1:17:38

of thing. You know, well, mister Smith

1:17:40

goes to Washington thing, which is Well,

1:17:42

it's real. You know what I did? It

1:17:44

is real. It is real. And I've seen that among

1:17:47

Democrats and Republicans alike, you know, there

1:17:49

is despite everything that divides

1:17:52

people in the United States. And

1:17:54

despite, you know, all the possibility of

1:17:56

corruption and all of that, there is still

1:17:59

this underlying belief in the goodness

1:18:01

of essential goodness of the system and this

1:18:03

real desire on behalf of people to

1:18:05

to be of genuine service and to put themselves

1:18:07

on the line for it. It's no joke to give up

1:18:09

your life to to become a congressman or

1:18:11

congresswoman. It's a very tough decision and

1:18:14

we need leadership. I think I think

1:18:16

the thing that just to to close out

1:18:19

that that point here is there

1:18:22

is promise in the system, but

1:18:24

the system is extremely dysfunctional

1:18:27

and corrupt. Right now. And so

1:18:29

whether it's what I'm doing now and being able

1:18:31

to speak the truth and try to bring some common

1:18:34

sense and reality, insanity, to

1:18:36

the insanity that we are going through

1:18:39

in this country that is threatening

1:18:41

our constitutional rights. That is threatening

1:18:43

our our own democracy. I

1:18:45

will continue to seek ways to

1:18:48

be

1:18:49

to help lead that change

1:18:51

to get us back to the kind of country

1:18:54

that our founders envisioned for us. Well,

1:18:57

that's a very good closing. And so we

1:19:00

will turn now to

1:19:02

to the to the daily wear plus part of

1:19:04

this. So Alright. Station, thank you very much for

1:19:06

talking to me

1:19:07

today. Thank you. I look forward to I

1:19:09

look

1:19:09

forward to part two. Yeah. Yeah. That'd

1:19:11

be good. And so and so for all of you

1:19:13

watching and listening, thank you very much for your

1:19:15

time and attention. It's much appreciated and

1:19:17

to the DailyWire Plus people who are seeing

1:19:19

this, the film crew that's here in Detroit,

1:19:22

because that's where I am today. Thank you for your

1:19:24

help. And onward

1:19:26

and upward to the next part of the conversation. Very

1:19:29

good to meet you.

1:19:31

Hello, everyone. I would encourage you to

1:19:33

continue listening to my conversation with

1:19:36

my guests on daily wear

1:19:38

plus dot com.