Tulsi Gabbard: Grisham's order could do Dems long-term harm

AP Photo/Paul Sancya

Former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has left the Democratic Party, but she still served in the House and has garnered an even bigger following after her failed presidential campaign.


So while I might have a perspective on a given topic, Gabbard’s might be far different. Plus, to be fair, she’s been knee-deep in the trenches of legislative politics whereas I haven’t been.

Here lately, she’s been filling in on The Five on Fox. It was there that she shared some thoughts about how New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s directive might play out for Democrats in general.

When questioned by segment leader Jesse Watters about whether Grisham’s actions would lead to more Democrats disassociating from the party, Gabbard promptly asserted that it was already taking place.

“I think we are seeing it happen in real-time here,” the former Democrat said, “When you have the Democrat Attorney General, you have the Sherrif, you even have the ACLU there in New Mexico coming out against what this Governor has done. I think it’s very telling of the direction we are headed in.”

This is completely accurate, of course, and it was telling.

Grisham likely figured she’d get pushback, but not from members of her own party and not from other elected Democrats in her own state. It was brutal and it caused her to back down inside of a week.


But that’s far from the only damage done.

“In the military, in combat, leaders are tested,” Gabbard said, referring to the time when she served in the military, “When you are in a situation under pressure, will you able to think clearly? Will you be able to make decisions and still execute the mission? She’s clearly under pressure and is acting frantically and non-sensically basically saying, ‘Well, somebody’s gotta do something and I’m doing something!'”

Gabbard also emphasized that Grisham was “violating” the constitutional rights of not only American citizens but also those of her state’s residents.

“She even admitted to a local reporter who said ‘Hey, will criminals abide by your temporary ban?’ and she said no!” the former congresswoman pointed out.


Gabbard seems to be noting that Grisham was lashing out at law-abiding citizens–something we argue happens with every gun control law’s passage, really–and knowing that criminals wouldn’t abide by the ban. She also notes that people’s rights were violated.

And that’s where things got interesting to me.


Gabbard does go into it in any detail, nor do any of the others on The Five apparently, but there’s a certain tacit admitting that the Second Amendment is, in fact, an individual right in this by many notorious anti-gunners who opposed Grisham’s order.

Otherwise, if the Second Amendment is, in fact, a collective right really intended for states, then why is there a problem with Grisham’s order?

Don’t think for a moment that those people’s comments aren’t going to come back later on, particularly if we see this “collective right” nonsense.

While Grisham herself didn’t engage in that, her directive did set the stage for some of these anti-gunners to trip over their own feet on this one. Couple that with her essentially leaning in on every stereotype we have about the gun control crowd and yeah, I’d say Gabbard is right. Grisham’s move likely did damage to the Democrats long-term.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member