SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (R-HI) speaks to the crowd during the 2019 South Carolina Democratic Party State Convention on June 22, 2019 in Columbia, South Carolina. (Photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
Trump Is Third Impeached President, But Tulsi Gabbard Now First Lawmaker in US History to Vote 'Present' on Key Question
"I really think it was not a smart choice for her politically," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a fellow Democrat. "I thought that was very disappointing and, frankly, a cop out."
Dec 18, 2019
As the progressive activist and commentator Jim Hightower of Texas has famously said, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
"To not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave consequence to this country is quite difficult. We're here to lead." --Rep. Alexandria Ocasio (D-NY)And, one might add to that, Democratic Congresswomen Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
On Wednesday night, Gabbard became the first member of Congress in U.S. history to vote "present" on the question of impeaching a sitting president.
"I am standing in the center and have decided to vote present," Gabbard said in a statement.
"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," Gabbard explained. "I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."
For many Democrats, however, it was an untenable and unwise position for Gabbard--also running to become the party's presidential nominee--to take.
"I really think it was not a smart choice for her politically," said fellow House Democrat, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, during an interview on Democracy Now. "I thought that was very disappointing and, frankly, a cop out."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as The Daily Beast reports, told reporters after the vote that "to not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave consequence to this country is quite difficult. We're here to lead."
Instead of impeaching Trump, Gabbard has called for the president to be censured, an official rebuke by the House but devoid of tangible consequences. Her decision to vote "present" on the impeachment articles before the U.S. House, however, was historic.
When President Bill Clinton was formally impeached by the U.S. House in 1998, there were four articles brought against him. While two of the articles were approved and two failed, largely along party lines, no member of Congress voted simply "present" on any of the counts. When President Andrew Johnson faced impeachment in 1867, the final House vote was 128 in favor to 47 who opposed. While the U.S. House was much smaller at the time, there were no votes for "present" recorded as the House sent the articles of impeachment to U.S. Senate for trial.
Journalist Matt Fuller, political correspondent for HuffPost, commented that Gabbard's vote was indicative of a politician who has proven "a knack for pissing BOTH SIDES off."
Many Democratic voters and pundits were furious with Gabbard's position as the congresswoman's name, and the derisive hashtag #GabbardIsACoward, were both trending on social media Thursday morning.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
As the progressive activist and commentator Jim Hightower of Texas has famously said, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
"To not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave consequence to this country is quite difficult. We're here to lead." --Rep. Alexandria Ocasio (D-NY)And, one might add to that, Democratic Congresswomen Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
On Wednesday night, Gabbard became the first member of Congress in U.S. history to vote "present" on the question of impeaching a sitting president.
"I am standing in the center and have decided to vote present," Gabbard said in a statement.
"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," Gabbard explained. "I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."
For many Democrats, however, it was an untenable and unwise position for Gabbard--also running to become the party's presidential nominee--to take.
"I really think it was not a smart choice for her politically," said fellow House Democrat, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, during an interview on Democracy Now. "I thought that was very disappointing and, frankly, a cop out."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as The Daily Beast reports, told reporters after the vote that "to not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave consequence to this country is quite difficult. We're here to lead."
Instead of impeaching Trump, Gabbard has called for the president to be censured, an official rebuke by the House but devoid of tangible consequences. Her decision to vote "present" on the impeachment articles before the U.S. House, however, was historic.
When President Bill Clinton was formally impeached by the U.S. House in 1998, there were four articles brought against him. While two of the articles were approved and two failed, largely along party lines, no member of Congress voted simply "present" on any of the counts. When President Andrew Johnson faced impeachment in 1867, the final House vote was 128 in favor to 47 who opposed. While the U.S. House was much smaller at the time, there were no votes for "present" recorded as the House sent the articles of impeachment to U.S. Senate for trial.
Journalist Matt Fuller, political correspondent for HuffPost, commented that Gabbard's vote was indicative of a politician who has proven "a knack for pissing BOTH SIDES off."
Many Democratic voters and pundits were furious with Gabbard's position as the congresswoman's name, and the derisive hashtag #GabbardIsACoward, were both trending on social media Thursday morning.
As the progressive activist and commentator Jim Hightower of Texas has famously said, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
"To not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave consequence to this country is quite difficult. We're here to lead." --Rep. Alexandria Ocasio (D-NY)And, one might add to that, Democratic Congresswomen Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
On Wednesday night, Gabbard became the first member of Congress in U.S. history to vote "present" on the question of impeaching a sitting president.
"I am standing in the center and have decided to vote present," Gabbard said in a statement.
"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," Gabbard explained. "I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."
For many Democrats, however, it was an untenable and unwise position for Gabbard--also running to become the party's presidential nominee--to take.
"I really think it was not a smart choice for her politically," said fellow House Democrat, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, during an interview on Democracy Now. "I thought that was very disappointing and, frankly, a cop out."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as The Daily Beast reports, told reporters after the vote that "to not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave consequence to this country is quite difficult. We're here to lead."
Instead of impeaching Trump, Gabbard has called for the president to be censured, an official rebuke by the House but devoid of tangible consequences. Her decision to vote "present" on the impeachment articles before the U.S. House, however, was historic.
When President Bill Clinton was formally impeached by the U.S. House in 1998, there were four articles brought against him. While two of the articles were approved and two failed, largely along party lines, no member of Congress voted simply "present" on any of the counts. When President Andrew Johnson faced impeachment in 1867, the final House vote was 128 in favor to 47 who opposed. While the U.S. House was much smaller at the time, there were no votes for "present" recorded as the House sent the articles of impeachment to U.S. Senate for trial.
Journalist Matt Fuller, political correspondent for HuffPost, commented that Gabbard's vote was indicative of a politician who has proven "a knack for pissing BOTH SIDES off."
Many Democratic voters and pundits were furious with Gabbard's position as the congresswoman's name, and the derisive hashtag #GabbardIsACoward, were both trending on social media Thursday morning.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.