Pete Buttigieg

[Brian63]

Ok.



Meanwhile, on the humorous front, Jimmy Fallon already has a pretty good parody impression going of Pete.

 

[Copernicus]

I speak just as many languages with some degree of fluency, and I've studied quite a few more than he has formally.

Slight derail here, but am curious---in general, is learning the first (extra) language the hardest one to learn, and they each become successively easier afterwards? Or do they become more difficult with each added one because there is an added set of rules you have to remember for each one and not confuse them? Or something else?

It's too complicated to answer that question here, and I don't want to go off-topic with this. The interesting thing about Buttigieg is that his father immigrated from Malta, so he must have learned Maltese for that reason. Because Maltese is a Semitic language, that would have given him an interest in studying Arabic and becoming more familiar with Islam than most Americans. He probably learned Dari because of his deployment to Afghanistan, although Dari is not Semitic. So its vocabulary would have been harder for him to master. French, Spanish, and Italian are Romance languages that would all be popular in Malta, which is situated near those countries in the Mediterranean. I'm speculating about his language background, because I have no sources to back it up.

However, none of that makes me or Pete Buttigieg qualified or competent to become a US president. What Buttigieg lacks is experience in staffing and running one of the most complex federal bureaucracies in the world. As mayor, he has made a good start on an extremely promising career and could some day make a great president. He really has charisma and potential. But he should take the time to earn the qualification. Let's not turn the US presidency into nothing more than a popularity contest.

Contrast that line of thought though with what Koy has been telling us again and again---"this is a job interview, not Church. And the job is: defeat Republicans at all costs as they are evil personified."

So even despite the drawbacks that Pete would have in running the WH if he was eventually elected, those are still secondary to what our top priority should be---beating Trump and the GOP. So we do need, in the short term at least, to give most priority to popularity. Who will run the current corrupt GOP politicians out. You and Koy seemed to agree earlier in this thread, but take a different stance on whether popularity or competence should be given higher priority.

Brian, I think that you are wildly overestimating Buttigieg's popularity, and Pyramid just made an interesting point about that. Beto was the bright shiny object for a time before Buttigieg replaced him. These young candidates are faddishly popular among Democrats. They are too new to have any of their weaknesses surface to curb the enthusiasm. A lot of voters now who claim that they aren't bothered by his being gay haven't even begun to think about how traditionalists in America will react to all the news stories that will come out about Buttigieg's husband. How is that going to sit with people who still oppose gay marriage? Many will balk at the fact that Buttigieg wants to parent children with his husband. Don't make the mistake of assuming that there will be no significant impact on Democratic voter turnout, especially in the South.

How long is the halo going to last? It could begin to fade rapidly after Buttigieg won the nomination and came under fire from the Republican propaganda juggernaut. We saw a rapid meltdown happen with McGovern, but we also saw them with other sinking Democrats--Kerry (swift-boating), Dukakis (Willy Horton), Clinton (emails), etc. Buttigieg is too easy a target.

 

[steve_bank]

He would be more experienced than Obama by a long shot in govt, intelligence, and administration.

Harvard. Oxford, Naval intelligence deployed to Afghanistan, mayor. Dealt directly with race in law enforcement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Buttigieg

 

[blastula]

Pete is a morally bankrupt empty suit

How so?

 

[Ford]

Pete is a morally bankrupt empty suit

How so?

I'm at a loss. Mayor Pete is an intelligent, educated, articulate man who has dedicated a significant portion of his life to public service, is active in his community, seems to have a genuine faith unlike so many politicians, and is a family man.

Gosh, what ever would cause someone to call him morally bankrupt? 'Tis a mystery...

 

[steve_bank]

Pete is a morally bankrupt empty suit, but I love the way he stole 100% of Beto's thunder as the rising Obama-esque golden boy.

Sounds lingering homophobia. One does not need to be religious to be homophobic.

Obama got elected on oratory and the novelty of the idea of a black president.

If you want to see where Obama's style came from watch video of his mentor Reverend Wright.

 

[blastula]

Pete is a morally bankrupt empty suit, but I love the way he stole 100% of Beto's thunder as the rising Obama-esque golden boy.

Sounds lingering homophobia. One does not need to be religious to be homophobic.

Obama got elected on oratory and the novelty of the idea of a black president.

If you want to see where Obama's style came from watch video of his mentor Reverend Wright.

Sounds like lingering racism.

 

[lpetrich]

Why do right wing Christians find Pete Buttigieg so threatening? Here's the answer | Salon.com - "The attacks on the South Bend mayor from severe fundamentalists will surely continue in the months ahead"

Pete Buttigieg is a practicing Episcopalian, and some right-wing fundies have been attacking his sect as not representing True Xianity. Like Erick Erickson:

If Buttigieg thinks evangelicals should be supporting him instead of Trump, he fundamentally does not understand the roots of Christianity,” Erickson tweeted. “But then, he is an Episcopalian; so, he might not actually understand Christianity more than superficially.”

Erickson also denounced Episcopalians as pseudo-Christians in an April 4 piece for the Resurgent, writing, “Buttigieg married another man. But he is not really Christian so much as he is Episcopalian.” And Erickson even claimed that Buttigieg “thinks bestiality is OK.”

Fox News’ Laura Ingraham questioned Buttigieg’s religiosity as well, scoffing, “He says he’s a traditional Episcopalian, whatever that means these days.” And Robert Jeffress, a Christian fundamentalist advisor to Trump, complained that Buttigieg “wants to shove evangelical Christians into the closet.”

PB is from Malta, and Malta is traditionally Catholic. So he may have become an Episcopalian because the Catholic Church would not accept his sexual preference. The Episcopal Church is sort of Catholicism lite, and it is part of the Anglican Communion of churches, including the Church of England.

Journalist Chris Hedges, one of the people who has championed a left-wing version of Christianity, wrote an entire book on the Christian Right: 2007’s disturbing “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” And as Hedges sees it, the Christian Right is a dangerous hate movement that has white nationalist tendencies, promotes a “Christianized fascism” in the United States and shows “a strain of deep cruelty, savagery even.”

When Buttigieg promotes a non-Republican platform — from gay rights to universal health care — while identifying with Protestant Christianity, the Christian Right finds it deeply threatening. And the attacks on the South Bend mayor from severe fundamentalists will surely continue in the months ahead.

The Religious Left seems very unwilling to challenge the Religious Right as the face of American religion in politics, and I remember an article some years back about Religious-Left activists mourning their lost political clout.

 

[steve_bank]

There was a split in the Episcopalian /Anglican church in the USA. It was over gays and allowing gay ministers. Gay marriage and gay ministers vary with churches.

Anti gay factions allied with groups elsewhere in the world.

To understand you gave to realize that Christins don't just have a faith and set of beliefs, they are living a reality. Gods, demons, devils, evil spirits. The idea of going against homosexuality in the bible for them is like shattering their faith. Traumatic. They build their lives around scripture.

Of course the hypocrisy of picking and choosing what to follow in scripture is obvious, but not to them.

To many Christians homosexuality is a literal existential threat.

 

[PyramidHead]

Pete is a morally bankrupt empty suit

How so?

I'm at a loss. Mayor Pete is an intelligent, educated, articulate man who has dedicated a significant portion of his life to public service, is active in his community, seems to have a genuine faith unlike so many politicians, and is a family man.

Gosh, what ever would cause someone to call him morally bankrupt? 'Tis a mystery...

Are you being serious? I ask because you're normally someone with a good bead on phony people, so I'm assuming sarcasm here. Am I wrong?

 

[PyramidHead]

Pete is a morally bankrupt empty suit

How so?

I recommend this Current Affairs article on him and his book for a start. A bit long but comprehensive and worth the read. The short answer is he is essentially no different from the dogshit DNC-approved candidates running to the right of Warren and Sanders; all are morally bankrupt. In addition to what's in the article about his basic blindness to issues of class and race, he's an apologist for American imperialism. He's on record saying that the clemency given to Chelsea Manning, and not the war crimes she bravely and heroically exposed, is "troubling" to him. He unquestioningly supports Israel.

He's Hillary 2020. He checks all the boxes that dull, mediocre people think are important while not offering anything substantive that isn't also awful.

 

[Elixir]

Pete is a morally bankrupt empty suit

How so?

I recommend this Current Affairs article on him and his book for a start. A bit long but comprehensive and worth the read. The short answer is he is essentially no different from the dogshit DNC-approved candidates running to the right of Warren and Sanders; all are morally bankrupt. In addition to what's in the article about his basic blindness to issues of class and race, he's an apologist for American imperialism. He's on record saying that the clemency given to Chelsea Manning, and not the war crimes she bravely and heroically exposed, is "troubling" to him. He unquestioningly supports Israel.

He's Hillary 2020. He checks all the boxes that dull, mediocre people think are important while not offering anything substantive that isn't also awful.

Apparently "Current Affairs" feels that he's a threat to Liz Warren. I don't think that makes him morally bankrupt.

 

[PyramidHead]

I recommend this Current Affairs article on him and his book for a start. A bit long but comprehensive and worth the read. The short answer is he is essentially no different from the dogshit DNC-approved candidates running to the right of Warren and Sanders; all are morally bankrupt. In addition to what's in the article about his basic blindness to issues of class and race, he's an apologist for American imperialism. He's on record saying that the clemency given to Chelsea Manning, and not the war crimes she bravely and heroically exposed, is "troubling" to him. He unquestioningly supports Israel.

He's Hillary 2020. He checks all the boxes that dull, mediocre people think are important while not offering anything substantive that isn't also awful.

Apparently "Current Affairs" feels that he's a threat to Liz Warren. I don't think that makes him morally bankrupt.

No, but everything in the article other than the one time Warren is used as a basis for comparison does

 

[Brian63]

A good summary of why Pete would be the safest person to put up against Trump, as he stands in stark contrast to him rather than resembles him (the other Dems are certainly different than Trump in terms of corruption, competence, etc., but Pete is also even better in terms of his history of charity and volunteering):





In the last 24 hours with all the Mueller mess, and if in the next year or so things were to change so that Trump was impeached and a different GOP member ran on the top of their ticket (there is already a primary challenger to Trump, a former Massachusetts governor, as I recall), then that could change matters and Pete would not be the best choice to put up against someone else. Against Trump though, right here, right now, Pete would be the safest choice.

 

[PyramidHead]

How about nominating a candidate whose POLICY POSITIONS AND VALUES, not optics, are most opposed to Trump AND opposed to what brought us Trump, rather than a former corporate consultant for one of the most scandal-ridden firms in the country?

 

[Brian63]

Was Pete himself personally part of that corruption scandal? Did he contribute and cause it in any way? Otherwise I do not see how that would be an impingement against himself morally.

 

[PyramidHead]

Was Pete himself personally part of that corruption scandal? Did he contribute and cause it in any way? Otherwise I do not see how that would be an impingement against himself morally.

It is when he doesn't mention a word of it in his book and has nothing but good things to say about his old job. That's the blindness I'm worried about. He's obviously nowhere near as bad as Trump, but I question the narrative that the best pick for President is the person who looks, talks, and reads on paper as a photo negative of the incumbent we don't like. Being not-Trump, in the most meritocratic and superficial ways, is far from the most important quality in a Presidential candidate, in my opinion.

 

[Brian63]

Well I have not read his book (but am interested) and so do not know what he says about his experiences there, and especially do not know what influence that scandal psychologically had on him in any way (if much at all...maybe it was rather irrelevant to his life story). Either way, I do not think it counts much against his moral character and counteract all the noble and generous activities he has engaged in. Unless something new came to light, the McKinsey matter would also not be in the top 200 ranked issues on voters' minds. So it sounds like a rather trivial topic altogether.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How about nominating a candidate whose POLICY POSITIONS AND VALUES, not optics, are most opposed to Trump AND opposed to what brought us Trump, rather than a former corporate consultant for one of the most scandal-ridden firms in the country?

One problem with that suggestion is that Trump's only position is "Trump", so voting on someone who is the most "anti-Trump" would be doing what you suggest. The better idea is to vote for someone with positions and values that are opposed to the GOP's values of...

...do they even have any these days? I mean other than far right-wing judges on benches and legislate consenting adult intercourse?

 

[steve_bank]

I had a conversation with a state cop about gawkers tying up highway traffic at an accident, even when the lanes are cleared.

He said 'You don't understand, individual people are smart collectively they are like sheep'.