Queer activists disrupt Pete Buttigieg event in San Francisco: 'We deserve better'

[TV and credit cards]

I don't know. Pete is holding his own better than I would have imagined six months ago. He is leading by delegates right now. And both he and Cool Grandpa Bernie are leaving Uncle Joe and Cherokee Princess Lizzie in the dust.

Just being able to ramp up a national campaign for president and hang with these "experienced" individuals is telling. Many experienced politicians try and fail. Early on, we expect them to be rising stars only to see them falter in their messaging or simply fail to make it into orbit. Why? Either they did not put the right people in the right jobs or they as a candidate did not listen to their team. Pete is succeeding on his first go. Leadership at this level is not so much about personal experience as it is about getting the right people in the right jobs. I would offer our current Oval Office Assclown for the sake of comparison.

Among the hoops that candidates for plum consulting jobs at McKinsey & Company had to jump through in late 2006 was a bit of play acting: They were given a scenario involving a hypothetical client, “a business under siege,” and told they would be meeting with its chief executive the next day. How would they structure the conversation?

One contender stood out that year: a 24-year-old Rhodes scholar named Pete Buttigieg.

“He was the only one who put all the pieces together,” recalled Jeff Helbling, a McKinsey partner at the time who was involved in recruiting. Mr. Buttigieg soon won the other candidates over to his approach.

“He was very good at taking this ambiguous thing that he literally had no background on and making sense of it,” Mr. Helbling said. “That is rare for anyone at any level.”

How many people have such capability? Well if one of them wants to be president, I think we should listen closely to what they have to say.

http://https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey.html

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is Buttigieg even in the race? There's still too much anti-gay sentiment in this country, a gay isn't going to win a close election.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why is Buttigieg even in the race? There's still too much anti-gay sentiment in this country, a gay isn't going to win a close election.

A black guy did. Why not a gay guy?

 

[Toni]

Why is Buttigieg even in the race? There's still too much anti-gay sentiment in this country, a gay isn't going to win a close election.

A black guy did. Why not a gay guy?

For one thing, Obama was a much better speaker.

Sounds trivial but it isn’t. I remember the first time I heard Ovama speak, I had no idea who he was but I liked him. He sounded intelligent, thoughtful, impassioned yet controlled and like he had something interesting to say. I wanted to hear more from him.

Buttigieg ‘s voice sets my teeth on edge.

That’s absolutely trivial and beside the point but the truth is that I don’t find him inspiring to listen to. I don’t want to hear more from him. Read more? Sure. He’s a candidate and of course I want to learn more about his POV and his ideas. But I don’t find him interesting or inspiring at all. To tell the truth, the fact that he’s gay is the only thing that makes him even a tiny bit interesting and I’m over whatever flicker of interest that brought. I honestly don’t care about his orientation except to be concerned that it will hurt his chances of beating Trump. I’m much more concerned with his lack of experience. My first impulse was to throw him back and let him grow some. But honestly I’m not sure he has much potential to be a bigger fish.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Toni, who DO you support? I have now seen you speak against both Bernie and Buttigieg. Who is your pick? And is it for more and better reason than she has a vagina? Warren? Klobuchar? If Warren I can stand along with you. If Klobuchar not so much.

And if your lack of support for Buttigieg has nothing to do with him being gay, then why did you quote my post above?

 

[Toni]

Toni, who DO you support? I have now seen you speak against both Bernie and Buttigieg. Who is your pick? And is it for more and better reason than she has a vagina? Warren? Klobuchar? If Warren I can stand along with you. If Klobuchar not so much.

And if your lack of support for Buttigieg has nothing to do with him being gay, then why did you quote my post above?

I have stated who I like many times. A few that I liked are no longer in the race. Of those remaining:

I've long been a fan of Warren and I'd love to see her as POTUS. I am concerned about her age, although she's younger than Sanders, Biden or Bloomberg and certainly seems to be in much more vigorous good health. Only a fool would not be seriously concerned about Sanders' health if he was just their neighbor, much less if he were serving in such an extremely difficult and stressful role as POTUS. There's a lot at stake and we do not need someone in ill health as POTUS. I'm nervous about her declaration that on day one she will (insert anything) just as I'm nervous about any other candidate making such statements about any issue. It isn't that I don't think that student debt is obscenely high and simply obscene--I do. I thought Obama's use of executive privilege was excessive and dangerous because of the precedent it set. Seeing Trump take up the tactic has proven me correct. But POTUS is not a monarch and they should not be abusing executive privilege in this manner--no matter how much I agree or disagree with whatever is enacted by such measure. That is not how our country is supposed to work.

I also do like Klobuchar who, yes, is a woman. She's not the most progressive candidate but she's very hard working, very pragmatic, and has a well established history of being able to work well with others--the last of which is something that Sanders badly lacks. I am less concerned about the fact that she's less progressive than Warren because I doubt that any POTUS would be able to move the country significantly left of where it was 12 years ago. I think she would be a good POTUS and an excellent VP.


As for why my reasons for not liking Buttigieg having nothing to do with him being gay? My reasons for liking Obama had nothing to do with him being black, although I did come to admire him and his family for having the courage to subject themselves to some extremely hateful attention, often at the hands of some so-called mainstream media simply because of the color of their skin--which continues today. Yes, I admire that Buttigieg is willing to subject himself and his family to hateful remarks because of their sexuality. But I think he lacks experience and I am concerned about his lack of support among his black constituents and a number of his policies that I don't think were very well thought out. It's an extremely big step from mayor of a small city to the highest seat in the nation. He needs some time to develop. Maybe he'll be something worth spporting. Maybe he won't. But he's not the person we need now, IMO.

Frankly, from my observation, there is a lot more anti-female bias among the general voting public than there is anti-gay bias. It could be that Buttigieg hasn't yet been seen as much of a threat. I don't know.

 

[ronburgundy]

Why is Buttigieg even in the race? There's still too much anti-gay sentiment in this country, a gay isn't going to win a close election.

A black guy did. Why not a gay guy?

Because as widespread as racism is in the US, gays are still less trusted. And while the vast majority of people who would refuse to vote for a black person are Republicans that won't vote for any Dem, many of the people that won't vote for a gay man are ethnic minorities who the Dem's rely upon to win any presidential race. The greater religiosity of blacks and hispanics leads to anti-gay sentiments similar to Christian conservatives, despite generally voting Dem.

Also, Obama won under the circumstances where the country was diving into a massive recession under a Republican administration.
Many Union/"Blue collar" Dems and moderates who otherwise would have refused to vote for a black man were suffering enough economically to overcome their racist leanings.
Thanks in large part to Obama, many of those people are now doing better, even if some are stupid enough to ignore the clear data and give Trump the credit. Without the feeling of economic panic and feeling the need for major change, people have the luxury of allowing the bigotries to be more influential on their vote, even if that just means they stay home.

I say all that, despite personally preferring a Pete presidency over some of the other candidates, including Bernie who has some recklessly destructive and poorly thought out, unspecified plans, including "free college". In the end, I want whoever can win, not just to beat Trump but the GOP in general, which as a party has become grossly immnoral and far more dangerous to every core value of progressive secular society than any of the Dem candidates.

 

[Politesse]

I recently had an interesting reminder of the degree to which gay men, even privileged white gay men, are still distrusted by the public at large. I was on a long drive with my mother, and the conversation turned to the past as things often go. When I was a teenager, I used to volunteer as a reading tutor at an elementary afterschool program that my mother was the director of at the time. My mother brought this up and commented, "Of course, I didn't know then that you were gay; even if I had been okay with it, the parents wouldn't have. It's a good thing you teach at the college level now." <pregnant pause> "What? It's nothing personal, there are just some things children shouldn't have to learn about until later. And you can't deny that a person who defines their life by their sexuality is going to be not the best minder of children. I wouldn't have wanted you to have a homosexual teacher either when you were little."

This from a lifelong liberal who has voted straight Democratic tickets since Nixon and believes herself to open-minded and tolerant of all lifeways! It makes me wonder how commonplace such attitudes still are. I can see where, if even so-called moderate liberals equate homosexuality with paedophilia in a one-to-one relationship, electing a gay man president is going to be something of a long shot.

 

[Toni]

I recently had an interesting reminder of the degree to which gay men, even privileged white gay men, are still distrusted by the public at large. I was on a long drive with my mother, and the conversation turned to the past as things often go. When I was a teenager, I used to volunteer as a reading tutor at an elementary afterschool program that my mother was the director of at the time. My mother brought this up and commented, "Of course, I didn't know then that you were gay; even if I had been okay with it, the parents wouldn't have. It's a good thing you teach at the college level now." <pregnant pause> "What? It's nothing personal, there are just some things children shouldn't have to learn about until later. And you can't deny that a person who defines their life by their sexuality is going to be not the best minder of children. I wouldn't have wanted you to have a homosexual teacher either when you were little."

This from a lifelong liberal who has voted Democrat since Nixon and believes herself to open-minded and tolerant of all lifeways! It makes me wonder how commonplace such attitudes still are. I can see where, if even so-called moderate liberals equate homosexuality with paedophilia in a one-to-one relationship, electing a gay man president is going to be something of a long shot.

Not a recent anecdote but the man who served as principal at my kids' elementary school was quietly assumed to be gay. If he was gay--and I believe that he is--he was closeted within our community. Most people I knew had no problem with his perceived sexuality and either liked him or did not like him according to his merits or their perceptions of his merits. But it was widely acknowledged that an openly gay man in elementary education was not going to be acceptable---to other people. Virtually no one was willing to admit any concerns themselves. It was always 'other people.' Interestingly enough, because this is a small city, one of my friends at the time grew up with the man who was principal and SHE vigorously objected to him being principal because he was a gay man. Which is interesting to me because her kids grew up with my kids and both families are extremely accepting of people as they are, whether gay/straight/bi/trans and she herself was very supportive of a young student who was trans, and of some of the kids who came out as bi or gay in middle or high school. Of course, there is zero reason to be concerned about a gay (or bi or trans) person being around kids or working with kids closely. This is not at all the same thing as having an attraction to kids or young teenagers. Which she would have acknowledged. But it still bothered her. She is the only person I know who admitted to being bothered. Mostly, I liked him and felt bad that he had to hide part of who he is in order to do the work that he clearly loved and was good at.

Perhaps it's just because I recently spent some time with some family members (by marriage) that I am most keenly aware of just how much hostility there still exists towards any woman with any sort of authority beyond teaching and being a nurse, administrative assistant, etc. So much fun.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I recently had an interesting reminder of the degree to which gay men, even privileged white gay men, are still distrusted by the public at large.

They recently commissioned a Navy ship, the USNS Harvey Milk. Underway replenishment.

Milk is dead, but the comment section on the Military Times story is full of men talking about how sailors assigned to the ship are going to turn gay. Because of what's painted on the stern. It was unreal. No one ever suggested that by serving on the George Washington Carver turned me black, or being on the Hunley made me want to secede from the Union.

People are just futzing UGLY about their prejudice against even the idea of a gay man.

 

[Politesse]

Perhaps it's just because I recently spent some time with some family members (by marriage) that I am most keenly aware of just how much hostility there still exists towards any woman with any sort of authority beyond teaching and being a nurse, administrative assistant, etc. So much fun.

Absolutely true in higher education, I despair of the way female administrators are treated and related to when compared to their male counterparts, especially those who are also Latina. It's an embarrassment to our society that we still haven't learned to take people's qualifications seriously outside of spurious expectations connected to accidents of birth. Even teachers themselves. I have often observed students trying to call their professors, even those with doctorates, "Miss so-and-so" a double insult that appears to deny someone their proper title and seemingly assume non-marriageability at the same time. Trump doesn't need to take us back to the 1950s again, clearly plenty of us are still trapped there.

 

[ronburgundy]

I recently had an interesting reminder of the degree to which gay men, even privileged white gay men, are still distrusted by the public at large. I was on a long drive with my mother, and the conversation turned to the past as things often go. When I was a teenager, I used to volunteer as a reading tutor at an elementary afterschool program that my mother was the director of at the time. My mother brought this up and commented, "Of course, I didn't know then that you were gay; even if I had been okay with it, the parents wouldn't have. It's a good thing you teach at the college level now." <pregnant pause> "What? It's nothing personal, there are just some things children shouldn't have to learn about until later. And you can't deny that a person who defines their life by their sexuality is going to be not the best minder of children. I wouldn't have wanted you to have a homosexual teacher either when you were little."

This from a lifelong liberal who has voted straight Democratic tickets since Nixon and believes herself to open-minded and tolerant of all lifeways! It makes me wonder how commonplace such attitudes still are. I can see where, if even so-called moderate liberals equate homosexuality with paedophilia in a one-to-one relationship, electing a gay man president is going to be something of a long shot.

Yeah that highlights another aspect where it may be even harder for a white gay man than a straight black man to be elected. Even among people that are not only liberal but even very left wing and generally accepting of gay rights, there are bigotries and assumptions about gays that impede their acceptance in roles of authority. As in your story, homosexuality is viewed has having relevance to "ethical" issues even by those who don't view it as a "sin". I think it's b/c it's related to sexuality and thus hang ups about sexuality bleed into feelings about homosexuals as role models, being around kids, etc. It's annoying that well meaning people like your mom view homosexuals as "defining their life by the sexuality", when in fact they are just projecting and they are defining homosexuals by the sexuality. That's a difference from race, where unless one actually holds a racial supremacist viewpoint, there is no relevance to ethical concerns.

Another type of destructive assumption that well-meaning liberals/leftist sometimes make about homosexuals is that the harm they've suffered from bigotry is lesser because homosexuality is not visible, so they can "hide it" and avoid discrimination. I heard this from a very left-of-Bernie, left-of-BLM friend of mine in response to Buttigieg's comment that he empathizes with the black community and knows from experience how hurtful bigotry can be. This friend actually expressed anger at Pete and claimed Pete is a "privileged white male" who has no idea what being a target of discrimination is like, b/c his homosexuality is not directly observable. I told him that being able to hide your homosexuality is itself harmful, b/c to avoid bigotry, people do that, as Pete did most his life, and its causes immense psychological and social harm to a person to have to hide in fear and shame from everyone around them, including friends and family.
My friend was basically engaging in turf-warfare about victimization as though their is finite sympathy in the world and none should be wasted on homosexuals, if they aren't also black or female. Even if a person views homosexual attraction as biologically innate and not a choice, there is a bias among many where actually living openly as gay is "a choice" and therefore bigotry against it isn't on par with bigotry for skin color.

 

[Toni]

Try reading objections to ANY female candidate.

And yet almost everybody loves their mother.

 

[ronburgundy]

Try reading objections to ANY female candidate.

And yet almost everybody loves their mother.

True. It's like reading the twitter feed of any female public figure. There are many suggestions of rape from both men who like and who dislike the woman. However, I suspect that the vast majority of people that won't vote for a woman president are already not going to vote for any Dem. I think among Dems and leftists who generally support Dems, there are more that won't for a gay white male than for a straight white woman. Part of that is there are fewer gay men of any race than there are women.

Thought experiment: Imagine a person with a modestly likable and liberal personality, history, policies, etc.. Imagine that person is either a white gay man, a white straight woman, or a black straight man. Which one is least likely to get the Dem nomination? Which one is least likely to beat the GOP in the primary?

I think it's the white gay man. Which doesn't mean I think they have it harder in life in general, just that it's a bigger direct obstacle to gaining the support required among Dems, leftists, and moderates to win either the Dem nomination or the general.

In fact, there is evidence to support this from studies showing that the traits most likely to automatically exclude you from presidential considerations by most voters are atheist, gay, then Muslim.

 

[Jarhyn]

Try reading objections to ANY female candidate.

And yet almost everybody loves their mother.

True. It's like reading the twitter feed of any female public figure. There are many suggestions of rape from both men who like and who dislike the woman. However, I suspect that the vast majority of people that won't vote for a woman president are already not going to vote for any Dem. I think among Dems and leftists who generally support Dems, there are more that won't for a gay white male than for a straight white woman. Part of that is there are fewer gay men of any race than there are women.

Thought experiment: Imagine a person with a modestly likable and liberal personality, history, policies, etc.. Imagine that person is either a white gay man, a white straight woman, or a black straight man. Which one is least likely to get the Dem nomination? Which one is least likely to beat the GOP in the primary?

I think it's the white gay man. Which doesn't mean I think they have it harder in life in general, just that it's a bigger direct obstacle to gaining the support required among Dems, leftists, and moderates to win either the Dem nomination or the general.

In fact, there is evidence to support this from studies showing that the traits most likely to automatically exclude you from presidential considerations by most voters are atheist, gay, then Muslim.

There's a certain dirtiness, distrust, and stigma for someone who "defines themselves on the basis of who they have sex with". Of course that's not what gay people are or do. It's other people who define us that way. In reality, I don't define myself in those terms beyond the way I have been forced to so as to fight for my rights to be treated like anyone else.

Really, the challenges to get elected come in that there are some cultures in the US who would otherwise support someone who look with suspicion on gay people. They are not merely religious communities but also black communities have a very low general opinion of gay people and young people don't tend to take gay people very seriously. It's an endemic and pernicious ideological infection in both cases, but both make it a challenge since both groups are generally necessary to win any large election in an urban setting. And don't get me started on what "Christians", even more liberal ones, get exposed to on a daily basis. Those messages WILL be internalized, even if consciously rejected.

 

[Toni]

Try reading objections to ANY female candidate.

And yet almost everybody loves their mother.

True. It's like reading the twitter feed of any female public figure. There are many suggestions of rape from both men who like and who dislike the woman. However, I suspect that the vast majority of people that won't vote for a woman president are already not going to vote for any Dem. I think among Dems and leftists who generally support Dems, there are more that won't for a gay white male than for a straight white woman. Part of that is there are fewer gay men of any race than there are women.

Thought experiment: Imagine a person with a modestly likable and liberal personality, history, policies, etc.. Imagine that person is either a white gay man, a white straight woman, or a black straight man. Which one is least likely to get the Dem nomination? Which one is least likely to beat the GOP in the primary?

I think it's the white gay man. Which doesn't mean I think they have it harder in life in general, just that it's a bigger direct obstacle to gaining the support required among Dems, leftists, and moderates to win either the Dem nomination or the general.

In fact, there is evidence to support this from studies showing that the traits most likely to automatically exclude you from presidential considerations by most voters are atheist, gay, then Muslim.

I think it’s the white woman. Sure, Hillary got the nomination but she ultimately lost. I will be surprised if a woman gets the nomination again in my lifetime, certainly a black woman will not.

Nope. The media cannot do enough to bury Warren,overlook Klobuchar, has already driven Harris out. And can’t promote Mayor Pete enough to prove their liberal credentials. He’s certainly getting a lot of positive attention—real star treatment that Harris and Klobuchar haven’t gotten.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is Buttigieg even in the race? There's still too much anti-gay sentiment in this country, a gay isn't going to win a close election.

A black guy did. Why not a gay guy?

I don't think Obama could win now, the deplorables are too riled up.

 

[Derec]

I think it’s the white woman.

I think not.

Sure, Hillary got the nomination but she ultimately lost.

Hillary was a horrible candidate though. None of the political instincts of her husband. Too much entitlement and thinking that the presidency was owed to her.

I will be surprised if a woman gets the nomination again in my lifetime, certainly a black woman will not.

Depending on how long you expect to live, you will probably end up surprised.
I think there is better than even chance that a woman will be on the top of the ticket for either Democratic or Republican nomination in either 2024 or 2028.

Nope. The media cannot do enough to bury Warren,overlook Klobuchar, has already driven Harris out.

Bull-fucking-shit. To start chronologically, Kamala Harris was not "driven out", least of all by the media. First of all, she did not have to quit before Iowa. Her poll numbers were about 3.6 Roentgen, not great not terrible. She could, and I think should, have kept going. She received a lot of attention early on, from both media and big Hillary-campaign donors. But she made a few strategic blunders. She eschewed her moderate credentials and tried to move to the left (she even raised her hand on M4A) and contest the progressive lane against Warren and Bernie. Voters did not buy it. Then there was her ill-advised attack on Biden re 70s bussing.
So Harris' exit was a combination of the mistakes of her campaign and her decision to throw in the towel too early.

The media is also not "burying" Warren and Klob. Klob received quite a bit of attention with her one great debate performance and then again when she finished third in NH.
Warren received a lot of attention lately when she attacked Bernie, and then again just now when she attacked Bloomberg. Interesting that Warren can only generate attention by attacking her fellow Dems. And both times on alleged sexism - she is definitely playing up the gender angle which is not at all attractive to me.

And can’t promote Mayor Pete enough to prove their liberal credentials. He’s certainly getting a lot of positive attention—real star treatment that Harris and Klobuchar haven’t gotten.

Well, he finished 1st on delegates and close second on popular vote in Iowa and tied on delegates and close second in popular vote in NH. Right now, she is in the overall lead by delegates. That will change tomorrow, but it's still quite an accomplishment.

 

[Toni]

I think not.

Hillary was a horrible candidate though. None of the political instincts of her husband. Too much entitlement and thinking that the presidency was owed to her.

I will be surprised if a woman gets the nomination again in my lifetime, certainly a black woman will not.

Depending on how long you expect to live, you will probably end up surprised.
I think there is better than even chance that a woman will be on the top of the ticket for either Democratic or Republican nomination in either 2024 or 2028.

Nope. The media cannot do enough to bury Warren,overlook Klobuchar, has already driven Harris out.

Bull-fucking-shit. To start chronologically, Kamala Harris was not "driven out", least of all by the media. First of all, she did not have to quit before Iowa. Her poll numbers were about 3.6 Roentgen, not great not terrible. She could, and I think should, have kept going. She received a lot of attention early on, from both media and big Hillary-campaign donors. But she made a few strategic blunders. She eschewed her moderate credentials and tried to move to the left (she even raised her hand on M4A) and contest the progressive lane against Warren and Bernie. Voters did not buy it. Then there was her ill-advised attack on Biden re 70s bussing.
So Harris' exit was a combination of the mistakes of her campaign and her decision to throw in the towel too early.

The media is also not "burying" Warren and Klob. Klob received quite a bit of attention with her one great debate performance and then again when she finished third in NH.
Warren received a lot of attention lately when she attacked Bernie, and then again just now when she attacked Bloomberg. Interesting that Warren can only generate attention by attacking her fellow Dems. And both times on alleged sexism - she is definitely playing up the gender angle which is not at all attractive to me.

And can’t promote Mayor Pete enough to prove their liberal credentials. He’s certainly getting a lot of positive attention—real star treatment that Harris and Klobuchar haven’t gotten.

Well, he finished 1st on delegates and close second on popular vote in Iowa and tied on delegates and close second in popular vote in NH. Right now, she is in the overall lead by delegates. That will change tomorrow, but it's still quite an accomplishment.

The media pushes who the media pushes. And this year, with no slight intended towards Mayor Buttigieg, they are pushing the narrative of small town gay soldier who grew up to become mayor and now wants to be POTUS. They've been doing it for a long while now. It lets everyone keep their libral cred without having to do anything so frightening as embrace a woman in charge of the whole show.