For those who understand what "genocide" truly is, Israel is not committing genocide. However,Israel hater Mehdi Hasan at least does seem to ask a good question:
Glad to hear Buttigieg describe what happened in Gaza as war crimes, but if that’s what he believes, then why didn’t he resign from the Biden administration in protest? Why would he want to be part of a government that was arming and funding what he believed to be war crimes? https://t.co/fBP3Vs9tCM
Buttigieg didn't resign in part because he is a careerist, which characterizes most prominent politicians. However, there may be at least a couple of other reasons.
According to an analysis by U.S. War Explained, the law governing war crimes "is a complex tapestry woven from international treaties and domestic statutes". The latter include the Geneva Conventions; the Rome Statute (the founding charter of the International Criminal Court); and U.N. Security Council Resolutions. Therefore, to determine whether something is a "war crime," then, we should consider the source and intent (where the allegation is coming from); the principle of distinction (whether the target is civilian or military); the principle of proportionality (a question of balance); evidence of intent (e.g., purpose of the attack); and command responsibility (which individuals along the chain should be held accountable).
Whew! That's a lot for one paragraph. And that's the point. Accurately distinguishing a war crime from bad act by someone we don't like is not a simple matter, despite the wish of activists. Laws and regulations typically are written by lawyers and often are very hard to interpret. That's not a coincidence
In such cases, there is, somewhere, an objective truth. However, in the absence of a declaration from God, what one views as the truth is in the eyes of the beholder. Most likely, Israel has committed war crimes, though the vast majority of its actions probably don't qualify.
One of the factors cited by US War Explained, the matter of proportionality, illustrates another reason Buttigieg didn't find the Biden Administration's policy toward Gaza horrendous. The Biden Administration had been supplying Israel with the relatively precise 500-pound bombs, as well as with 2,000-pound bombs, with a significantly greater blas radius and collateral killing of unintended bystanders. However, in May of 2024
the White House announced a decision to withhold a
shipment of 1,800 2,000-lb bombs and 1,700 500-lb bombs, with then-US president
Joe Biden threatening to freeze additional offensive weaponry if Israel
launched a major military offensive in Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah, where
over one million Palestinians were sheltering at the time.
In July, the 500-lb bombs were eventually released by the
Biden administration after the IDF entered Rafah. The Palestinian civilian
population in the Strip’s southernmost city had largely evacuated by then.
The Biden administration had asserted that only the
2,000-pound bombs were withheld, over concerns that Israel would use them in
densely populated parts of Gaza, and that all other shipments had been
processed.
That was a politically tricky decision to make, for soon after the Trump Administration returned, Donald & Co. hastily shipped 1800 of these heavy bombs to Israel. Suspending shipment in 2024 upehld both the principle of distinction and the principle of proportionality. Pete Buttigieg was part of an Administration which understood that our ally must defend itself, including killing Hamas fighters, while avoiding extraneous deaths.
That's never addressed by critics of Israel, those who blithely accuse the nation of "genocide," a policy they don't understand; of the apartheid they don't understand; and of war crimes, which are extraordinarily difficult to figure out. (August is semi-colon month.) Hatred of the only democracy in the Middle East blinds them to complexities and to truth, neither of which captures their interest.
I CAN define it. And I’ve defined it repeatedly. The definition of woke: Woke is waking up to, becoming aware of, and gaining empathy for real & systemic racism & injustices. There. Have a nice day. https://t.co/TAfFUPOuTz
The genesis and evolution of the term "woke," if one is to read Wikipedia carefully, is complex and confusing. Thus, it can mean a variety of things, one of which is:
Nope, that’s not it because M&Ms regardless of color have nothing to do with oppression; nor does kale salad; or goat milk lattes; or Silicon Valley Bank; or a bunch of other random stuff that MAGA Republicans routinely bring up.
As the Democratic congressman understands, Republicans have abused the term, weaponizing it for strategic advantage. Yet, Joe Biden, though possibly the best president since mid-last century, has made it easy. Joe Biden promised a black woman as his first Supreme Court nominee, and the highly impressive Ketanji Brown Jackson was a very good selection.
Nonetheless, Pete Buttigieg, who was probably nominated so there would be an openly gay individual in the Cabinet, has been a bad Transportation Secretary, at least until recently. Karine Jean-Pierre, black and gay, is out of her element as Press Secretary, the job clearly being too big for her.
Kamala Harris was a staunch advocate of mass incarceration as California Attorney General and- in the midst of a nationwide wave of demonstrations against (in part) mass incarceration- was deemed the perfect individual for the Democratic Party to place a heartbeat from the presidency. (Can you say "privilege"?) At times seemingly unsure of herself, Harris is strikingly unpopular, yet as V.P. the leading candidate to succeed Biden someday as the presidential nominee of her party.
Republicans don't criticize President Biden or his party because of the immutable characteristics (race, gender, sexual preference) of his appointees or nominees. That would expose them to )largely unjustified) condemnation as racist, sexist, or "homophobic" by the mainstream media for questioning the safe and easy narrative.
A portion of the mainstream media which would excoriate Republicans for suggesting that highly important federal government positions should not be made because of race, gender, or sexual preference is paradoxically loathe to challenge Republicans directly when they attribute border policies, immigration policies, or financial action (by government or corporations) to "woke politics" or "woke."
Republican politicians, strategists, and pundits may not understand "woke" in the same way that "Dr. Science, Esq." does. They may not be able to define it. But they believe that every time a Democrat pats himself or herself on the back for a selection based on inherited characteristics, it is in lieu of merit. They don't like it and they vote.
I like Aaron Rupar and Donald Trump Jr. is reprehensible.
But Rupar is simply wrong here.
"He's the gay guy, so we gotta give him something, let's make him Transportation Secretary" -- unvarnished homophobia from Donald Trump Jr on Newsmax pic.twitter.com/L4VuGQANi8
A "phobia" is a fear and there is no indication
that Donald Trump Jr. fears gay people. Presumably, Rupar simply means that
Junior's tweet reflects hostility toward homosexuals. (The term is
"homophobia," not "gayphobia.")
said he had a meeting scheduled with the NAACP on Tuesday.
NAACP President Derrick Johnson told CNN Wednesday that his organization and
other civil rights groups had requested time with Biden and Harris to discuss
the incoming administration and ensuring minority and civil rights
representation in their agenda.
“Their job is to push me,” Biden said, noting every advocacy
group is “pushing for more and more and more of what they want. That’s their
job.”
“My job is to keep my commitment to make the decisions,”
Biden said. “And when it’s all over people will take a look and say, I promise
you, you’ll see the most diverse Cabinet representative of all folks, Asian
Americans, African Americans, Latinos, LGBTQ, across the board.”
As of that date, he had made four nominations to his
cabinet. They were a black woman as UN Ambassador; a Cuban-American to be the
Secretary of Homeland Security; a South Asian as director of the Office of
Management and Budget; and a black woman to be chairperson of the Council of
Economic Advisors. The diversity, as
Biden's statement suggested, was not coincidental.
After the former vice president's pivotal victory in the South Carolina primary, Buttigieg withdrew from the presidential race, after which Amy Klobuchar did the same. Klobuchar then endorsed Biden and within hours Buttigieg had done so, also.
To be sure, when Biden announced the nomination of Buttigieg twelve days after boasting there would be a Cabinet of Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos, LGBTQ, across the board," he did not cite the sexual preference of the former mayor and presidential candidate, Instead, he described him as "a patriot and a problem solver." Buttigieg is indeed a patriot. However, he had never established himself as a problem solver and clearly has not done so as transportation secretary, ineffectually responding to deceptive practices and flight cancellations of airlines and insufficiently regulating railroad safety procedures.
He did, however, offer something Klobuchar, whom it appears
was not offered a cabinet post, could not. The President-elect had Asian
Americans, African Americans, and Latinos covered; also, obviously, women. Yet,
something was missing.
If Buttigieg wasn't selected in part because he is gay, the
nation's news media was thoroughly fooled. On February 2, 2020, The New York Times reported
The Senate on Tuesday confirmed Pete Buttigieg, a former
mayor of South Bend, Ind., and a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, to be
transportation secretary, putting in place the official who will help oversee
President Biden’s overhaul of the nation’s infrastructure.
By a vote of 86 to 13, the Senate made Mr. Buttigieg, 39,
the nation’s first openly gay cabinet secretary to be confirmed by the upper
chamber and Mr. Biden’s youngest cabinet member.
The Times, recognizing the importance of the Secretary's
challenge to help transform the nation's infrastructure, waited until its
second sentence to note that Buttigieg was "the nation's first openly gay
cabinet secretary." ABC News and NPR eagerly noted in
their very first sentence that he had "made history" as "the
first openly gay" individual to win Senate confirmation to run a
Cabinet department.
Pete Buttigieg's failure thus far to be an effective
Transportation secretary has nothing to do with his sexual preference and if he
succeeds in the future, it will have nothing to do with his sexual
preference. It's unclear whether Aaron
Rupar nor Donald Trump Jr. fully understands this, and there is a tremendous
amount of things to criticize the latter for. However, when he asserts that the
former South Bend mayor was selected because he is gay, he is not homophobic
and very likely not wrong.
In a letter to the Democratic National Committee's Rules
and Bylaws Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process, President Joe Biden properly slammed
Caucuses – requiring voters to choose in public, to spend
significant amounts of time to caucus, disadvantaging hourly workers and anyone
who does not have the flexibility to go to a set location at a set time – are
inherently anti-participatory. It should be our party’s goal to rid the
nominating process of restrictive, anti-worker caucuses.
Nonetheless, he was blowing smoke up our posterior when he
wrote (typed?)
For decades, Black voters in particular have been the
backbone of the Democratic Party but have been pushed to the back of the early
primary process. We rely on these voters in elections but have not recognized
their importance in our nominating calendar. It is time to stop taking these
voters for granted, and time to give them a louder and earlier voice in the
process.
Too often over the past fifty years, candidates have dropped
out or had their candidacies marginalized by the press and pundits because of
poor performances in small states early in the process before voters of color
cast a vote. As I said then, 99.9% of Black voters had not had the chance to
vote at that point, and 99.8% of Latino voters had not had the opportunity.
That is unacceptable in 2024 and it must change.
Who won the black vote in the Democratic presidential primary?
Since 1992, no candidate has won the Democratic nomination for president without winning a majority of black vote. Black voters are likely to account for one of every four primary ballots cast in 2020.
Year
Candidate
Eventual nominee
2016
Hillary Clinton (won 77 percent of the black vote)
Hillary Clinton
2008
Barack Obama (82 percent)
Barack Obama
2004
John Kerry (56 percent)
John Kerry
2000
Al Gore (86 percent)
Al Gore
1992
Bill Clinton (70 percent)
Bill Clinton
1988
Jesse Jackson (92 percent)
Michael Dukakis
1984
Jesse Jackson (77 percent)
Walter Mondale
1980
Ted Kennedy (45 percent)
Jimmy Carter
Source: Network exit polls
Jesse Jackson had very little money, not government experience, was running primarily to make a point, and would have lost 50 states had the impossible- as it always was viewed- happened and he won the Democratic nomination. Biden's argument that black voters have been marginalized in the nominating process is legitimate- but only if we go back to 1980, which will be a full 44 years before the next Democratic nominee is selected.
Since then, the candidate- WJ Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, H Clinton, Biden- garnering a majority of the votes of blacks won the party's presidential nomination. That's five consecutive nominees favored by the voting bloc Biden professes to believe need "a louder and earlier voice in the process."
The AP notes
In a letter Thursday to the rule-making arm of the
Democratic National Committee, Biden did not mention specific states he’d like
to see go first. But he has told Democrats he wants South Carolina moved to the
first position, according to three people familiar with his recommendation who
spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
After three states- New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada- had their say, it was unclear exactly whom those Democratic voters favored. It was, clear, however, that they wanted no part of the man who had served decades in office, whether as a U.S. Senator or as a Vice-President. However, Joe Biden procured the endorsement of US Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina. As Majority Whip, had achieved the highest-ranking position of any black person in House of Representatives history, and was the pre-eminent Democrat in a state with two Republican US Senators and a Republican governor. His support carried weight.
In the run-up to the primary in South Carolina, the cry ran out on the left's news network of choice, MSNBC, and by many pundits and some politicians: "blacks have not been heard from." They were right.
As expected, a clear majority of the votes in the South Carolina primary was cast by blacks. Biden won a strong majority of these votes, thus winning the primary easily. Thus, prior to Super Tuesday, three Democrats, most notably Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, dropped out of the race and endorsed the former V.P. On the heels of his success in the African American-dominated primary in South Carolina- and its aftermath- Biden won handily on Super Tuesday and was not seriously challenged for the nomination afterward.
Yet, Joe Biden says "we...... have not recognized their (black voters) importance in our nominating calendar." If Joe hasn't noticed, virtually everyone else has. White voters recognized "we rely on these voters in elections" and voted accordingly after South Carolina.
The President wants black voters to have “a louder and
earlier voice in the process.” Louder? A louder voice is unnecessary when “no
Democrat has won the nomination without the support of a majority of black
voters in three decades.” He claims "too often over the past fifty years, candidates have dropped out or had their candidacies marginalized by the press and pundits because of poor performances in small states early in the process before voters of color cast a vote."
Biden isn't thinking about "voters of color." In favoring South Carolina and thereby downgrading Nevada, he's little interested in Latinos (despite the obligatory nod to the group) and ignoring Asian-Americans and individuals of tribal background. He invoked "diversity" six times with nary a nod toward linguistic, religious, or educational diversity. Those latter three may pale in importance to race- but it is Biden himself who is obsessed with what he terms "diversity."
The nominating process in 2008 is telling. After Barack Obama won in Iowa, Hillary Clinton defeated him and John Edwards in Nevada. Between Iowa and Nevada, Clinton won in Michigan. Edwards and Obama had chosen not to be on the ballot there, a strong move strategically because Clinton clearly would have led the field, anyway. (Edwards already had begun to fade and Michigan's electorate was dominated by the white working class.) Thankfully for Edwards and Obama, the DNC then stripped Michigan of its delegates because it had not gained the organization's approval to hold its primary at that stage.
Clinton then won in Nevada- but was defeated in South Carolina by Obama, who went on to win the nomination. Somehow, though, we are to believe that sometime during the period when South Carolina gave its nod in 2008 to eventual nominee Barack Obama (and in 2012, in which he was effectively unopposed), to eventual nominee HRC in 2016, and to eventual nominee JR Biden in 2020, its voters, and black voters in general, were neutered.
The President could try treating his party's voters as adults and level with us: black, especially non-young black women, constitute the base of the party and the voters who most carry it to victory. We are rewarding them. Period.
CNN's Alisyn Camerota asks Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg
In terms of messaging, I think President Biden by our county
mentioned the inflation and economy once last night but mentioned democracy and
democracy being in peril and possibly using it many, many times. So just in
terms of messaging, should he be saying more of what you just said?
No. Democrats lack a theme, a unifying message. That can't
be "I feel your pain about inflation but it's lower here than in most
other countries" because voters don't care what inflation is elsewhere Simlarly, "gas prices are high, yet are coming down"
would sound to a voter as if the President were downplaying the pain those prices are causing.. If Democrats cared to, they could have responded to the anxiety and cynicism of voters by blaming high gas prices on greedy oil companies. They chose not to do so, which should tell us a lot about the influence of money in politics.
Buttigieg himself could have told Camerota that none of
those problems would be solved if democracy is replaced by dictatorship. However, Democrats are loathe to be the least bid impolite to reporters and
broadcasters. Instead, the transportation secretary, proving he got the memo, stated
Well, again, we're doing both. The President decided to give
a speech about democracy, which is a very important topic and most of the time
when you see him speak, he'll be talking a lot about the economy because that's
an important topic. I mean, the idea that you have to pick one when we're in a
period when the American people strongly believe in the things that we're doing
. I don't think it makes any sense to say we have to do one at the exclusion of
the others.
We are passionate about an economic policy that is focused
on cutting costs for everyday families. We're also passionate about democracy,
which shouldn't be a partisan issue. It shouldn't require being a Democrat or a
Republican to say if you're running in an election, that you oughta be prepared
to abide by the results of an election.
Buttigieg:.. there should be nothing partisan about universal, swift condemnation and nothing else when it comes to an assassination attempt on a member of a family of a political figure in this country pic.twitter.com/orPxStwWgb
I don't know what a non-everyday family would be- perhaps a
someday, or weekday, family; off-point, though. Buttigieg argues that being "passionate
about democracy... shouldn't be a partisan issue" and "if you're
running in an election that you oughta be prepared to abide by the results of
an election."
They've told you, Pete. It is a partisan issue. Donald Trump
is planning to challenge the 2022 results in Philadelphia- and probably in other heavily Democratic cities. They won't
accept the results in 2024 if a Democrat wins the presidential election, just
as they still don't accept the 2020 results. CBS News has reported
The majority of GOP candidates running for the U.S. House of
Representatives are categorized as election deniers, as are the majority of
Republicans running for U.S. Senate and for governor in states across America.
Nearly half of those running to be secretaries of state — officials who would
help administer future elections — are also considered election deniers.
Buttigieg told Camerota also
Just like there should be nothing partisan about universal,
swift condemnation and nothing else when it comes to an assassination attempt
on a member of the family of a political figure in this country no matter what
party they come from.
There shouldn't be, but there is, and public officials and
campaign surrogates should live in the real world. Kari Lake, a Trump favorite very likely soon
to be a governor-elect of Arizona, recently quipped in fashionably bad taste "It is not impossible to protect our kids
at school. They act like it's Nancy Pelosi. Well, she's got protection when
she's in DC. Apparently, her house doesn't have a lot of protection."
Buttigieg did not utter the name "Kari Lake"
because, presumably, it would be rude. Nor did he note even that it is
Republicans who won't acknowledge an election defeat or Republicans who are
reluctant to denounce an attempted assassination.
This is not solely the failing of one man- it is how
Democrats roll. And you can barely blame Buttigieg who, understandably, would
like to be President one day. Joe Biden,
until as President he found out (after decades in politics) that the loyal
opposition- and not only Donald Trump- is cutthroat, was the most polite Democratic candidate for President, and was nominated. Barack Obama, he of the "one
America" fantasy, was nominated and elected, and still is cheered and
revered by Democrats and the media. In one speech in Wisconsin, he remarked
"remember that that was the craziest thing he was saying?” Now, it doesn’t
even make the Top 10 list of crazy" without invoking the name "Trump."
Of course, he didn't. It would have been rude, incongruent with his brand and that of his Party. Pete Buttigieg has learned from the personal success of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If his message hinders development of a clear and effective Democratic message, so be it. The house may be on fire, but we wouldn't want to alarm anyone.
Beginning at 34:32 of the video below, Bill Maher discusses Pete Buttigieg's presidential prospects with journalist Matt Taibbi and Lis Smith, who worked on Barack Obama's 2012 campaign and was senior adviser to Pete Buttigieg's 2020 presidential campaign. Smith still believes strongly in the former South Bend, Ind. mayor and argued
If you look at his polling numbers, he'd doing extremely well... No, I'm talking about his more recent ones and the more people who get to know him naturally, he has the highest approval rating of anyone in the Biden Administration.
Unconvinced, Maher responded
I'm just saying every time there is a picture of drag queen story hour, I don't think Pete likes it because what he's thinking is "O.K. This is a new thing to a lot of Americans- gay marriage- again, we've never had a gay President (that we know of). I mean I heard rumors about Buchanan but, yeah, so this, you know, you got to tread a little gingerly and I think what it looks like to him as a clever politician is like "O.K., can we just cool it a little on this because people are trying to get used to this and I'm trying to win election in states that are already a little wary about the Democrats.
For a third perspective, Taibbi countered with
I would argue that the issue with Pete Buttigieg and I covered his campaign a little the last time isn't about sexuality, it's about class. I remember seeing him in Keene, New Hampshire and it was the first time I'd seen him campaign and as you mention, he's got incredible political skills. If you see him in person, you'll have this thought "wow, this guy is going to be president someday. He's so quick, he's accessible, seemingly, and then I went outside and interviewed a bunch of people from Keene and if you know what New England townies are like. They were like, "that guy's fuckin' weird," you know. And the Democrats just have too many of these sort of McKinsey Ivy league types.... There aren't enough people who know how to talk....
Like normal, working-class white Americans, he meant, and there is a little to what he says. Ron DeSantis is a product of Yale and of Harvard Law School but- lucky for him- he seems like the everyday, normal, almost likable jerk at the end of the bar. It serves him well. Democrats do seem to most voters to be smart, maybe too smart for their own political good.
Native New Englanders and other Americans don't see Pete Buttigieg and think "oh no, McKinsey!" Though Buttigieg served in the military in Afghanistan, people don't see the fellow and think "thank you for your service, soldier." That's unfair to the former mayor, but voters can be unfair.
Of course, those townies Taibbi cites said Buttigieg is "weird." These folks were probably aware that Taibbi is a left-wing journalist but had no reason to know that he is a long-time, committed heterosexual. It would be in bad taste, maybe even rude and definitely stupid, for them to say "fag." (For readers aghast at use of the word "fag," know that many years ago, it was used interchangeably for "queer," the latter a word approvingly appropriated by the gay left.)
Pete Buttigieg may have been a brave soldier and even be "tough" in ways the likes of Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and other Republicans may not comprehend. However, he seems like nothing of the sort, and politics is a game of images. People look at him and think: a little, passive, gay secretary.
And, yes, secretary, and not in a good way. A dirty little secret: one of the several factors in Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016 was that she was not identified as Senator (a respected one, at that) Clinton but as Secretary Clinton. And whatever their virtues and values, secretaries are not thought of as presidential timber.
Pete Buttigieg is now Secretary of Treasury and were he to run for President, probably would be referred to as "Secretary Buttigieg." Voters would find it easy to think of him as a secretary. Republicans would make sure of that, and the media would not disabuse them of the notion.
Though he'd probably be a very bad general election candidate, Secretary Buttigieg could possibly get a Democratic nomination for President, assuming he shored up his standing with the African-American establishment in the Party. Here, too, though, he would be a small gay guy. And if he's more accepted by the black street than the white street, things have changed more in these United States than- well, more than we have any reason to believe they have.
Pete Buttigieg is entitled to travel to work any way he
wishes- by bicycle, bike (motorcycle, if he has a license), the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority, by chauffered limousine (the stadard), as a pedestrian or driver. He can even hitchike, if it's legal.
But for, as far as we know, a one-time trip, Secretary Buttigieg got an awful lot of positive response on Twitter. The plaudits included
- I really love this guy. He talks the talk, and bikes to
work.
- Pete is the man!!
- Our prime minister (Netherlands) always takes the bike to
work. Even when he had to hand over our administration's resignation to the
king, he went to see our king... by bike
-This is what you do when you're the real deal and not some
pretender.
By someone I hope is an impersonator, this by an actual
legitimate, mainstream journalist is my favorite:: "He wins the news
cycle."
Sure, he does, if the news cycle is fifteen (15) minutes on
Twitter because, as you know, we all have a claim on fifteen minutes of fame.
I'm going to assume with this tweeter that, notwithstanding
the security detail following him to work, this is not mere
"greenwashing" nor virtue signaling. Nonetheless, if the
transportation secretary is truly interested in setting an example or providing
a valuable signal, he must consider, as The New York Times reported in December
In Boston, transit officials warned of ending weekend
service on the commuter rail and shutting down the city’s ferries. In
Washington, weekend and late-night metro service would be eliminated and 19 of
the system’s 91 stations would close. In Atlanta, 70 of the city’s 110 bus
routes have already been suspended, a move that could become permanent.
And in New York City, home to the largest mass transportation
system in North America, transit officials have unveiled a plan that could
slash subway service by 40 percent and cut commuter rail service in half.
Across the United States, public transportation systems are
confronting an extraordinary financial crisis set off by the pandemic, which
has starved transit agencies of huge amounts of revenue and threatens to
cripple service for years.
The profound cuts agencies are contemplating could hobble
the recoveries of major cities from New York to Los Angeles and San Francisco,
where reliable transit is a lifeblood of the local economies.
There is a renewed interest in Washington in funding public
transit because we have a new President and a Congress controlled (more or less) by the Democratic Party, which recognize that minorities and the poor would be the biggest losers if transportation agencies financially crumble.
Massive subsidization would help minority and low-income riders; single parents
transporting their children; the handicapped; travelers in rain, snow, extreme
cold or heat;; men or women
carrying several items; the elderly aside from the most physically fit; other individuals not physically fit or unable to ride on, or
maintain, a bicycle..That is: most of us.
They are among the people without the luxury of being able
to ride a bicycle more than occasionally.
They- and others more privileged- can be encouraged to ride on public
transit conveyances whenever possible.
Pete Buttigieg is under no obligation to be a transit role model.
However, if he chooses to do so one day, it probably would cost him less than $10- and he probably could submit a voucher for reimbursement.
President-elect Joe Biden could return to the nation's
capital for his inauguration ceremony the way he long bridged his life at home and
his job in politics: On an Amtrak train from Wilmington, Delaware, to
Washington, DC.
It would be a fitting moment for the man who took roughly
8,000 round trips on that same route during his time as senator and vice
president -- earning him the moniker "Amtrak Joe" -- and who four
years ago left Washington by train on his final day as vice president.
Biden's inauguration team is eyeing a rail arrival as one of
a number of plans being discussed for the January celebration, Democrats
familiar with the planning told CNN. The plan, first reported by Axios, is far
from finalized and there is a great deal of uncertainty around all inauguration
planning given the coronavirus pandemic, the Democrats cautioned. A
spokesperson for Biden's presidential inaugural committee declined to comment.
However, if David Sirota is right, it may all be for show:
Joe Biden literally aired an ad making fun of Pete Buttigieg for having zero significant experience to run the government: https://t.co/Bj5K775jqc
Now he's appointing him to run the nation's transportation infrastructure, because literally nothing matters. https://t.co/4QjnXionLQ
The Biden team may be responding to the charge that there has been insufficient consideration of LGBTQIA individuals for an upcoming Administration boasting about its diversity. Perhaps the
President-elect wanted to boost the visibility of a young Democrat whom Biden's
hero believed could be a critical piece of the party's future. Or it may be Biden's effort to reward a candidate who endorsed the former vice-president for the Democratic nomination at a critical moment in the process. Or it may be the opposite.
Pete Buttigieg's experience as mayor of a diverse, mid-sized city may prove to be
far more valuable than Joe Biden thought it would when his campaign ran the ad attacking
his primary opponent. Nonetheless, there is no indication Biden ever was a fan of the
guy, which ironically may have made him more attractive to the President-elect. After all, of the many qualified and accomplished women Joe Biden considered to be his running-mate, hence the leading candidate to be the first female President, he selected the one candidate, indeed the only individual, who implied he is a racist. If this suggests a pattern, it is not a good one.
After Friday's debate in New Hampshire and before he
transitioned into a rant against socialism, Chris Matthews gushed about Amy
Klobuchar
I'm with the people here so far. I thought Klobuchar was
wonderful. I'd never seen her this good. I think she's shown in this last week
audacity. What you want to see in a politician is audacity, spontaneity.
You don't have it on a damn script. Be someone home with the
lights on, somebody who's there, a human being and that's how she came across
tonight. She never raised her voice. She was confident. She looked- I'm sorry
it's weird to say this- she seemed like a President tonight. She seemed like
the President I would like to have as President.
It was weird, Chris- but only because Amy Klobuchar is not
running for President.
Oh, she'd take the nomination if it were handed to her. It
is her goal- but has not been, and still is not, her intention. In Westerville,
Ohio in the fourth Democratic debate of this presidential cycle, the Minnesota
senator slammed her colleague from Massachusetts, the "capitalist to the
bone," with "I want to give a
reality check here to Elizabeth, because no one on this stage wants to protect
billionaires. Not even the billionaire wants to protect billionaires."
A few minutes earlier, after Warren had made the (strategic)
error of vouching for Medicare for All, Klobuchar had stated
At least Bernie's being honest here and saying how he's
going to pay for this and that taxes are going to go up. And I'm sorry,
Elizabeth, but you have not said that, and I think we owe it to the American
people to tell them where we're going to send the invoice.
Responding to the bait from Klobuchar, a couple of weeks
later Warren did explain how she would finance her health care plan.
We still don't know the details of Bernard Sanders' health
care plan and partly as a result, Sanders now leads the Democratic field. His
main rival currently is Pete Buttigieg, like Klobuchar a center-left candidate
whose health care notion is closer to that of the Minnesota senator than to
that of either Sanders or Warren.
When Warren was Sanders' main challenger, Klobuchar took on Warren rather than condemning Sanders, with whom she also has major disagreements. While Warren and Sanders have avoided criticizing each other, Klobuchar has charged after Buttigieg
At the debate in Manchester on
Friday, Klobuchar took a
quick shot at Sanders and Warren for their health care plans, then argued
And Pete, while you have a different plan now you sent out a
tweet just a few years ago that said, henceforth, forewith, indubitably,
affirmatively, you are for Medicare for All for the ages. And so I would like
to point out that what leadership is about is taking a position, looking at
things and sticking with them.
Later in that debate, she commented
Okay, there you go. Meeting the moment, meeting the moment,
we had a moment the last few weeks, mayor, and that moment was these
impeachment hearings. And there was a lot of courage that you saw from only a
few people. There was courage from Doug Jones, our friend of Alabama, who took
that tough vote. There was courage from Mitt Romney, who took it very, very
difficult vote. There was courage, as I read today, about Lieutenant Colonel
Vindman being escorted out of the White House, what he did took courage. But
what you said, Pete, as you were campaigning through Iowa, as three of us were
jurors in that impeachment hearing, you said it was exhausting to watch, and
that you wanted to turn the channel and watch cartoons.
It is easy to go after Washington, because that’s a popular
thing to do. It is much harder, as I see Senator Shaheen in the front row, such
a leader, it is much harder to lead, and much harder to take those difficult
positions. Because I think this going after every single thing that people do,
because it’s popular to say, and makes you look like a cool newcomer. I just, I
don’t think that’s what people want right now. We have a newcomer in the White
House, and look where it got us. I think having some experience is a good
thing.
Sanders' supporters were quiet or applauding during most
other candidates' remarks. Amy Klobuchar even played along during her remarks,
turning to the Sanders section and saying, “Hi, Bernie people!”
Amy Klobuchar may look like a President to Chris Matthews,
and she wouldn't mind reaching that office. However, playing second fiddle to
an elderly president from Vermont is not a bad gig and her audition has been
going quite well lately.
Charlie Pierce made two valid points about Tuesday's
Democratic presidential debate. The one which he himself would concede is the
less significant is
.... the Warren-Sanders business is going to be what people
take away from Tuesday night. I have no idea what was said during the famous
conversation about whether a woman can be elected president. But the response
from the Sanders supporters, especially on the electric Twitter machine, has
been so hysterically over the top—Responding with snake emojis? That’s only the
oldest misogynistic smear of all time, going all the way back to Genesis.—that
it does make me wonder whether or not there’s something in that campaign that
attracts the Democratic equivalent of the incel boys. I hope it stops soon, but
I doubt that it will.
If the Sanders people want to go down in history as the
campaign that kneecapped two talented, accomplished women, that’s their
decision. I thought Warren recovered nicely with her bit about how she and
Klobuchar were the only two people on the stage who’d never lost an election.
Other than that, the debate was little more than a reminder that starting this
process off in Iowa is no way to elect a president of this whole country.
That’s absurd.
It's Thursday, the response still is over the top and
increasingly brings into question the tolerance of Twitter Sanders supporters,
Warren recovered nicely, and this is no way to run an airline- or an election.
More critically, however, was that during the debate
Joe Biden was punished with the soft cushions and the comfy
chair. Nobody laid a glove on him after Sanders jibed him about his Iraq War
vote early on. In the run-up to the debate, it was widely believed that Sanders
would press Biden on his past support for various Simpson-Bowlesian notions for
“reforming” Social Security, while Warren seemed ready to tee him up (again) on
the noxious bankruptcy bill that Biden wrote.
Both of these are very big fish in very small barrels, and
both of these continued un-shot through the evening’s festivities while Pete
Buttigieg soft-shoed his way through every discussion and Amy Klobuchar decided
this was the time to be a deficit scold.
These are three critical points- about the financial
industry (bankruptcy bill), Social Security, and the deficit- which put a lie
to the quaint and comforting notion that Bernard's two presidential campaigns
have nudged the discussion among national Democrats leftward.
Senator Warren inexplicably said nothing about the
bankruptcy bill, though it not only clearly separates her from Biden, but also
demonstrates her economically progressive bonafides and her willingness-
nay, eagerness- to take on the powerful in a way a President Sanders is
unlikely to do.
For his part, Sanders, who has an excellent record on Social
Security, joined Warren in remaining completely mum about the earned benefits
program. Biden long has been cool toward
Social Security, including supporting: in the 1980s freezing benefits; freezing Social Security and all federal spending in 1994; supporting cutting the program as part of President Obama's Grand Bargain effort in 2011; and in 2018 means-testing benefits in order to
"save" the program. In 2008 he boasted that he resisted political advisers, who told him to avoid the issue because it is the "third rail" of American politics.
Yet, neither Sanders (nor Warren) even mentioned Social
Security. If not a glaring omission, it was a crucial omission.
But while Biden's support for a modest Social Security
program was motivated in part by his concern about deficits and the federal
budget, even he did not become the "deficit scold" in the Des Moines
debate. Instead, it was Amy Klobuchar who bragged
I am the one person up
here who has on her website in her plan a plan to actually start taking on the
deficit, by taking part of that money from that corporate tax cut that they put
in there and putting it in a fund to pay back the deficit.
Or it could be used to expand accessibility to health care,
fight climate change, provide free pre-kindergarten programs, rebuild dangerous
bridges and expand public transit, or (insert your own favorite long-neglected
need).
Buttigieg then maintained
And my plan is paid for. Look, our party should no longer
hesitate to talk about the issue of the debt and the deficit. Now, we've got a
dramatically better track record on it than Republicans do. In my lifetime,
it's almost invariably Republican presidents who have added to the deficit, a trillion
dollars under this president. And it's why everything I've put forward — from
Medicare for all who want it to the historic investments we're going to make in
infrastructure to dealing with climate change — is fully paid for.
The Democratic Party never has hesitated to talk about the
debt, even after Walter Mondale tried it in 1984 and got shellacked by Ronald
Reagan, nor when President Clinton balanced the federal budget, nor when
President Obama boasted that he had changed the trajectory and set the nation on the way to a balanced budget. Republican presidents explode the federal deficit to pay for their favorite programs (especially
defense) and get rewarded at the polls.
In 2016, big-government Trump challenged for the GOP presidential nomination traditional Republicans, who at least posed as
"fiscal conservatives" opposed to big government spending and
deficits. We know what happened next.
Very few Americans care about the debt or deficits. It's
something they like to tell themselves and pollsters they care about (like PBS in the past) right
before they vote for whatever candidate wants to blow up the federal
budget. We care about where the money
goes- but we all want the money to go somewhere.
One of those priorities is Social Security, which no one
wanted to talk about Tuesday night. And
no one challenged Klobuchar and Buttigieg, pointing out that "but the
deficit!" is merely something conservatives invoke to cut spending on social
services and other needs of Americans.
Coupled with avoidance of the issue of financial reform (the obvious argument for Warren's candidacy), this is a Party which largely has not been driven left by Bernard Sanders' influence, but bafflingly in the opposite direction.
Currently, polls indicate that against President Trump, Joe
Biden would be the strongest candidate, followed by Sanders, then Warren, and
Buttigieg. And nationwide polls of likely Democratic primary
voters show Biden in first, followed by Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg.
That is not a coincidence. When a candidate looks like his
is most likely to be nominated for a position, his/her place in surveys in a
general election rise.
But it's impossible to determine whether Bernard Sanders would defeat Donald
J. Trump nor whether he would be the strongest candidate the Democratic Party
could nominate. Nonetheless, it's clear that the President should hope and pray
the Democratic candidate not be Elizabeth Warren.
Joe Biden, promoting bipartisanship for the 883rd time- in only the last year- has told MSNBC's Joy Ann Reid "I know you're one of the
ones who thinks it's naïve to think we have to work together. The fact of the
matter is, if we can't get a consensus, nothing happens except the abuse of
power by the executive. Zero."
He expects that consensus because "The thing that will
fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House. Not a
joke You will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends."
In November, Pete Buttigieg, promoting bipartisanship only
for the 683rd time, remarked "my campaign is about inclusion.... ’m reaching out
to progressives. I’m reaching out to moderates. But I also know that there are
a lot of what I like to call future former Republicans out there."
The now-former mayor of the medium-sized city of South Bend,
Indiana, still fairly new to national politics, has an excuse. The former US
Senator and vice-president to Barack Obama does not. Neither does the
individual currently Biden's main rival, who when asked by The New York Times
about "the pardoning process" in a "discussion" conducted
on December 3, 2019
I think many of the military leaders, past and present, were
disgusted by that action. The United States, as a nation, we have historically
held certain values: that we don’t torture, we don’t humiliate. We fight wars
when necessary, but we have a standard of conduct. And when Trump pardons
people who’ve been convicted of crimes, he sends a message to the whole U.S.
military and to the world, so that our troops get captured in a war, God
forbid, and they’re going to be tortured. And our enemies say, “Hey, what’s the
problem? It’s exactly what you do. You set the standard. If you could do it, we
can do it.”
So we’ve got to be a little bit better than that. And I support
those people in the military who themselves understand that that is not what
this country should be about.
Queried about the criteria for pardoning someone, the Vermont senator added
Well, I think in terms of war crimes, in terms of behavior
of troops, there are standards that we have held for a long time, which are I
would support. I mean it’s not for me to be judging every case, that we have a
process that does that. But there are international standards and standards
that this country has upheld and when there are individuals in the military who
violate those standards, they should be punished, not pardoned.
One of Bernard's rivals should ask "if our soldiers who
have committed crimes or betrayed the American people are punished and not
pardoned, how about their Commander-in-Chief who obstructs Congress, obstructs
justice, abuses his power, and attempts to bribe a foreign country so he can
win an election?" (He did that as President, not as commander-in-chief,
but never mind.)
Three paragraphs, thirteen sentences, approximately 190
words and Senator Sanders couldn't, or wouldn't, suggest that if he is elected,
the gangster he would have unseated should be prosecuted and if convicted,
serve his sentence. There must be no clemency, no pardon, nothing but the rule of the law and
the quaint notion that no one is immune to the demands of the law.
By contrast, as early as ten months ago Elizabeth Warren maintained
Congress should make it clear that Presidents can be
indicted for criminal activity, including obstruction of justice. And when I’m
President, I’ll appoint Justice Department officials who will reverse flawed
policies so no President is shielded from criminal accountability.
Now, was that so hard? It is for Joe Biden and Pete
Buttiegieg. But it should not be for Bernard Sanders, and for some reason it
has been. For a guy who has a reputation
as a straight-shooter, it certainly is a mystery. Hopefully- given that he may
get the nomination- he's not afraid of whatever President Trump might do or say
to him if he implies that if the former is elected, the latter may end up in a
yellow jumpsuit.
Alternatively, it may be fine that he is intimidated. Otherwise, he may simply believe that Donald J.Trump should get a free ride out of town than face a jury composed of the peers he is constantly betraying.
Why is the enmity from young, left-wing activists toward
Buttigieg so visceral? It’s true that they favor Bernie Sanders, but Buttigieg
comes in for a type of loathing that surpasses even that they hold for Sanders’
older rivals, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.
He observes
it’s especially galling that the first millennial to take a
serious run at the presidency is nothing like the left’s imagined savior.
Buttigieg is a veteran, an outspoken Christian, a former McKinsey consultant,
and, frankly, closer to Mitt Romney than Sanders or generational peer AOC in
his aw shucks personal affect. In the eyes of radicalized young leftists,
Buttigieg isn’t just an ideological foe, he’s worse than that: He’s a square.
Being a veteran probably is not much of a net negative or plus for
Buttigieg nor, for that matter, for Tulsi Gabbard. Nonetheless, he is "closer to Mitt
Romney than Sanders or generational peer AOC in his aw shucks personal
affect" is even more insightful than it appears, given the temperament of
the leading candidate. When Joe Biden
noted the misogyny Donald Trump demonstrated in the Access Hollywood tape, in
March 2018 in Florida the former vice-president boasted "They asked me would I like to debate this gentleman, and I
said no. I said, 'If we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and
beat the hell out of him.'" (On the campaign trail, he has challenged one man to a test of IQ or pushups, and his lead in polls has only grown.)
CNN noted at the time that Biden received "laughter and
applause from the crowd at the University of Miami." And Sanders, currently second in polling only to Biden, always looks like he's ready to haul off and punch
someone, or at least tell them to get off his lawn.
Being an "outspoken Christian" probably would be a
negative, were the South Bend mayor actually outspoken. He has spoken of his religious beliefs (or "faith" as current lexicon requires) but mostly to contrast
it with Trump Administration policies which contrast sharply with Jesus'
compassion toward the refugee, the poor, and the outcast generally.
Pete Buttigieg is not an evangelical. He has not specifically declared a faith in
Jesus Christ as his lord and savior; or that everyone sins and therefore is not
worthy of heaven; nor that his salvation comes through grace alone without
regard to works.
Buttigieg was raised as a Roman Catholic and is now an
Episcopalian. This being 2020, the primary distinction between Roman Catholicism
and Episcopalianism (or perhaps in identifying as one rather than the other) is arguably the stark difference between the two on the matter
of homosexuality. The Human Rights
Campaign explains that in addition to permitting the ordination of gay and
transgender candidates for priest
The Episcopal Church supports non-discrimination and has
canon laws specifying that everyone has access to the governance of the church
and lists “sexual orientation, gender identity and expression” as specifically
protected from discrimination. In 2018, the church committed to oppose all
legislation that restricts public restroom, locker room and shower access for
transgender and gender non-conforming people.
The new year should bring with it a determination to speak
more honestly, notwithstanding the exquisite sensitivities of many people.
Ignoring the strong probability, as Robertson does, that a gay male candidate
married to a man probably has something to do with his theological affiliation
and even beliefs is dishonest or strikingly naive.
Nevertheless, Robertson does understand that Buttigieg is
viewed as a "square" He is "the "type that gets elected
mayor of a small Midwestern city" (blogger's note: South Bend is not
small, but whatever) "is inherently far more likely to be an institutionalist,
more a do-gooding Leslie Knope than a radicalized version of Bart Simpson"
(or Bernie Sanders, but that's repetitive).
However, he's not only a "square" or an
"institutionalist." He's also a traitor to his sexual orientation, or
at least appears to be, by being moderate and institutionalist. He ought to know better, the unspoken theme
is, because he himself is an outsider to American tradition and polite society.
He is by nature a noncomformist- yet by nurture seemingly unwilling to
challenge the conventional centrist beliefs underwriting government and
corporate policy.
As (bad) luck would have it, we have recent experience with
a minority- in this case of sexual preference- aspiring to the highest office
of the land. There were high hopes of
"change we can believe in" followed by support for the rogues on Wall
Street, record numbers of immigrants being deported, increased income disparity
and growing chasm between rich and poor, and a general unwillingness to tackle
racial inequality.
He was both a community organizer and black. Yet- or maybe "because"_ liberals
and leftists have avoided acknowledging that we were fooled into believing the
vacuity of "we are the ones we've been waiting for." Nonetheless,
they realize, whether on a conscious or sub-conscious level, that we were let down and the left-wing critics of Buttigieg are
determined that it will not happen again.
It may be unfair to Pete Buttigieg that he is paying for the sins
of President Barack Obama, though he may be able to overcome it. If not, he will have met a similar fate as
the candidate who thought she could avoid paying for those failures in a
general election until Donald Trump proved she could not.
