Buttigieg's Buzz

Buttigieg performance in the recent CCN TownHall at SXSW has generated a bunch of buzz. So I checked it out... and I was impressed! And he's got the young, white, gay, Episcopalian, veteran, mayor lane all to himself! ;)

Check out the videos below of the CNN town hall (with inserted commercials) and a recent interview on Pod Save America, along with an article today from the Washington Post! I think he may be my favorite at the moment!

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/wacco...5_12-45-27.png
Pete Buttigieg, the young and openly gay Midwest mayor, finds a voice in crowded Democratic presidential field

By Chelsea Janes and
Michael Scherer March 16 at 12:09 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXD8uFU-xgM

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. — Pete Buttigieg — the mayor of South Bend, Ind., who is running for president — won’t wear his dress jacket, not when he appears on national television for a town hall meeting, not for photo shoots, not even at a fundraiser here in a Russian-themed bar where he’s mingling with such celebrities as comedian Billy Eichner and Olympic diver Greg Louganis.

“There’s a side controversy over that question,” Buttigieg said in an interview. No less a figure than David Axelrod, the top strategist for the past two winning Democratic presidential campaigns, has been privately urging the 37-year-old to look more grown-up by wearing a jacket on the campaign trail.

“I don’t know,” Buttigieg said, hesitating as if embarrassed by how contrived his next thought might sound. “I just feel more comfortable with my sleeves rolled up.”

The Navy veteran with a hard-to-pronounce name, from a city small enough to fit every resident in a college football stadium, seems to be winning the argument at the moment. Weeks after declaring his interest in challenging President Trump, he has become, if not exactly well-known, a subject of interest for many Democratic voters, buoyed by a breakout performance at a CNN town hall on March 10.

His moment came just days before another youthful candidate, former congressman Beto O’Rourke of Texas, grabbed the spotlight by announcing his entrance into the race.

Buttigieg downplayed the impact of a rival fresh face joining the fray, joking that he has the “white Episcopalian gay veteran” lane to himself.

“It’s not worth the energy and effort to try to game out what the others are doing,” Buttigieg said. “Maybe if there were like three people running. But when there’s like 20, you’re not running against any one of them. You’re running against the house. Especially me.”

Continues here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrjkQt60vI

New Iowa poll has Pete Buttigieg in 3rd place in Iowa, ahead of Harris, Warren and Beto! The secret is getting out!

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...5_15-10-37.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zunsfxjyOAE

In the 2 weeks since I started this thread, Pete Buttigieg is exploding! He is consistently wowing interviewers including Charlamagne tha God to Van Jones and Chris Wallace (OK, Chris Wallace who is great, IMO, despite being on Fox, was merely impressed), and recently got a very positive writeup in the New York Times! His thoughtfulness, eloquence, and authenticity are captivating! He's unabashedly liberal but presents it in a way that is much more compelling and acceptable to people who can appreciate our values but haven't aligned with our policies yet.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by The Hill:

Typical of the was buzz was a tweet from former Rep. Joe Scarborough reacting to Buttigieg’s appearance on Morning Joe recently.
“Mika and I have been overwhelmed by the reaction @PeteButtigieg got after being on the show. The only other time in 12 years that we heard from [as] many people about a guest was after @BarackObama appeared on Morning Joe.”

---

As a 37-year-old, gay mayor of a mid-western city that is almost half the size of Santa Rosa (102K vs 175K) I first thought he was a charter member of the clown car brigade. But once you listen and watch him, he comes off as the person with the most gravitas in our wide field of candidates!

Among the items in his "comically overstuffed resume" in high school he won a national essay award for an essay in praise of... wait for it... Bernie Sanders!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnaEjICqfds

I think his toughest challenger will be the very same Bernie Sanders who is 40 years older than Mayor Pete. I consider their values and impeccable integrity to be similar, but I think Mayor Pete is a more compelling and durable messenger. Mayor Pete's young age can be perceived at first to be a detriment. But to hear him address this concern, you come around to believing he has more than enough maturity that is needed (especially as compared to our current toddler-in-chief) and his millennial fresh ideas and commitment to addressing climate change are on balance an asset!

On the other hand... Bernie will 79 years on Inauguration Day, 2021... and 83 years old should he win a second term... and 87 years old at the end of his second term! I'm sorry, but that's too old! I think Mayor Pete, who will be 39 years old on Inauguration Day, 2021.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXy75MunIdc

Age aside, I think Mayor Pete comes off better. Bernie had his moment in 2016 when he was 4 years younger and his clarion call for political revolution had its perfect foil in Hillary's relatively centrist campaign. But his political revolution has now been joined by many others (ie his revolution succeeded!) and like Moses, I think his destiny is to lead the way to the promised land, if not actually lead us into liberal nirvana.

Even though Beto is almost 10 years older than Pete, Beto comes off as an excitable college student and his rhetoric doesn't have the intellectual heft that Pete's does.

Even his newlywed husband is gaining rave reviews!

I encourage to watch some of the videos and see what I am talking about. Please post your comments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y97QknIG-Eo

If you agree with me that he is the best, if rather unlikely, candidate and that if he wins the Democratic nomination, that he's also likely to beat Trump, (that sure would be fun to watch!) then I suggest you take advantage of your early insight and join me on betting on it!

There's a reputable sports betting site called https://www.bovada.lv/. Turns out they have a hard to find politics betting page. I placed a bet last week when the odds were 33 to 1! Currently, they are 28 to 1. With those odds, I think it's still a good bet!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cropped%29.jpg

I'm personally a big fan of his. What he's accomplished in South Bend is very impressive. And he and his other many talents and skills are extraordinary. I watched some of his town hall meeting broadcast from Austin and was very compelled.

He is fresh and different in many ways that are appealing, while also being brilliant, humble, and just a hell of a nice guy. I'm excited to see his buzz growing.

Also, Chasten is just absolutely damned adorable. His Twitter feed ... and that of their rescue dogs (!) are crazy charming.

David Brooks of the New York Times just published a good piece on Buttigieg, "Why You Love Mayor Pete"

Here's an excerpt:

https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...logo152x23.gif
...
The Trump era has been all about dissolving moral norms and waging vicious attacks. This has been an era of culture war, class warfare and identity politics. It’s been an era in which call-out culture, reality TV melodrama and tribal grandstanding have overshadowed policymaking and the challenges of actually governing.

The Buttigieg surge suggests that there are a lot of Democrats who want to say goodbye to all that. They don’t want to fight fire and divisiveness with more fire and divisiveness. They don’t want to fight white identity politics with another kind of identity politics.

They are sick of the moral melodrama altogether. They just want a person who is more about governing than virtue-signaling, more about friendliness and basic decency than media circus and rhetorical war.

Buttigieg’s secret is that he transcends many of the tensions that run through our society in a way that makes people on all sides feel comfortable.
...

See full article here.

I agree! While he is very progressive, he is not combative. He's not demonizing anybody (well maybe Trump, but he avoids talking about him). Where Bernie, Elizabeth and Kamala are all about fighting, Mayor Pete calls us to our higher selves.

I'm really nervous about the state of the country with both sides frothy with anger. If Bernie wins the right will be apoplectic about socialism, whereas if Mayor Pete wins, although some on the right will freak out because he is gay, many will be soothed by calm and compassionate nature.

Here's an interview with Mayor Pete:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...4_11-37-43.png

Pete Buttigieg on How He Plans to Win the Democratic Nomination and Defeat Trump

As you may have heard, Donald Trump gave Pete Buttigieg a nickname the other day: Alfred E Newman.
I can't argue there isn't a resemblance:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...4_14-22-46.png

Check out how he handled Trump's dig at him in the below clip (and remember how much trouble Elizabeth Warren had dealing with her nickname).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Xk7q01SSQ
I think whenever Trumps takes a dig at him he should just say:
"What, me worry?"

Here's another great new interview (with a great interviewer) with Mayor Pete, where he summons our humanity, unites us, and refuses to pardon Trump!

Sit back and watch this one. It's worth your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOM2EOkBrAY

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Here's another great new interview (with a great interviewer) with Mayor Pete, where he summons our humanity, unites us, and refuses to pardon Trump!

---

And here's another great article pointing out what's really behind the curtain.

For those who just refuse to peek I can't help but wonder what your true motivations may be. It is difficult to believe that anyone who cares about and desires genuine social, economic and environmental justice would consider Buttigieg as an asset toward equality and equity for all. Repeatedly he has proven himself to be nothing more than a smooth talking, self-serving centrist, pro-corporate politician. One merely needs to observe his mayoral accomplishments, or rather lack thereof, for the working class, low income and predominately black and Latino neighborhoods of his own home town, South Bend.

And for the record, I personally don't have an issue with centrist democrats though I would feel confident to say that our social and political goals are significantly different. My issue is with those folks who pose, using the language of progressive values and politics while supporting the same old status quo. Either you're ashamed of your true leanings and values or you are attempting to mislead those of us who are fighting for deep systemic change in our social and governmental structure.

In my opinion Buttigieg's colors have been blindingly obvious. Nonetheless I did the research and asked the questions. However, in true mainstream centrist/moderate form there was never a direct response, only a continued avalanche of puff pieces, praises and shilling........

Published on Monday, October 21, 2019 by Common Dreams
Beware, Pete Buttigieg Is a Sharp Corporate Tool

By Norman Solomon

With the mutual alignment of Buttigieg and his corporate healthcare-industry donors, Mayor Pete's approach seems to be a case of a flimflamming candidate who poses as a forthright leader.

Pete Buttigieg burst on the national scene early this year as a new sort of presidential candidate. But it turns out he’s a very old kind—a glib ally of corporate America posing as an advocate for working people and their families. That has become apparent this fall as Buttigieg escalates his offensive against Medicare for All.

A not-funny thing has happened to Buttigieg on the campaign trail. As he kept collecting big checks from corporate executives and wealthy donors, he went from being “all for” a single-payer Medicare for All system in January to trashing it in the debate last week as a plan that would kick “150 million Americans off of their insurance in four short years.” The demagoguery won praise from corporate media outlets.

"Buttigieg has joined with Joe Biden to open up a well-funded, double-barreled assault on Medicare for All."

Those outlets have often lauded Buttigieg for his fundraising totals this year without scrutiny of the funding sources. They skew toward the wealthy—and toward donors with a vested interest in protecting the status quo.

“Of course, from a voter’s point of view, what really matters is not how much financial support a candidate is getting, but who they’re getting it from—because those supporters may not have the same interests as the voter,” Jim Naureckas at the media watchdog FAIR pointed out this summer. “In the case of Buttigieg, the two main sources of funds seem to be the tech industry . . . and the financial industry, that traditional source of funds for corporate-oriented Democrats.”

So far this year, Buttigieg has reported $27 million in contributions of $200 and above—accounting for 52.5 percent of his total dollars raised. Compare that to Elizabeth Warren at 29.6 percent and Bernie Sanders at 24.9 percent.

And major sources of Buttigieg’s funding are in harmony with his recent hostility toward Medicare for All. “Pharmaceutical, health insurance, and hospital industry donors have flocked to Mayor Peteall year,” journalist Alex Kotch reported last week. “As of mid-2019, he was second only to Donald Trump in overall campaign cash from donors in the health sector. Among Democratic candidates, he was second to former Vice President Joe Biden in terms of pharmaceutical and health insurance donations.”

Full Article at: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...corporate-tool

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

...And for the record, I personally don't have an issue with centrist democrats though I would feel confident to say that our social and political goals are significantly different. My issue is with those folks who pose, using the language of progressive values and politics while supporting the same old status quo. Either you're ashamed of your true leanings and values or you are attempting to mislead those of us who are fighting for deep systemic change in our social and governmental structure.

---

Thanks for returning to this thread, Rusty. I've notice Pete is getting alot more attention (ie attacks) from Bernie's supporters now that he's come in ahead of Bernie in the last 2 Iowa polls.

I, and I'm guessing Pete, have 2 main objectives: 1) Beat Trump and 2) successfully move the ball forward on several areas (most notably democracy, climate, and health care) while helping to to re-unite the country. I think Pete is the best candidate to do that. My second choice would be Elizabeth Warren.

Whereas Bernie almost won the nomination in 2016, and perhaps should have won the nomination, he had the perfect foil in uber-establishment Hilary, who, while exceptionally capable, had many downsides. I'll even say he did win in 2016 by dramatically moving the Democratic party to the left. Whereas a public option was a bridge to far under Obama, it's now widely embraced, thanks to Bernie.

In general, I support the direction Bernie wants to go. If I thought he could accomplish what he wants to do, without tearing the country apart, I'd be on board. But I highly doubt he can. His agenda is overly aggressive, and I don't think he is the best messenger for his message. Elizabeth is better, and Pete's is better yet (if a bit less ambitious).

Now, 4 years later (and Bernie being 4 years older), his time has passed. He'll be 79 by the time he would take office. Jimmy Carter, who supported Bernie in 2016, says he'd be too old for the job. And what about a second term at 83??

Even though current head to head polling have Bernie (barely) beating Trump, I don't think he would win once he is subjected to the Republican's fear-mongering campaign focused on him being a socialist, medicare for all, and his age.

Should be he actually win the election, I think there's a serious risk of armed insurrection. Bernie's all about "taking on" X,Y a Z, ad infinitum. He's not about unity or healing. He's about fighting... (same goes for Elizabeth, but to a lesser extent). I can't say they aren't worthy adversaries (as in they deserve to be pushed back against) but they also quite formidable and will be highly motivated to marshal their resources, legal and otherwise, to defeat him, both in the general election, and should he be elected, as president.

While you could say Pete's agenda is less aggressive, I think he has a better chance of getting elected, enacting progressive changes, including a climate agenda that actually has a chance of passing, and helping the country heal and unite. He can speak eloquently to mid-western voters, rural voters, and faith voters, and invite the back on the side of the light, without scaring them, or yelling at them to "get off my lawn" :wink:.

Regard Pete's "corporate healthcare-industry donors" - Pete doesn't accept PAC money, corporate money, or fossil fuel money. His big donors are contributing a max of $2,800 a piece. Pete isn't going to be bought so cheaply (or at all). Even the 23 billionaires who have contributed to Pete only amounted to $64,400. BFD. I'm not surprised that health care industry people support him. Medicare For All definitely threatens the health care industry, including hospitals that wouldn't be able to survive if everybody had medicare. He's not being bought, but people with common cause are joining on his side. If you want to win, allies are handy.

"he went from being “all for” a single-payer Medicare for All system in January to trashing it in the debate last week as a plan that would kick '150 million Americans off of their insurance in four short years.' "

Pete wants to get to MFA, he just thinks starting with public option is the best way to get there. Invite people, don't force people! As I've written before, I think Medicare For All is a general election losing issue. It may even be a losing issue for the Democratic nomination (see chart). If we could miraculously transition to MFA and have it work, I think it would be hunky-dory. But it's too much too fast.

The Republicans would have a field day creating fear about MFA and many democrats would be uncomfortable being forced to give up their private health care. Do you remember the uproar that ensued when Obama's "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan" turned out not to be true for 7 people? You don't think there would be widespread resistance when you force 150 million people to switch whether they like it or not (even if it can be said they will be objectively no worse off?) They may choose to switch it after a few years (and Pete hopes/expects they will) but only when the are ready and choose to, not when they are forced to.

[ I am reposting Rustie's post below from a couple of weeks ago, along with my response, because I believe it didn't go out in the digest due to problems arising from the fire. ~ Barry :waccosun:]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Here's another great new interview (with a great interviewer) with Mayor Pete, where he summons our humanity, unites us, and refuses to pardon Trump!

Sit back and watch this one. It's worth your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOM2EOkBrAY

---

And here's another great article pointing out what's really behind the curtain.

For those who just refuse to peek I can't help but wonder what your true motivations may be. It is difficult to believe that anyone who cares about and desires genuine social, economic and environmental justice would consider Buttigieg as an asset toward equality and equity for all. Repeatedly he has proven himself to be nothing more than a smooth talking, self-serving centrist, pro-corporate politician. One merely needs to observe his mayoral accomplishments, or rather lack thereof, for the working class, low income and predominately black and Latino neighborhoods of his own home town, South Bend.

And for the record, I personally don't have an issue with centrist democrats though I would feel confident to say that our social and political goals are significantly different. My issue is with those folks who pose, using the language of progressive values and politics while supporting the same old status quo. Either you're ashamed of your true leanings and values or you are attempting to mislead those of us who are fighting for deep systemic change in our social and governmental structure.

In my opinion Buttigieg's colors have been blindingly obvious. Nonetheless I did the research and asked the questions. However, in true mainstream centrist/moderate form there was never a direct response, only a continued avalanche of puff pieces, praises and shilling........

Published on Monday, October 21, 2019 by Common Dreams
Beware, Pete Buttigieg Is a Sharp Corporate Tool

By Norman Solomon

With the mutual alignment of Buttigieg and his corporate healthcare-industry donors, Mayor Pete's approach seems to be a case of a flimflamming candidate who poses as a forthright leader.

Pete Buttigieg burst on the national scene early this year as a new sort of presidential candidate. But it turns out he’s a very old kind—a glib ally of corporate America posing as an advocate for working people and their families. That has become apparent this fall as Buttigieg escalates his offensive against Medicare for All.

A not-funny thing has happened to Buttigieg on the campaign trail. As he kept collecting big checks from corporate executives and wealthy donors, he went from being “all for” a single-payer Medicare for All system in January to trashing it in the debate last week as a plan that would kick “150 million Americans off of their insurance in four short years.” The demagoguery won praise from corporate media outlets.

"Buttigieg has joined with Joe Biden to open up a well-funded, double-barreled assault on Medicare for All."

Those outlets have often lauded Buttigieg for his fundraising totals this year without scrutiny of the funding sources. They skew toward the wealthy—and toward donors with a vested interest in protecting the status quo.

“Of course, from a voter’s point of view, what really matters is not how much financial support a candidate is getting, but who they’re getting it from—because those supporters may not have the same interests as the voter,” Jim Naureckas at the media watchdog FAIR pointed out this summer. “In the case of Buttigieg, the two main sources of funds seem to be the tech industry . . . and the financial industry, that traditional source of funds for corporate-oriented Democrats.”

So far this year, Buttigieg has reported $27 million in contributions of $200 and above—accounting for 52.5 percent of his total dollars raised. Compare that to Elizabeth Warren at 29.6 percent and Bernie Sanders at 24.9 percent.

And major sources of Buttigieg’s funding are in harmony with his recent hostility toward Medicare for All. “Pharmaceutical, health insurance, and hospital industry donors have flocked to Mayor Peteall year,” journalist Alex Kotch reported last week. “As of mid-2019, he was second only to Donald Trump in overall campaign cash from donors in the health sector. Among Democratic candidates, he was second to former Vice President Joe Biden in terms of pharmaceutical and health insurance donations.”

Full Article at: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...corporate-tool

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

...And for the record, I personally don't have an issue with centrist democrats though I would feel confident to say that our social and political goals are significantly different. My issue is with those folks who pose, using the language of progressive values and politics while supporting the same old status quo. Either you're ashamed of your true leanings and values or you are attempting to mislead those of us who are fighting for deep systemic change in our social and governmental structure.

---

Thanks for returning to this thread, Rusty. I've notice Pete is getting alot more attention (ie attacks) from Bernie's supporters now that he's come in ahead of Bernie in the last 2 Iowa polls.

I, and I'm guessing Pete, have 2 main objectives: 1) Beat Trump and 2) successfully move the ball forward on several areas (most notably democracy, climate, and health care) while helping to to re-unite the country. I think Pete is the best candidate to do that. My second choice would be Elizabeth Warren.

Whereas Bernie almost won the nomination in 2016, and perhaps should have won the nomination, he had the perfect foil in uber-establishment Hillary, who, while exceptionally capable, had many downsides. I'll even say Bernie did win in 2016 by dramatically moving the Democratic party to the left. Whereas a public option was a bridge too far under Obama, it's now widely embraced, thanks to Bernie.

In general, I support the direction Bernie wants to go. If I thought he could accomplish what he wants to do, without tearing the country apart, I'd be on board. But I highly doubt he can. His agenda is overly aggressive, and I don't think he is the best messenger for his message. Elizabeth is better, and Pete's is better yet (if a bit less ambitious).

Now, 4 years later (and Bernie being 4 years older), his time has passed. He'll be 79 by the time he would take office. Jimmy Carter, who supported Bernie in 2016, says he'd be too old for the job. And what about a second term at 83??

Even though current head to head polling have Bernie (barely) beating Trump, I don't think he would win once he is subjected to the Republican's fear-mongering campaign focused on him being a socialist, medicare for all, and his age.

Should be he actually win the election, I think there's a serious risk of armed insurrection. Bernie's all about "taking on" X,Y a Z, ad infinitum. He's not about unity or healing. He's about fighting... (same goes for Elizabeth, but to a lesser extent). I can't say they aren't worthy adversaries (as in they deserve to be pushed back against) but they also quite formidable and will be highly motivated to marshal their resources, legal and otherwise, to defeat him, both in the general election, and should he be elected, as president.

While you could say Pete's agenda is less aggressive, I think he has a better chance of getting elected, enacting progressive changes, including a climate agenda that actually has a chance of passing, and helping the country heal and unite. He can speak eloquently to mid-western voters, rural voters, and faith voters, and invite the back on the side of the light, without scaring them, or yelling at them to "get off my lawn" :wink:.

Regard Pete's "corporate healthcare-industry donors" - Pete doesn't accept PAC money, corporate money, or fossil fuel money. His big donors are contributing a max of $2,800 a piece. Pete isn't going to be bought so cheaply (or at all). Even the 23 billionaires who have contributed to Pete only amounted to $64,400. BFD. I'm not surprised that health care industry people support him. Medicare For All definitely threatens the health care industry, including hospitals that wouldn't be able to survive if everybody had medicare. He's not being bought, but people with common cause are joining on his side. If you want to win, allies are handy.

"he went from being “all for” a single-payer Medicare for All system in January to trashing it in the debate last week as a plan that would kick '150 million Americans off of their insurance in four short years.' "

Pete wants to get to MFA, he just thinks starting with public option is the best way to get there. Invite people, don't force people! As I've written before, I think Medicare For All is a general election losing issue. It may even be a losing issue for the Democratic nomination (see chart). If we could miraculously transition to MFA and have it work, I think it would be hunky-dory. But it's too much too fast.

The Republicans would have a field day creating fear about MFA and many democrats would be uncomfortable being forced to give up their private health care. Do you remember the uproar that ensued when Obama's "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan" turned out not to be true for 7 people? You don't think there would be widespread resistance when you force 150 million people to switch whether they like it or not (even if it can be said they will be objectively no worse off?) They may choose to switch it after a few years (and Pete hopes/expects they will) but only when the are ready and choose to, not when they are forced to.

I found this post on the Chris Hedges Journalist & Real Revolution facebook page. Very interesting...


https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/30/coup-plotters-cia-agents-mayor-pete-endorsers/