Pete Buttigieg

When Obama first arrived on the scene he immediately captured my interest and that interest didn't flag until after his first election. Obama was the savior of the left yet when he arrived in the office he drove immediately to the center. Even his landmark legislation, the ACA was a compromise to get to the center.

I am glad he was our POTUS for the eight years because what was the alternative - George W. Bush or Mitt Romney. Then, alas we held our collective noses and put up a lesser candidate in the form of Hilary Clinton and we elected a more smelly individual in Donald Trump.

I am just finishing watching a new face on the Democratic side, Pete Buttigieg being interviewed by Rachel Maddow.

He has captured my interest, much like Obama did but for different reasons. Obama put himself out as a liberal/progressive. Buttigieg is putting himself out as a liberal/progressive/pragmatist.

He is for Medicare for All - eventually. The Sanders crowd wants it now. We can't get Medicare now but we can set a pathway for it.

He is for affordable college - eventually. The Sanders crowd wants it now. We cannot afford college for everyone now, but he wants to make a pathway towards a freer education.

He understands the issues around climate change and is not afraid to confront the issue. But he is not willing to go the Green New Deal approach now - but is willing to develop the pathway.

I consider myself to be very much a progressive but I am also a pragmatist and I understand you can not simply flick the light switch and everything is cool. It is going to take time and a lot of consensus building to get to where we need to be.

So, now we have this guy, a white male who is 37, who is gay, who is a Naval reserve officer, who is married to another white guy, who is a successful mayor in a midwest city, who is a Rhoades scholar and who converses at a level I often find hard to keep up with. He is also a religious person who has already taken on Mike Pence and his brand or christianity.

He is also from the midwest and we haven't had a candidate who might be able to capture the centrist midwest. And we need to get the midwest this go around or we will have Trump once more.

Is he the next Obama - who knows. Is he worth following for a while to see if he can gain the same type of acceptance that Obama gained - yes.

Can he take on Trump - he will run circles around that imbecile. (And that might be a problem because Trump will need to get in the sewer to compete with his wit and Trumps swims in the sewer.)

Hi Miki!!!!

Well Miki, surely there would be a revolution, if G.W. was up to be an alternative for Obama? Did he not already serve 2 terms? I don't know this Buttigeig man, I will look him up.... hold that bus!!!!

I said.... hold that bus!!!! Ok.... mayor of South Bend and everything you have said, my dear Miki. I think he would be a fantastic choice for the Democrat nomination, does he really stand a chance? I hope so, I do want Kamala, but wow, this Pete chap seems a good ticket for my cousins over the pond!!!

Celia xx

Oops, Miki gets a lesson on her history. It was John McCain, not GWB.

I told the Wife when Kamala Harris was the Attorney General of California that she would be the POTUS some day.

I don't know if Buttigieg or Harris has a chance of the nomination. The is a lot of time between now and the convention for any Dem candidate to stub their toe - let's wait and see but at least it is starting to indicate there are some good people out there to take on President Pig Shit

Sky news in Britain profiled him and while the Brits have lost the plot themselves they might have got it right about him. Here in Ireland we have a gay Premier but they hate him for other reasons. No reason to think otherwise of a new potus because the world has has changed.
He's a veteran which is is important in the American context, although he was never shot at and he's religious, God knows why, sarcasm activated.

I have to say I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who says they believe in a God. Trump doesn't but lies about it. I have to assume that anyone who does is deluded or fake.

Sorry to those of you who believe. I don't mean to rain on your parade.

So I doubt his bona fides. He's fake or deluded,. No more or less.
Is this the person who should lead the free world?

mariehart1 wrote:He's a veteran which is important in the American context, although he was never shot at ...

I think we collectively want someone who has been there, in harm's way, to realize what they are doing when they send off our best to fight for something that may have very little meaning to us.

Most combat veterans, such as myself were never actually shot at. But we did stand up and put our collective butts on the line in case someone did want to shoot at us. In total there were over 2.5 million U.S. soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors stationed in or around Vietnam, but only about 30% were actually shot at.

I spent my Vietnam War time on an aircraft carrier. We were only called to General Quarters (Battle Stations) once and that was when the North Vietnamese sent out a squadron of gunboats to attack us. They were quickly dispatched by our on-call F-4 Phantom that took all of them out of commission.

I have wondered about Pete.

If Miki likes him, that's encouraging.

I understand that Michaela. I only mentioned in terms of it being an opportunity for opponents to attack him. Goodness knows, John Kerry saw actual combat with Purple Hearts to show for it but that didn't stop him being attacked by Republicans.
As it happens being on a carrier does count as combat in my mind and always potentially dangerous. The USS Forrestal fire being an example. You could probably tell tales yourself. Better than shovelling s*** in Louisiana, as Patton memorably put it.

My own service as a reservist in the Infantry for seven years was mostly incident free despite an ongoing terrorist campaign in the North. The IRA avoided confrontations with us in the Irish army as much as possible. But when you carry live ammunition on a border patrol in your own country it gets real.

Of course in this country military service gains you no credit at all.

mariehart1 wrote:The USS Forrestal fire being an example. You could probably tell tales yourself.

There were three major carrier fires during the Vietnam War.

This is what I saw on the morning of October 26, 1996, from Elevator 1 of my carrier, the Constellation (CVA-64):
A very, very foolish sailor lit off a flare in a forward flare locker. The fire that ensued killed 44 sailors, mostly aircrew, and injured 156 more.

On July 27, 1967, on the USS Forrestal (CVA-59) a Zuni rocket took off on its own and triggered a chain-reaction of explosions that killed 134 sailors and injured 161.

On January 14, 1969, on the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) a Zuni rocket took off on its own and triggered a chain-reaction of explosions that killed 28 sailors and injured 314. The Enterprise was on its way to Yankee Station and was just off the coast of Oahu when the fire broke out.

While a lack of military service should not be determinant as to an individual's electability, a lack of military service because, as reported of Trump [bold]'...are you crazy, I wasn't going to Vietnam'[/bold] should raise a question.

Clinton avoided military service through education deferments. Bush 43 avoided combat through a mostly absent time with the Texas Air National Guard. I think if I was a parent of a child who might be asked to fight for his or her country, then I want someone who is making the decision to send our blood and treasure into harm's way to at least have an understanding of what that entails.

I am glad that we haven't had a major war since Vietnam, but I also think it is a plus if someone who has served understands what war means to someone's soul.