Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020

Recommended Posts

Just now, swordfish said:

Yeah - that'll get him elected......

You've got to read his whole platform ... that's just the tip of it.

raw

 

Lord, I apologize for that.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Yeah - that'll get him elected......

Genital grabbing didn't hurt our current Prez

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, foxbat said:

You've got to read his whole platform ... that's just the tip of it.

raw

 

Lord, I apologize for that.

yeah...he can take that stance; it's no skin off his back.
If he sticks to this stance, he may face some stiff competition.
He may be wondering what all the flap is about.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dangers of Growing Support for Court-Packing: http://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac

Quote

In recent weeks, there has been growing support for court-packing on the left. A number of prominent liberal Democrats, including several presidential candidates, have either endorsed the idea of expanding the size of the Supreme Court to reverse the current 5-4 conservative majority among the justices, or at least indicated they are open to it. Those expressing such views include presidential candidates Pete Buttgieg, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand. Former Obama administration attorney General Eric Holder also argues that the idea should be "seriously" considered. Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke has suggested a plan to increase the size of the court to fifteen justices: five Democrats, five Republicans, and five more justices selected by the other ten.

Liberal advocates of court-packing argue that it is a justifiable response to previous Republican bad behavior on judicial confirmations, most notably the GOP-controlled Senate's refusal to hold hearings on President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in 2016, which eventually enabled to President Trump to fill the open seat with Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017.

Both parties have engaged in skullduggery on judicial nominations in recent years, the GOP most certainly included. In my view, the refusal to consider Garland was understandable in light of previous Democratic actions (including their own refusal to hold hearings on a number of prominent Bush-era judicial nominees). But it is also true that it was a risky escalation of the judicial nomination wars.

Be that as it may, court-packing would be a dangerous step beyond previous judicial nomination shenanigans because, unlike them, it threatens to destroy the entire institution of judicial review, by creating a pattern of escalation under which each party would pack the court any time it simultaneously controls both Congress and the presidency. That would ensure that the Court would almost never rule against any significant initiative of the party in power, no matter how dangerous and unconstitutional. I discussed the flaws of court-packing in more detail here, here, and here. Prominent liberal Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe summarizes the danger well:

Larry Tribe likewise argues against court-packing. "I'm not in favor of trying what FDR sought to do — and was rebuffed by the Democratic Senate for attempting," he tells me. "Obviously partisan Court-expansion to negate the votes of justices whose views a party detests and whose legitimacy the party doubts could trigger a tit-for-tat spiral that would endanger the Supreme Court's vital role in stabilizing the national political and legal system."

Similarly, Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Corey Booker "caution people about doing things that become a tit for tat throughout history... So when the Democrats expand it to 11, 12 judges, when Republicans have it, they expand it to 15 judges." Booker and Tribe are right. And indeed these sorts of structural concerns are exactly what led a Democratic-controlled Congress to bury Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 court-packing plan - the last serious attempt to expand the size of the Court in order to shift its ideology. Critics rightly feared that court-packing would create a Supreme Court subservient to whatever party controlled the presidency and Congress at the time.

As Democratic Senator Burton Wheeler put it in a speech on FDR's plan:

Create now a political court to echo the ideas of the Executive and you have created a weapon. A weapon which, in the hands of another President in times of war or other hysteria, could well be an instrument of destruction. A weapon that can cut down those guaranties of liberty written into your great document by the blood of your forefathers and that can extinguish your right of liberty, of speech, of thought, of action, and of religion. A weapon whose use is only dictated by the conscience of the wielder.

For what it is worth, my opposition to court-packing is is not limited to plans put forward by liberal Democrats. I first wrote about the subject when prominent conservative law professor Steven Calabresi and his coauthor Shams Hirji put forward a plan for Republicans to pack the lower federal courts back in 2017. It was a bad idea when raised by some on the right two years ago, and it's no better now when it is gathering steam on the left.

Undermining judicial independence might be a feature of court-packing rather than a bug if you believe that judicial review does more harm than good, in any event (as do a few legal scholars on both the right and the left). Such people contend we would have a a freer and more just society if the courts let the political branches of government do as they please. I believe that is a dangerous delusion, for reasons I summarized here:

For all their serious differences and very real flaws, mainstream liberal and mainstream conservative jurists still agree on many important questions, including protection of a wide range of freedom speech, basic civil liberties, and ensuring a modicum of separation of powers, among others. History shows that these are the sorts of restraints on government power that the executive (sometimes backed by Congress) is likely to break during times of crisis, or when they have much-desired partisan agendas to pursue. Such actions are especially likely if the president is a populist demagogue with authoritarian impulses. And, as the current occupant of the White House demonstrates, the safeguards against such people getting power are not nearly as strong as we might have thought before 2016. As specialists in comparative politics emphasize, it is no accident that court-packing is a standard tool of authoritarian populists seeking to undermine liberal democracy, recently used in such countries as Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela.

As a libertarian, I have a long list of reservations about both conventional liberal judges and conventional conservative ones. But even if the judiciary is staffed by flawed jurists, it is still a valuable safeguard against illiberalism and authoritarianism.

Some liberals who value judicial review generally might believe that conservative judges will not act to curb the abuses of Trump and other Republican presidents. If so, it might be better to risk blowing up the judiciary than allow conservatives to continue to have a majority on the Supreme Court.

It is indeed true that conservative judges have sometimes let Trump get away with violations of the Constitution, most notably in the egregious travel ban case. But conservative Republican judicial appointees (along with liberal Democratic ones) have done much to curb the administration's excesses in other important cases. Notable examples include the numerous rulings against Trump's attempts to coerce sanctuary cities, the recent Ninth Circuit decision against the administration's efforts to severely restrict migrants' opportunities to apply for asylum (authored by prominent conservative judge Jay Bybee), and a variety of decisions on such important issues as DACA, the administration's family-separation policy (struck down by a Republican-appointeed judge who ordered the administration to reunite the separated children with their families), and freedom of speech. If Trump had had a free hand to pack the courts as he likes, things would likely have been much worse. And the same goes for future presidents inclined to abuse their power.

Some on the left argue that the Democrats can expand the size of the Court without generating retaliation in kind by Republicans if they repackage court-packing as "court balancing" or some other similar euphemism. This is unlikely to work, for reasons I discussed here. Those attracted to such ideas should consider whether they themselves would forego retaliation the GOP tried to pull a similar trick.

Fortunately, the left is far from monolithic when it comes to court-packing. As the above quotes by Laurence Tribe and Corey Booker reveal, some liberals do recognize the danger. Other notable liberal critics of court-packing include former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer, columnist Damon Linker (who calls it "the dumbest Democratic idea yet") and well-known legal scholar Richard Primus. Whether Democrats actually move forward with court-packing the next time they have a chance to do so depends in large part on who becomes the next Democratic president and whether he or she decides to make this an important part of the party's agenda.

Some Democrats are instead promoting other, far more defensible, reforms to the Supreme Court. For example, Corey Booker has called for imposing 18-year term limits on the justices. I have no problem with that idea, which enjoys widespread (though certainly not universal) support from legal scholars on different sides of the political spectrum, such as Sanford Levinson on the left, and Steve Calabresi on the right. It would limit the power of individual justices without giving the president and Congress a blank check to pack the Court as they like.

Beto O'Rourke's plan to increase the size of the court to 15 justices (mentioned above) is far less problematic than standard court-packing proposals. Because it would require a balance between five Democratic and five Republican justices, with five more chosen by the first ten, it would not enable either the president or Congress to simply pack the Court with their own minions. There are, however, many practical problems with the plan. For example, it is not clear how the Democratic and Republican justices would be selected. In addition, if independents or third parties ever gain a significant foothold in Congress, they would be shut out of the judicial selection process. O'Rourke's proposal would also require a constitutional amendment to enact, which I think is highly unlikely to happen.

On the other side of the political spectrum, GOP Senator Marco Rubio plans to propose a constitutional amendment limiting the Supreme Court's membership to nine justices, which would prevent future court-packing. I am happy to support any such amendment. But I doubt that it can get enacted without some sort of quid pro quo for the Democrats. If it were up to me, I would be willing to pay a price to remove the danger of court-packing forever. But most Republican politician probably think otherwise.

For the moment, therefore, the main barrier to court-packing is the longstanding political norm against it. It has lasted for almost 150 years, and survived an assault by Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the most popular presidents in American history. The next Democratic president is unlikely to be as commanding a figure as FDR was. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is arguably more ideologically cohesive now than in the 1930s, and the relative youth of the conservative Supreme Court justices (combined with increased life expectancy) makes it less likely that the Democrats can quickly retake control of the Supreme Court by "natural" means in the near future, than was the case back in 1937. And we should not underestimate the risk that liberal anger over the Court could help generate a "crisis of legitimacy" at some point in the next few years, which in turn could pave the way for court-packing. Nonetheless, I am guardedly optimistic that court-packing can still be staved off. But that happy outcome is more likely the more people understand the gravity of the danger.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Genital grabbing didn't hurt our current Prez

Guess history was on his side.  One could argue cigars didn't really harm our 42nd president.  Or stained clothing of his very young employee for that matter.  After all, he did not have s*x with that women, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

It’s not packing the Court if there’s no Constitutionally defined judge limit.

FTA:

Quote

On the other side of the political spectrum, GOP Senator Marco Rubio plans to propose a constitutional amendment limiting the Supreme Court's membership to nine justices, which would prevent future court-packing. I am happy to support any such amendment.

I will be contacting my elected federal representative and senators, urging them to support Mr. Rubio in this endeavor.

 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 12:22 PM, Muda69 said:

FTA:

I will be contacting my elected federal representative and senators, urging them to support Mr. Rubio in this endeavor.

 

Good luck getting that through a Democratic House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/435520-buttigieg-surges-to-third-place-in-new-iowa-poll

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) surged into third place in a poll of the Iowa caucus released Sunday.

Eleven percent of likely Democratic Iowa caucusgoers surveyed by Emerson Polling said they would pick Buttigieg to be their 2020 presidential nominee.

Overall, Buttigieg placed third behind Former Vice President Joe Biden, at 25 percent, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), at 24 percent.

The only other candidate to receive double-digit support was Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who was the choice for 10 percent of respondents.

"The biggest surprise in this poll is Mayor Pete, last week we saw him inching up in our national poll, and now he’s in double digits in Iowa, America is going to be asking who is 'Mayor Pete'?" Spencer Kimball, director of the Emerson Poll, said.

Buttigieg, who has formed an exploratory committee but has not officially declared, was polling at 0 percent in Emerson's January survey of Iowa, which shows his recognition and support have grown significantly in the last few months.

The Indiana mayor's campaign cleared the donations threshold to participate in presidential debates earlier this month.

His performance in Sunday's Emerson poll was boosted by placing second in the 18-to-29-year-old demographic, with 22 percent. Sanders led that category with 44 percent.

“If Buttigieg is able to maintain his momentum, his candidacy appears to be pulling from the same demographic of young voters as Sanders, and that could become a problem for Sanders,” Kimball said.

Emerson surveyed 249 likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers between March 21 and 24. The margin of error for the sample is 6.2 percentage points. 

 

So if Mayor Pete stays in, it appears he becomes a problem for Bernie........How long will the Dems let him stay?  OR - will they keep him around to bring Bernie down enough for Biden to surge?  Funny thing is, neither Mayor Pete nor Biden has officially announced yet.....

Edited by swordfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Mayor Pete on a town hall meeting on CNN. I was very impressed. At that time, I thought this is by far the most formidable opponent to Trump that is running so far. He is not a career politician, is a veteran, is highly intelligent, and communicates very well. I think he could alsopick up support from a group I think will be the X factor in 2020; the Republicans who do not like Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Irishman said:

I watched Mayor Pete on a town hall meeting on CNN. I was very impressed. At that time, I thought this is by far the most formidable opponent to Trump that is running so far. He is not a career politician, is a veteran, is highly intelligent, and communicates very well. I think he could alsopick up support from a group I think will be the X factor in 2020; the Republicans who do not like Trump. 

But I don't think many principled Republicans/conservatives would go for Mr. Buttigieg's support of the Green New Deal and Medicare For All.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete Buttigieg: Tortured Libertarian: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/pete-buttigieg-tortured-libertarian/

Quote

At the risk of undermining his appeal to the liberal Democratic primary electorate, it is hard not to appreciate what Pete Buttegieg has brought to the 2020 presidential race.

The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Buttegieg does not hold an office that traditionally serves as a springboard to the presidency. But then, neither did the current president. Buttegieg is thoughtful, even intellectual. He’s a Rhodes scholar, attended the University of Oxford, served his country in the Navy and was deployed to Afghanistan, and worked in the private sector before returning to his hometown where he took up politics. He’s a married gay man, but he has steadfastly refused to become mired in the Democrats’ woke-off, and he’s managed to avoid engaging with his fellow presidential candidates in the culture war’s unwinnable arms race.

And while his fellow presidential aspirants are pandering to the lowest common denominator, promising the world and ignoring constitutional impediments, Pete Buttegieg is talking about ideas. Among them, the very concept of liberty itself.

....

But Buttegieg’s libertarianism knows some rather confusing bounds. “We know that your neighbor can make you unfree,” he said. Okay, true enough. The essential purpose of law is to preserve the boundary between where your rights end and those of another begin. “Justice is the end of government,” James Madison wrote in Federalist 51. “It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” In sum, it is liberty that must be the primary consideration. When it conflicts with justice, it is liberty that must prevail because, without freedom, there is no justice. It sounds like the mayor has a solid grasp on what constitutes freedom. At least, right up until he lost the plot.

“Your cable company can make you unfree,” he said. Here, the mayor demonstrates his Democratic bona fides and exposes why Democrats are not going to be “the party of freedom” anytime soon. The conservative/libertarian definition of “freedom from” is almost exclusively negative. Their “freedom from” is freedom from activities that impose obligations on other parties. Democrats, too, endorse a form of “freedom from,” but the rights they advocate are positive; they impose obligations on neighbors, associations, and the state to provide certain conditions that constitute what they subjectively define as optimal outcomes—not merely opportunity.

Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt articulated the notion that Americans should enjoy “freedom from want,” the Democratic Party’s idealized conception of liberty has conflicted with the ideals articulated by the Founding generation. If you believe that your cable company can make you unfree, you have adopted an expansive definition of what constitutes freedom that now includes voluntary association. That’s a definition of freedom the Founders would not recognize.

This philosophical inclination likely informs Buttegieg’s hostility toward the concept of “regulatory capture.” That’s the idea that powerful corporate interests can reach a point of critical mass where they begin to execute undue influence over local, state, and federal government, avoid the scrutiny of their sympathetic overseers, and defer their operating costs with taxpayer-provided benefits. This is surely a problem, but it’s one that is the product of a government large enough to distribute those benefits without incurring the voters’ wrath. What do these interests want from the clientelism? Protection from competition. The answer, then, to regulatory capture isn’t to increase the number of hostage regulators, but to decrease these agencies’ capacity to deliver for their captors.

Buttegieg is a thoughtful politician, and his intellectual journey seems to have led him halfway to small government libertarianism. Perhaps nothing better illustrates this internal conflict better than his response when asked where he stands on fast-food chain Chick-Fil-A, whose owners oppose same-sex marriages like his own. “I do not approve of their politics, but I kind of approve of their chicken,” he said. “Maybe, if nothing else, I can build that bridge.” Maybe he can, but it doesn’t seem like the modern Democratic Party wants any hand in its construction.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

One thing about PB - he is incredibly intelligent, and if at all possible will not let himself get pigeon-holed into a character of folly in the Democrat Party.  SF doesn't hardly align at all with his Liberal/left political views, and absolutely despises the "smart streets" (roundabouts) in South Bend, and don't get me started on "Lime Bikes" (google it) in South Bend where some of the bikes wound up in the river, but I have to respect his demeanor and his ability to sniff out the traps being set for him in the Democrat campaign so far.  He would make a worthy adversary as a counterpart to Pence in the debates if he is unable to get the nomination, but becomes a VP pick.

Here is a humorous take from Trevor Noah:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a great and entertaining video. Hard to beat the free publicity. I agree that he would be formidable opponent. He may be a VP candidate this time around, but I would not be surprised to see him emerge as THE candidate. I have to admit the visual of a debate with Pence brought a smile. We know that Pence is a bit socially awkward, and to see him share a stage with an openly gay opponent could be classic. He looked very uncomfortable with the Irish Prime Minister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democratic Dystopias: http://reason.com/archives/2019/03/29/democratic-dystopias

Quote

From his opening campaign declaration that "the American dream is dead," to his creatively capitalized warning just last month that "without strong Borders we don't have a Country," Donald Trump has proven again and again that an apocalyptic style works in contemporary American politics.

The president's 2020 challengers, alas, have followed Trump's lead.

"We are at an inflection point in in the history of our world," Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) pronounced when kicking off her candidacy in January. "We are here because the American dream and our American democracy are under attack and on the line like never before."

Voters in the 1864 primaries might beg to differ, but that's not stopping the presidential primary field from serial declarations of catastrophe.

"Today, millions and millions and millions of American families are … struggling to survive in a system that has been rigged by the wealthy and the well-connected," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said last month when announcing her presidential bid. "Millions of families can barely breathe."

Imagine the tracheal stress if unemployment was above 4%!

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been hurling paranoiac thunderbolts at the "oligarchy" for as long as he's been in politics. "We have created a system which is basically out of control," he lamented in February to CBS' John Dickerson, which is why "Now it's time to complete that revolution."

We have grown accustomed to politicians of both parties, especially those not in power, drastically overselling what Barack Obama (channeling Martin Luther King) was fond of calling the "fierce urgency of now" — calls to action that need immediate attention — usually in the form of voting for the politician sounding the alarm. Republicans heading into the 2016 election breathed a manic new energy into the tradition, beginning with Trump's first rant about Mexican "rapists," which set off a bidding war to see who could bring the most crazy to the visa-policy debate. (My favorite came from first generation Indian American Bobby Jindal: "Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.")

With his bottomless reservoir of hellscape hyperbole, Trump demonstrated daily that the apocalyptic style was a ticket in alienated America for leapfrogging more staid establishment politicians.

Those conservative intellectuals who didn't leap off the Trump train learned by the time of his nomination to love the hyperbole, including most notably in the Claremont Review of Books' "Flight 93 Election." That article, written under a pseudonym by Michael Anton, who later joined and then left the Trump administration, analogized a Hillary Clinton presidency to a plane hijacked by suicidal terrorists. "Charge the cockpit or you die," Anton counseled. "You may die anyway. … [But] if you don't try, death is certain."

Since every winning strategy in America's two-party political system ends up being copied by the losing side, the Democrats' march toward a paranoid dystopia should not surprise.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) has been amply rewarded in the media ecosystem for making casual suggestions that the president of the United States is working for another team. Fellow committee member Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) told Vanity Fair in January that "over the last six months, there has only been more evidence that the president has been acting on Russia's behalf."

And if early response to the Mueller report summary is any guide, don't expect much left-of-center walkback from the past two years of increasingly conspiratorial speculation about Trump/Russia.

Heading into 2020, we should expect more and louder howling into the wind, even from the most professionally upbeat 2020 Democrats.

"Society does not value work anymore," Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) warned in South Carolina on Saturday. "We have a real crisis in this country over financial stability."

Even Beto O'Rourke, in between countertop jumps and motivational rah-rah, is accessing the dark side. "The civil war in Syria, the wildfires in California — we literally are making it happen," the toothsome Texan said in New Hampshire last week. "And unless we act in the next 12 years … there will be a hell visited upon our kids and grandkids and the generations that follow."

Why do people talk like this? Because it speaks to our species. Humans are hardwired to believe that the sky will fall, no matter how much cleaner, healthier and richer our environs become over time. Our evolutionary parents and grandparents, after all, survived precisely because they suspected that that rattle in the bushes might well be a sabertooth tiger.

But the moral of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is not that there is no wolf, but rather that warnings should be saved for when the beast actually arrives. The president's apocalyptic fantasia is disreputable on its face, and leads to bad policies. Democrats should resist the temptation to emulate what they despise.

But the Democratic side of the uni-party won't resist the temptation.  If you can't beat 'em then join 'em.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2019 at 10:42 AM, Muda69 said:

But I don't think many principled Republicans/conservatives would go for Mr. Buttigieg's support of the Green New Deal and Medicare For All.

 

Yes, because principled conservatives/Republicans would never vote for any candidate or elected official who'd support those ideas or other lib notions like imposing high trade tariffs or running up huge federal budget deficits.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Yes, because principled conservatives/Republicans would never vote for any candidate or elected official who'd support those ideas or other lib notions like imposing high trade tariffs or running up huge federal budget deficits.... 

Yep, more evidence to vote for a third party candidate instead of the uni-party.  Or not vote at all.

 

  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Yep, more evidence to vote for a third party candidate instead of the uni-party.  Or not vote at all.

 

You tout this often, but I'm not seeing voting third-party as somehow being a magic bullet to the woes of a mainly two-party system.  It makes a very big leap to assume that because someone doesn't have a D or R behind their name that they are somehow all of a sudden pure political moralists.  As Lord Acton was quoted, "Power tends to corrupt ..."  We already have evidence of folks who are third-party or third-party relativists and they are often considered extremists.  Recall that Sanders is an independent, but I don't see third-party folks here on GID jumping to support his views in total.  AOC is similar in the sense that she's even further away from mainstream Democrats and so might also be considered a third-party-lite person too.  Rand Paul is third-party-lite, but he's not exactly been the poster guy for third-party support.  I mean Romney has a better record voting against Trump than Paul does and Romney's mainstream GOP.   About the closest one to being more third-partyish might be someone like Angus King from Maine.  Also, given that third-party candidates come in all flavors, voting third-party in general "just because" seems almost as flawed as voting straight ticket.  It would seem similar to voting for someone from Texas when the current White House occupant is from New York because Texas and New York are different.  

I've voted third party before, but it didn't have much to do with the idea that the person wasn't D or R; it was tied to the person.  Similarly, I've voted R before too.  Again, in the analysis of doing so, it was tied to the person and not the letter behind their name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, foxbat said:

You tout this often, but I'm not seeing voting third-party as somehow being a magic bullet to the woes of a mainly two-party system.  It makes a very big leap to assume that because someone doesn't have a D or R behind their name that they are somehow all of a sudden pure political moralists.  As Lord Acton was quoted, "Power tends to corrupt ..."  We already have evidence of folks who are third-party or third-party relativists and they are often considered extremists.  Recall that Sanders is an independent, but I don't see third-party folks here on GID jumping to support his views in total.  AOC is similar in the sense that she's even further away from mainstream Democrats and so might also be considered a third-party-lite person too.  Rand Paul is third-party-lite, but he's not exactly been the poster guy for third-party support.  I mean Romney has a better record voting against Trump than Paul does and Romney's mainstream GOP.   About the closest one to being more third-partyish might be someone like Angus King from Maine.  Also, given that third-party candidates come in all flavors, voting third-party in general "just because" seems almost as flawed as voting straight ticket.  It would seem similar to voting for someone from Texas when the current White House occupant is from New York because Texas and New York are different.  

I've voted third party before, but it didn't have much to do with the idea that the person wasn't D or R; it was tied to the person.  Similarly, I've voted R before too.  Again, in the analysis of doing so, it was tied to the person and not the letter behind their name.

I haven't encountered anyone at the national level in the past 30 years with a uni-party designation that I believed deserved my vote.  When that person comes along I'll let you know.

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273361/mayor-buttigieg-runs-president-while-his-city-daniel-greenfield?fbclid=IwAR1-_i2HOqlIf1dByKfNh6wtakYzFUaQAE4bf_a-Q8x5UgP1KUtXE-mxDtk

On March 31, a South Bend grandma brought her grandson to the hospital. The 11-month-old baby boy had been shot. His grandmother’s car had also taken fire. It was another early morning in South Bend.

Around the same time, Mayor Buttigieg, was toting up the $7 million in donations from his charm offensive as his bid for the 2020 Democrat nomination got underway. The national media never bothered reporting the shooting of an 11-month-old boy in the city he was supposed to be running, but instead confined its coverage of South Bend matters to a publicity stunt wedding officiated by Buttigieg.

The horrifying shooting of an 11-month-old boy on the millennial mayor’s watch was not an unusual incident. In the last few days, even as the media was gushing over Buttigieg’s presidential ambitions, two Indiana University South Bend players were injured in a shooting on Notre Dame Avenue, a blind date ended in a shooting, and yet another shooting added to the bloody toll in the real South Bend.

Those are quite a few shootings for a city of barely 100,000 people. But South Bend is a violent place.

While Chicago is notorious for its murder rate, in 2015, Buttigieg’s South Bend actually topped Chicago’s 16.4 homicides per 100,000 people with a homicide rate of 16.79 per 100,000 people. Those numbers put Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s city on the list of the top 30 murder capitals in the country for the year.

In January, three shootings in one week killed two teens and left a woman paralyzed from the waist down. In one summer week, the casualties included a 12 and a 13-year-old. Last year, a man shot 6 people when he opened fire on 50 partygoers in a house and was sentenced to 100 years in jail.

By 2017, shootings had risen 20% on Mayor Buttigieg’s watch. Rapes increased 27% and aggravated assaults rose from 183 in 2013, the year before Buttigieg took office, to a stunning 563 assaults.

It’s hard to know which are flying faster, bullets in South Bend or dollars into Buttigieg’s campaign.

Some of these stories, particularly the recent shootings of two baseball players which shocked Indiana University, should have been covered by the national media, which instead chose to broadcast Buttigieg’s publicity stunt of officiating at a pregnant woman’s wedding in a hospital. Had the media stuck around, it could have reported on the trail of shooting victims making their way into the hospital.

But reporting on an 11-month-old being shot in their hot new candidate’s city wouldn’t be as much fun.

The media’s bias has never been subtle, but its disinterest in a presidential candidate’s track record has never been this blatant. Mayor Buttigieg’s candidacy is being covered as if he weren’t the mayor of an actual city with actual problems. Instead his prospects have been covered purely in terms of his identity, a gay millennial, his past career before taking office, and his current witticisms and applause lines.

At no point in time does the media stop to tell the viewers and readers it is regaling with stories of Mayor Buttigieg’s charm that he runs the most dangerous city in Indiana, recently rated as one of the “worst cities to live”, where nearly half the residents live at the poverty level, and even the water is bad.

These are significant data points in the track record of a politician aspiring to run the entire country.

The media keeps asking Mayor Buttigieg which of its wishlist of radical socialist policies he’s willing to sign on to, the Green New Deal, eliminating private health insurance, and freeing more convicts, rather than asking him which policies he used to try and solve problems in South Bend. And how they worked.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg has tried to pass off South Bend’s crime problem as a national issue. But South Bend’s violent crime rates, double the Indiana and American average, run counter to national trends.

Buttigieg responded by doubling down on Group Violence Intervention, a trendy community outreach strategy to gang members, which despite being widely touted by the media, doesn’t work. Gimmicks, ranging from AI to wonkery, were rolled out and the shootings, the rapes and assaults have continued.

Mayor Buttigieg excels at buzzwords and gimmicks. He’s just terrible at actually running a city.

That’s why property crime in South Bend is rising. It’s why the city is overrun with gangs. It’s why South Bend is poor, blighted and miserable. Violence is just one of the many symptoms of Buttigieg’s failures.

South Bend’s top employers are the local schools and hospitals, and the local government. And a local casino. Unemployment and taxes are higher than average. Meanwhile the average income is below $20,000. The poverty rate is 25%. African-American poverty rates are double. Hispanic poverty rates are 10% higher than the national average. And even Asian-Americans are poorer than usual in South Bend.

Buttigieg’s failed city is a tragic counterpart to Lake Wobegon where everything is below average.

The media has ignored the reality in South Bend while touting Buttigieg as a rival for the hearts of Rust Belt voters. But Buttigieg hasn’t won by winning over traditional Rust Belt voters. South Bend’s white population has dropped steadily on his watch and the city is on track for majority minority status. The remaining white population is skewed toward a white lefty elite coming for its educational institutions.

South Bend isn’t a typical Rust Belt city. It’s a typical blue city, divided sharply between poor minorities and a leftist elite without any of the culture or tech industries that keep New York or Los Angeles going. Its traditional population has been leaving steadily and that departure only accelerated during Buttigieg’s disastrous time in office.

Much has been made of Buttigieg winning reelection by 80%. This isn’t a testament to his unique charisma. Democrats have had a lock on the mayorality in South Bend for two generations.

The media cheers that Buttigieg won 80% of the vote. It neglects to mention that it was 8,515 votes. That’s about the 8,369 votes that came in during the primaries. Buttigieg raised $337,161 dollars while his Republican opponent, Kelly Jones, had raised $584 dollars. The millennial wunderkind needed $40 bucks a vote while his unknown Republican opponent managed at around a quarter a vote.

Like South Bend’s poverty and crime statistics, these are figures that the media doesn’t report because it would reveal that their shiny new candidate is a hollow façade with nothing inside except spin.

Mayor Buttigieg isn’t winning 80% because he’s universally beloved. That percentage isn’t a testament to his popularity, but to a political system in which hardly anybody except a few lefties bothers to vote.

The truth about “Mayor Pete” is that he’s the son of a Marxist prof working in Notre Dame who used the death throes of a dying city to polish his brand and then jump into the 2020 race over dead bodies.

South Bend is a human tragedy. And while Buttigieg isn’t solely responsible for his woes, he has exploited it, instead of trying to fix it, using buzzwords and gimmicks to build a national brand.

That’s something he has in common with fellow failed hipster mayor and 2020 candidate, Cory Booker.

But Senator Booker was at least clever enough to put a little distance between his tenure in Newark and his 2020 bid. Mayor Buttigieg is betting that the national media won’t bother looking at South Bend.

So far he’s been proven right.

The media keeps touting Buttigieg’s Ivy League credentials, his identity as a gay politician, and his charm. When it mentions South Bend, it’s only to claim that he “turned it around” and that he won his last election by 80%. South Bend hasn’t been turned around. Downtown has gotten a hipster revamp, while the rest of South Bend chokes on crime, violence and misery. But Buttigieg knows that the national media will never bother doing more than reporting on new bike paths and an organic grocery.

The 11-month-old boy who came into the hospital with a wound in his shoulder won’t catch their eye. But as Mayor Buttigieg keeps raising money hand over fist, South Bend continues to bleed and die.

And Buttigieg is hoping that he can sneak into the White House before the blood gets on his hands.

Those of us near to South Bend already know this.  South Bend has (even before Mayor Pete) been crime-ridden.  He just didn't do much to fix that, except for Round-abouts and Smart Streets......and Lime Bikes.....Trendy........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that Mr. Buttigieg isn't "gay enough" for some people on the left:  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/pete-buttigieg-gay-diversity-white-male-candidate.html

The insanity on the Left. He’s gay, but is he gay enough? He’s openly gay in an openly gay marriage, but is he gay enough? What else does he need to do, be dancing onstage during the debates in a tutu? Does the left want a mockery of a stereotype or something?

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

It appears that Mr. Buttigieg isn't "gay enough" for some people on the left:  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/pete-buttigieg-gay-diversity-white-male-candidate.html

The insanity on the Left. He’s gay, but is he gay enough? He’s openly gay in an openly gay marriage, but is he gay enough? What else does he need to do, be dancing onstage during the debates in a tutu? Does the left want a mockery of a stereotype or something?

 

Welcome to identity politics.....

Mayor Pete is very intelligent, so it is sad (but it was pretty predictable) to see him sink into the mire of national politics like he is doing.  The City of South Bend and him (professionally) have benefited immensely due to his previous relationship first with Governor(s) Pence and now Holcomb and the Republicans that pretty much controlled Indiana politics.  It was amazing to see him work effectively and successfully in that environment.  I had hoped he would avoid identity politics and point to his bipartisanship working with the other side, but he is falling into the role the DNC would like him to play - the alter-ego to Mike Pence - who will absolutely crush him if he continues this path.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...