Another Extremist

Openly gay South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg was supposed to be “a moderate” alternative. Not quite, it seems:

Mr. Buttigieg argued the deal would actually boost the economy, including the industrial Midwest. For instance, his county recently increased the number of union jobs in the auto industry through electric-car manufacturing.
“I think a Green New Deal would support that,” he said.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/10/pete-buttigieg-endorses-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-s/

Democrats struggled Sunday to defend the Green New Deal after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s botched roll-out threatened to turn the sweeping climate plan into a national punchline.
Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat running for the 2020 presidential nomination, called it “the right beginning” and “right direction”…
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/10/democrats-stumble-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-n/


More. If he ever was a moderate, he isn’t one now. From the Washington Post:

“His message for 2020 will be centered on a clean, sharp break with the Lite Republicanism that Democrats embraced in the 1990s. While older voters still tell pollsters they favor keeping taxes low and ambitions modest, millennials overwhelmingly support Medicare-for-all, free college, heavy spending to tackle poverty and climate change, and major infrastructure investments — social democracy, in a nutshell.”

6 Comments for “Another Extremist”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I hope that this post will put an end to the endless complaints that gays and lesbians on the left fail to support “openly gay” Republicans running for office and/or are mean to Log Cabin Republicans (see, among the seemingly endless posts lambasting left-leaning gays and lesbians who vote along ideological lines rather than gay identity lines, the following: “The DeMaio Lie” by Stephen H. Miller on June 13, 2015; “DeMaio’s Fight” by Stephen H. Miller on April 28, 2014; “Exclusionary Pride” by Stephen H. Miller on June 26, 2016; “Slandering DeMaoi Worked” by Stephen H. Miller on November 24, 2015; “Gay Republicans Who Might Win Drive LGBT Democrats Berserk” by Stephen H. Miller on March 9, 2014; “The Victory Fund’s Spurious ‘Bipartisanship’” by Stephen H. Miller on December 21, 2014; “Midterm Election Reflection”, by Stephen H. Miller on November 5, 2014; “Strange Bedfellows” by Stephen H. Miller on October 29, 2014; “Politics as Blood Sport” by Stephen H. Miller on October 9, 2014).

    The idea that gays and lesbians should support gay and lesbian candidates just because they are gay or lesbian, ignoring the candidates ideology, is stupid.

    Log Cabin Republicans know that, as evidenced by their fierce opposition to Jared Polis over the years, and many off-the-street gay conservatives know that, as well.

    Stephen is, apparently, an exception. I hope this post signals a move in the direction of common sense, gays and lesbians judging gay and lesbian candidates on the merits, not on sexual orientation.

    • posted by PaulK on

      So, Tom can criticize Stephen for not supporting the quixotic presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg (or, in fact, pointing out that he’s no moderate, despite certain media claims to the contrary). But Stephen can’t criticize the LGBT establishment for not supporting races where a gay Republican has a real shot or, as in the case of Carl DeMaio’s race for a House seat from San Diego, where he was leading before LGBT progressives starting hurling dirt which, post-election, turned out to be lies?

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      So, Tom can criticize Stephen for not supporting the quixotic presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg (or, in fact, pointing out that he’s no moderate, despite certain media claims to the contrary). But Stephen can’t criticize the LGBT establishment for not supporting races where a gay Republican has a real shot or, as in the case of Carl DeMaio’s race for a House seat from San Diego, where he was leading before LGBT progressives starting hurling dirt which, post-election, turned out to be lies?

      I’m saying (as always) that gays and lesbians should be able to support (or not support) gay and lesbian candidates on the basis of the candidates’ merits rather than on the basis of identity politics. Gays and lesbians who align with the policy positions of liberal candidates should be able to vote for those candidates without being attacked as somehow disloyal to gay/lesbian identity politics, and gays and lesbians who align with the policy positions of conservative candidates should be able to vote for those candidates without being attacked as somehow disloyal to gay/lesbian identity politics. The converse, of course, is also true. Conservative gays and lesbians should not be expected to support liberal gay and lesbian candidates because those candidates are gay/lesbian, and liberal gays and lesbians should not be expected to support conservative gay and lesbian candidates because those candidates are gay/lesbian.

      Stephen has consistently attacked gays and lesbians who align with the Democratic Party for failing to support Republican gay/lesbian candidates.

      That’s fine, I suppose, if Stephen adheres to identity politics, putting a candidate’s sexual orientation above his/her positions. I don’t. I don’t vote for candidates, whether or not gay/lesbian, whose positions don’t square with my own.

      But here’s the rub — Stephen advocates for identity politics (he doesn’t call it that, but that is what it is) in the case of Republican candidates, but doesn’t follow through when it comes to gay/lesbian candidates from from the other side of the political coin.

      When it comes to Democratic candidates like David Cicilline, Sean Maloney, Mark Pocan, Mark Takano, Angie Craig, Sharice Davids, Katie Hill, Chris Pappas, Tammy Balwin, Kristen Simema, and Jared Polis, Stephen takes the opposite position, the position that gays and lesbians should not support those candidates because they are Democrats.

      That’s all I’m pointing out. Stephen’s position is inconsistent. You might even say that it is hypocritical.

      I note for the record that Log Cabin Republicans don’t fall into that trap. LCR supports Republican gay/lesbian candidates and opposes Democratic gay/lesbian candidates, openly and above board. But it doesn’t go after liberal gays and lesbians for supporting liberal gay/lesbian candidates. LCR makes the case on the merits. I don’t agree with LCR most of the time (for example, in the case of Jared Polis, and longstanding target for LCR negative campaigning), but LCR doesn’t engage, as far as I know, in identity politics.

      We’ve been around this track about a million times on IGF. It is time for you to understand something basic: Roughly 75-80% of gays and lesbians consistently vote Democrat. Most of them do so because they don’t agree with the positions/policies of the Republican Party. That’s not going to change until Republican positions/policies change, so get over it or get to work and change your party. We changed ours.

  2. posted by Anthony Mallerdino on

    Pete Buttigieg is the outgoing mayor of South Bend, Indiana not Indianapolis.

  3. posted by Jorge on

    Supporting the fad of the year does not make one extremist. Opposing everything AOC says just because she said does not make one independent.

Comments are closed.