Different View on ‘Mayor Pete’

Why Democratic Party thought leaders and the media elite are embracing him, and why they moved quickly to tamp down the left-progressives that didn’t find him sufficiently intersectional.


12 Comments for “Different View on ‘Mayor Pete’”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I suppose this post was inevitable.

    When Buttigieg was seen as a novelty rather than a possible contender, conservative homosexuals portrayed him as a gay victim, attacking “left-progressives” for finding him insufficiently intersectional.

    When the Iowa polls and fundraising totals subsequently showed that Buttigeig might be a contender, conservative homosexuals changed tactics and went all Jared Polis on him.

    The only worse thing for conservative homosexuals than a gay Democrat being taken seriously, apparently, is a gay Democrat being taken seriously.

    I’m snickering, Stephen, but not with you.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Calling members of a gang that has beheaded people and ripped out hearts “animals” should not be controversial.

    Are we talking Muslims or Mexicans? Or maybe a more traditional target?

    It hasn’t been that long since Buttegeig would have been described as subhuman and his sexual life compared to that of rapists and/or animals.

    Have conservative homosexuals gone completely nuts? Human beings are not animals.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Have conservative homosexuals gone completely nuts? Human beings are not animals.

      Heavens, no. American xenophobia and imperialism and en utero toxicity made them that way.

      Um, that was meant to apply to the animals, not the homocons.

      People of a certain rightward bent have a hard time reconciling mercy and judgement and go a considerable ways beyond “Let the maker sort them out” ethics. This is nothing new. It’s why the better religions stay out of politics.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      The astounding thing about the people who are insistent that whoever is their target de jour are not human beings is that most of them claim to be adherents of a religion (along with that religion’s parent religion, Judaism, and sibling religion, Islam) that teaches and preaches imagio deo. I guess that little detail escaped them. But hell, it escaped them in Judensau days, too. Nothing new under the sun.

  3. posted by Jorge on

    So in other words, he’s a Midwestern Democrat.

    Of the white liberal faction (Does “liberal” still mean something different than “progressive” anymore? Maybe white establishment?).

    This reminds me of Bernie Sanders and his way of wait, listen, and accommodate when he meets resistance by Democrats of differing but not opposing factions, which is rather rare. It is not the Democratic party that is known as the big tent party; Sanders is a rare case of a Democratic presidential candidate who comes from a very narrow faction. Most others are a lot of one thing, a little of everything else. The only thing they usually disagree on at the presidential primary level is the level of partisanship.

    Some bold ideas have been thrown out this time around and we’re about to see if the Democrats can become a party of many different interests, and survive.

    There is at least one problem. President Trump spent two years purging his administration of enemy establishment and alt-right Republicans alike. Will President Pete be cut from the same cloth when he enters the Oval Office?

  4. posted by Kosh III on

    I read the IndyStar article; Mayor Pete comes out pretty good. Nevertheless, the Animals Formerly Known As Conservatives(sarcasm alert) will continue their lies and half-truths until they find another target to hate.

  5. posted by JohnInCA on

    A week ago it was “why won’t progressives just be nice to him!”
    and now it’s “why are progressives being so nice to him?!”

    Kinda reinforcing that I was right when I dismissed your blog post with:

    I always find it weird when folks write long articles about how other people are wrong and immoral for not supporting the same person they themselves are not supporting.

  6. posted by Jason on

    “I always find it weird when folks write long articles about how other people are wrong and immoral for not supporting the same person they themselves are not supporting.”

    Stephen made it clear in his previous post on “Mayor Pete” that he did not support him or agree with his policy views, but that the lefty attacks on him for being a white guy who was insufficiently LGBTQ transgressive were an interesting/important cultural development. Do you disagree?

    In the new post, he delves into why he doesn’t support him. Where is the contradiction? Do the critics here have anything to say other than their ongoing nasty sarcasm which they believe is an effective rebuttal? The left no longer knows how to engage and argue, only how to insult and then to send each other congrats on their insults.

    The question of attacking Trump for labeling MS-13 as animals, given some of their horrific crimes, is legit whether you agree or disagree — and I see both sides of that. If calling people animals were ever justified, however, it would be for gang rape and torture/murder. At some point, people surrender their humanity and descend into bestiality, it seems to me. The fact that Buttigieg then claims that a baby minutes before live birth isn’t entitled to be treated as human and that it’s fine to crush its skull as a matter of “choice” makes his condemnation ring hollow and false, IMO.

    • posted by JohnInCA on

      In his earlier post, Miller was complaining that progressives weren’t supporting the same guy he wasn’t supporting.

      Now he’s complaining that progressives aren’t supporting him.

      It’s a Catch-22, and reveals Miller to be a bad-faith actor.

      Why should I, or anyone else, care what a bad-faith actor is whining about? The only way to placate him is to be a Republican, and he can’t even be arsed to make that case.

      • posted by JohnInCA on

        Should read: “Now he’s complaining that progressives are supporting him.”

  7. posted by acoolerclimate on

    It’s interesting how many times Stephen complained that Democrats never support a gay candidate just because he is conservative, but now he’s saying we shouldn’t support a gay candidate because he’s progressive. This makes no logical sense. You are always telling us we should support our gay candidates.

    Pete has a stellar background. Military, religion, marriage, language, schooling, virtually no one else has accomplished what he has done. After the horror of Trump, it would be so awesome to have someone like Pete as President. Just for the fact he’s gay would create immeasurable benefits to up and coming young gays out there who never see anyone like them in power.

    Not to mention I’m seriously jealous of the guy, (I wish I could have accomplished what he has), and at the same time seriously attracted to him (No, I refuse to vote for someone just because I want them), to just wishing I could be him (Younger than me, much more accomplished, cute, and a good speaker, has well thought out ideas, and just seems to be an all around nice guy).

    I can only dream he’ll be our next President.

    I so wish instead of always bashing Democrats and Progressives, Stephen would spend some time extolling the virtue of Republicans and why we should vote for them. I would be fascinated to see a well researched, fact based article on what Trump and the Republicans have accomplished that we should be happy about. All of us in the middle people would love to have something to sway us to either side.

  8. posted by mike king & David Bauler on

    heck, even when a gay Republican runs for president, homocons are strangly silent about the campaign…..im just saying

Comments are closed.