Posted on 02/09/2020 10:24:15 AM PST by conservative98
Pete Buttigieg isn’t going to win You may as well start on his political obituary once you’ve finished with Joe Biden’s
Roger Kimball 8 February 2020 3:49 PM
[Cut]
As Joe Biden once said of his old (but then-future) boss B. Obama, the 38-year-old former Mayor of South Bend is bright, articulate, and cleans up well. But the idea — an idea that is assiduously circulated by his supporters — that he is ‘moderate’ is ridiculous. In fact, those scrambling for the perfect political epitaph for PB might consider ‘moderate’ in scare quotes.
Remember, Mayor Peter is the openly gay son of the editor and translator of Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks. Gramsci’s important contribution to the literature of totalitarian tyranny was his idea that Communist dictatorship could only come to free countries by means of a ‘long march through the institutions’, cultural as well as political. The left has pretty well accomplished this with respect to the universities and the elite cultural institutions of the media and the so-called ‘arts community’. Mayor Pete wants to finish the job through such expedients as packing the Supreme Court with six more seats, abolishing the electoral college (it’s ‘undemocratic’, he says), disarming the populace (a precaution tyrants always take), providing a ‘glide path‘ for the government takeover of healthcare, opening up the borders, and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for college, even for illegal immigrants, whom he also wants to offer amnesty. It’s a start, Comrade.
The truth is, Buttigieg is about as moderate as Bernie Sanders. He comes off as more reasonable than Bernie because he has a more soothing demeanor. (And he comes off as more reasonable than Elizabeth Warren because he does not sound like a screeching harridan whose hectoring voice is like a witch’s nails drawn across a blackboard.) He quotes — and misquotes — scripture. He sounds reasonable, so long as you ponder the timber of his voice and don’t ponder the substance of what he says.
But at the end of the day, this Ivy- and Oxbridge-educated ‘progressive veteran’ is a Gramscian radical. He is there with with Ralph ‘make-’em-comfortable’ Northam on abortion, though he has gotten pretty deft at avoiding the issue. Abortion, in fact, seems to be the one issue on which he wants the government to stay out of our lives. About everything else, it’s all government all the time.
Mayor Pete will have a scintillating couple of months while the media pretends that he might possibly win the nomination. But he can’t, and that will become obvious, I predict, shortly after Super Tuesday. I am really not sure who would have the best chance against Donald Trump in November. I am confident, though, that the sacrificial lamb will not be Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
I can see Bloomberg and Hillary breaking a wishbone (and her cheating) over who should be at the top of the ticket.
However she’s a proven vote-getter (except not enough in the right places), whereas he’s unproven and not very likely to appeal to many outside the extremely blue regions.
Maybe he can buy Greenland and set himself up there.
“I can see Bloomberg and Hillary breaking a wishbone (and her cheating) over who should be at the top of the ticket.”
Yep, and she will hold it up high enough, about 5 ft, so Bloom can hardly reach it.
look - there are crazy voters on the Dem primary and caucus side.
But i cannot believe that the majority want to have free healthcare for illegals, many new taxes, not wanting to cooperate with the feds on illegals committing crimes etc.
Why are the going for the crazy nominees
Yep me too.
I told several people no way would someone with the middle name “Hussein” be elected 7 years after 9/11.............
Dems would have a better chance running Romney.
I agree. I thought the US would not elect a man named “Obama” so soon after Osama Bin Ladin’s 9/11 and I was frankly shocked.
We don’t name ourselves. My opposition to Ibama was not his name. Still I thought it was an unelectable name, similar to “Adolf” or “Judas” maybe.
Well I was wrong obviously. So now maybe I’m wrong about an out and proud fag. Honestly.
The only positive thing I can say about Bernie, and I mean this, is that he does not hide what he is.
I despise what he is. But at least he doesn’t hide it.
I am also very surprised that Warren is doing so badly in NH (being that Mass is next door)
. He's not a fighter. He backs away from confrontation. Doesn't stand his ground. Against Trump? Popcorn futures would go through the roof.
No one here really likes Warren.
Because the nominees are products of our current culture. Stunted millennials, overfeminization, low IQ. They'll vote for anyone who promises them the moon, since they react emotionally rather than intellectually.
Bernie Bros might gnash their teeth during the primaries, but I think, when push comes to shove, they will team up with Buttigieg, because his sexuality appeals to progressives. Even if he isn't Sanders, he will be the "next best thing." Besides, they hate Trump so much they'll vote for anyone.
Will Trump win? Probably, but by the skin of his teeth. He might be the last president of the "old-school" mold. I've seen the future, and it isn't pretty. It is going to be more of a freak show.
Thanks for responding to my post.
I’m rather impressed you were able to come up with the text of Lincoln’s call for volunteers so quickly — but then, that’s the wonder of the internet.
Could be. I am of the opinion that none of the current candidates will get the nod.
That could be true. Will be interesting to watch it all unfold.
I am of the opinion that none of the current candidates will be the nominee.
The R candidate isn’t trying to get the D elected this time.
And - the Butt dude keeps making it about being accepted as Gay, blah blah blah, YUK.
He and Warren have no concept that the average Joe and even Homosexual, doesn’t ascribe to pushing it it everyone else’s faces.
Biden himself once said, in an absent-minded moment of truthfulness, that American voters would be using “Will and Grace” as their template for public policy on homosexuality.
And he was exactly correct.
Happy to hear this. I’m sure the Gaystapo’s pulling all the possible stunts to elect this commie f-. They figure legalizing child sex will come next.
Which doubt is warranted. As the Demoncratic nominee, he would promote his educational credentials vs. Trump, as well as his employment record, and military service, while promising what the Left wants. See here . Meaning perversions of what God ordained.
Instead of worship of God alone, it is worship of creation (even ascribing to it the attribute of self-existence).
Instead of profanity being condemned, it is promoted.
Instead of honor of parents, it is the State that is to receive such, and parents need not be notified of inducement and treatment that it thinks is best for the children. Who under government health care, could lead to the removal of children from conservative parents under the premise of concern for their psychological health, which the State is responsible for.
Instead of the killing of the innocent being murder, it is made into a right, depending upon location (abortion) and or the possible mental effects to the mother.
Likewise, rather than murder requiring the life of the murderer (since life is sacred and thus the taking of it is fitting) then the kin of the murdered can be distressed while tax payers are burdened with paying for the care of the criminal.
Rather than fornication and adultery being wrong, and with marriage being monogamous and btwn male and female and divorce only being allowed in the case of adultery or abandonment (if that), instead, sexual unions apart from marriage are affirmed and promoted, as is homosexual fornication. And with marriage being redefined to include same-sex partners (and eventually with animals) and not necessarily monogamous (by mutual consent), and divorce for reasons that can make at least one partner an adulterer.
Rather than coveting and envy being wrong, and with benefits being obtained by merit (or under grace designed to produce obedience), instead, envying (coveting what you have no right to) is promoted via inculcation of the victim-entitlement mentality, in which not having benefits that others merited is seen as injustice. And thus obtaining them regardless of lack of merit is a right of the "victims" (thereby also excluding the concepts of mercy and grace). Which the liberal "saviors" promise to obtain for them in order to obtain ever-increasing power, while actually enslaving them into dependence and often depression via the addictive deceitful victim-entitlement mentality.
And who is the author of the liberal goals and means but the devil - the author of the "share the wealth"ethos (Is. 14:14; Gn. 3:1-7) - who works to obtain power and glory by perverting what God has ordained, and which is what is good for man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.