GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently November 19 19, 10:22 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: October 18 19, 1:44 pm 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28573
Location: extremely online
AKA the "I do an ok job running the fourth biggest town in one of the five lousiest states in the nation." thread.


Little late in the game for this guy to get his own thread, as he is not a serious candidate, but I am interested in discussing his pivot from genial and reasonable guy to mouthpiece for corporate democrats, disguised as feisty defender of delusional bi-partisanship from a non-existent, hypothetical bygone era. 33's dead-on quote above and Geen's post about Pete's healthcare nonsense got me thinking about him, and then this tweet and linked article below made me start the thread.





https://prospect.org/politics/the-mised ... mean-pete/
Snippet:
Quote:
When Mayor Pete first threw his hat in the presidential ring, his foremost credential, beyond his time helming the government of a college town, was his charm. Here was Pete upgrading his city’s computer systems, here was Pete shoveling snow, here was Pete fixing a pothole. Extremely competent and agreeable, Pete was a nice-guy Democrat in a red, deindustrialized state, who had notched successes without ever dirtying his nose in the unbecoming arena of partisan politics. He condemned incivility and disunity. Despite being barely old enough to qualify for a run, he was lovingly referred to as the Mister Rogers of the Democratic primary. He may have been light on experience, but he had presidential disposition in spades.

But as the campaign season has unfolded, charming Pete has all but disappeared, replaced by a more combative, defiant Pete, whose new modus operandi is scoring points by attacking the Democratic Party’s progressive front-runners (and long shots) from the right, on everything from gun control to campaign finance to health care. His new demeanor was on display repeatedly during Tuesday’s debate, as he went toe to toe with Beto O’Rourke over gun control, and denigrated the Sanders and Warren vision for Medicare for All.

The first signs of his metamorphosis came in late June, when Black Lives Matter protesters confronted Buttigieg over the police shooting of a black man in South Bend, and his administration’s checkered legacy on policing (Buttigieg demoted the city’s first black police chief). After what the protestors deemed inadequate responses on the issue, one asked, “You’re running for president and you expect black people to vote for you?” to which Buttigieg snapped, “I’m not asking for your vote.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: October 18 19, 2:13 pm 
Online
The Last Word

Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Posts: 19667
They're all doing what they think is in their best interest to "win". Every single one of them. Bernie may be genuine, but he's literally the only one.

Pete isn't left enough for most of this forum (that's fine..... I get it). I love the guy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: October 18 19, 2:25 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21671
Location: Chicago
Socnorb11 wrote:
They're all doing what they think is in their best interest to "win". Every single one of them. Bernie may be genuine, but he's literally the only one.

I get that Pete isn't left enough for most of this forum (that's fine..... I get it). I love the guy.


Trumpism is such a malignancy on this nation that any Democrat in this race whose strategy to win the primaries is to attack fellow Democrats shows me that their personal ambition to win outweighs their desire to advance the greater good and serve the public interest. For me it is a personality disqualifier, and Pete basically did that Tuesday. Not to mention that the same old political consultant triangulation to the center represents a lack of vision, lack of leadership, and in my opinion a fundamental misunderstanding of the moment we are in and what kind of candidate will be able to beat a very talented demagogue.

The best way to beat Trump is with big, inspiring ideas that mobilize the largest possible piece of the Democratic base around a rallying cry of an alternative vision for a better society.

Plus, Pete is completely unqualified to be president. The president needs to be someone with more experience than being a small town mayor for a few years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: October 18 19, 2:34 pm 
Online
The Last Word

Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Posts: 19667
I'm fine with the criticism for his lack of experience. That's fair.

I didn't view Tuesday night as "attacks". You clearly viewed it differently (maybe you could give specific examples of the "attacks"). He pointed out why his ideas are different, and asked direct (and fair) questions about some of the other candidates. I feel like that's what debates are for, really. He's stopped well short of being disrespectful, in my opinion. I think we're kind of in a place politically where we view disagreement as disrespect, and so we simply dismiss people. I think "attacks" of other Democratic candidates are far more blatant on this forum than anything that Pete has done.

Basically, you're against centrism, so you don't like Pete. I understand that's your position. I like the guy. If I fall into the "Ttrumpism" category for that, then so be it, I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: October 18 19, 3:02 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21671
Location: Chicago
Socnorb11 wrote:
I'm fine with the criticism for his lack of experience. That's fair.

I didn't view Tuesday night as "attacks". You clearly viewed it differently (maybe you could give specific examples of the "attacks"). He pointed out why his ideas are different, and asked direct (and fair) questions about some of the other candidates. I feel like that's what debates are for, really. He's stopped well short of being disrespectful, in my opinion. I think we're kind of in a place politically where we view disagreement as disrespect, and so we simply dismiss people.

Basically, you're against centrism, so you don't like Pete. I understand that's your position. I like the guy.


I'm not against centrism on every issue. I am against corporate sloganeering masquerading as centrism or the sensible middle ground. On healthcare, Pete is currently arguing for the status quo, which means he is arguing for a failed system. Why?

On the gun issue, he accused Beto of saying he would go house to house confiscating assault weapons, which is not what Beto said. Perhaps Pete just misunderstood Beto's position, but I think not. I have no problem whatsoever with disagreement on policy between candidates and I don't confuse that with an attack. My beef is with how the disagreement is framed, and whether or not that framing represents and honest depiction of the issue under discussion. Pete claims that M4A will deprive Americans of "choice" in healthcare, hence his Medicare for All Who Want It, presented as offering choice. The only choice that matters in healthcare is your choice of whether to go to the doctor in the first place, and if so, which doctor. Pete's plan assumes people actually care which company/entity gets to administer the payment process. That is an insurance lobbyist talking point.

Exhibit A: Health care debate shows the lies I told for insurance companies about 'Medicare for All' worked. By Wendell Potter, former vice president for corporate communications at Cigna


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: October 18 19, 5:35 pm 
Online
The Last Word

Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Posts: 19667
So his disagreement on health care and his mis-characterization of Beto's position on guns triggers this statement:


G. Keenan wrote:

Trumpism is such a malignancy on this nation that any Democrat in this race whose strategy to win the primaries is to attack fellow Democrats shows me that their personal ambition to win outweighs their desire to advance the greater good and serve the public interest. For me it is a personality disqualifier, and Pete basically did that Tuesday. Not to mention that the same old political consultant triangulation to the center represents a lack of vision, lack of leadership, and in my opinion a fundamental misunderstanding of the moment we are in and what kind of candidate will be able to beat a very talented demagogue.



That seems a bit harsh, no?


With regard to health care, his proposal isn't the status quo. He's in favor of much stricter restrictions on pricing power of health care providers, and significantly more subisidies for those who need it, for instance.

I've said at least a couple of times on this forum that EW is my preferred choice. I love me some Bernie, too. My concern with those two is that they're so progressive that centrists won't get on board with them. Many centrists (maybe not all) will get on board with a guy like Pete......... and if it comes down to Pete or Trump, every single one of the progressives will get on board with Pete, too. Maybe he can't win. I don't know. Maybe he's not the best candidate........... I'm not even sure of that. I don't feel like he deserves the contempt that this board has for him, though. That's all I'm really saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: October 18 19, 5:40 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7979
Location: Chicago, IL
Socnorb11 wrote:
I'm fine with the criticism for his lack of experience. That's fair.

I didn't view Tuesday night as "attacks". You clearly viewed it differently (maybe you could give specific examples of the "attacks"). He pointed out why his ideas are different, and asked direct (and fair) questions about some of the other candidates. I feel like that's what debates are for, really. He's stopped well short of being disrespectful, in my opinion. I think we're kind of in a place politically where we view disagreement as disrespect, and so we simply dismiss people. I think "attacks" of other Democratic candidates are far more blatant on this forum than anything that Pete has done.

Basically, you're against centrism, so you don't like Pete. I understand that's your position. I like the guy. If I fall into the "Ttrumpism" category for that, then so be it, I guess.


So here's what I'd ask. If GRB were a bar, and we were all sitting around talking about this. And someone asked "Why Pete?", what is the elevator pitch? For both Sanders and Warren supporters it's "Because I want structural change and they're the candidate I like best for it." For Biden it's "He's experienced and can get things done in Washington, plus my GOP uncle who hates Trump says he'd vote for Biden but not the others so he's electable." What is it for Pete?

Then if we drilled down after your elevator pitch, and asked you what Pete's plan is for healthcare, without looking at your phone or "erm, 'scuse me guys, gotta go drain the main vain..." what would you say? Same thing for Syria/Turkey/ISIS. Same for climate change. Same for guns. What are his stances and why do they compel you to vote for him? What does Pete say re guns that you like?

I'm against centrism, but I understand running on centrism when the candidate thinks it's a winning strategy. What I'm curious about is what particular things Pete says make you like him and his brand of centrism.

He'd be a settle candidate. Like, Biden has an aneurism and his eyes bleed, Sanders has a 2nd heart attack, Warren really did screw that 24 year old Marine Hero that that Wohl wackjob ran out in front of the media, Williamson poisons Tulsi at a drug orgy and Booker decides to just go ahead and be Mr. Dawson in Hollywood. It would be like ok fine let's roll the dice with a guy whose candidacy is about like a tepid bowl of plain oatmeal. He'd be Romney, Hillary, a loser. The idea that the boring person who doesn't demonstrably stand for anything is "electable" would hopefully then be RIP.


Last edited by 33anda3rd on October 18 19, 5:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: October 18 19, 5:43 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7979
Location: Chicago, IL
G. Keenan wrote:
The only choice that matters in healthcare is your choice of whether to go to the doctor in the first place, and if so, which doctor.


Kinda. If you're in a union and your union has negotiated a baller plan like a BCBS PPO that you have only like a $300/year deductible and now you're going to pay $8K in taxes/year for M4A you're not happy. Esp if your union contract isn't up for 4 years and you can't renegotiate that lost $32K. You'd certainly prefer the choice to keep your current employer-provided plan that your union negotiated for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: October 18 19, 6:00 pm 
Online
The Last Word

Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Posts: 19667
33anda3rd wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
I'm fine with the criticism for his lack of experience. That's fair.

I didn't view Tuesday night as "attacks". You clearly viewed it differently (maybe you could give specific examples of the "attacks"). He pointed out why his ideas are different, and asked direct (and fair) questions about some of the other candidates. I feel like that's what debates are for, really. He's stopped well short of being disrespectful, in my opinion. I think we're kind of in a place politically where we view disagreement as disrespect, and so we simply dismiss people. I think "attacks" of other Democratic candidates are far more blatant on this forum than anything that Pete has done.

Basically, you're against centrism, so you don't like Pete. I understand that's your position. I like the guy. If I fall into the "Ttrumpism" category for that, then so be it, I guess.


So here's what I'd ask. If GRB were a bar, and we were all sitting around talking about this. And someone asked "Why Pete?", what is the elevator pitch? For both Sanders and Warren supporters it's "Because I want structural change and they're the candidate I like best for it." For Biden it's "He's experienced and can get things done in Washington, plus my GOP uncle who hates Trump says he'd vote for Biden but not the others so he's electable." What is it for Pete?

Then if we drilled down after your elevator pitch, and asked you what Pete's plan is for healthcare, without looking at your phone or "erm, 'scuse me guys, gotta go drain the main vain..." what would you say? Same thing for Syria/Turkey/ISIS. Same for climate change. Same for guns. What are his stances and why do they compel you to vote for him? What does Pete say re guns that you like?

I'm against centrism, but I understand running on centrism when the candidate thinks it's a winning strategy. What I'm curious about is what particular things Pete says make you like him and his brand of centrism.



Those are perfectly fair questions, 33.

As for his stance on the issues, I'd gladly lay them out for you, but that's pointless when all you have to do is look at his website (same for all the other candidates).

Outside of his stance on health care, he's in agreement with the other candidates on virtually every issue. That being the case, it largely comes down to likability. I like that he says "I'm a gay man, and proud of it", and still succeeds. I like that when he's asked about the issues in South Bend, he doesn't make excuses and say "I'm proud of what I've accomplished there" like Kamara does. Instead he says "We haven't always handled things as well as we should, and we have to do better". I appreciate that he recognizes the shortcomings there. I like that he points out the hypocrisy of the evangelical right, and explains why the left "gets" Christianity in a way that the right does not........ and is willing to go toe-to-toe with Mike Pence on that issue. I like that he hasn't been entrenched in and sold out to the Washington quagmire for decades.

I mean, you've been a fan. You surely get it a little bit, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: October 18 19, 8:03 pm 
Online
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 24624
He’s being disingenuous about his health care plan.

You can’t say “my plan is to use a public option and if it works we’ll get to single payer” and then get on a high horse about pay-fors with single payer. He needs both pay-fors for his own plan and for single payer once he gets us there. He has neither so far.

His SCOTUS reform plan is terrible, though I give him some credit for seeing that it needs reform.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Donnie Ebert, ghostrunner, Socnorb11 and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group