Mayor Buttigieg Is—What, A Panderer, A Jerk, An Ass?—And His Unethical Tweet Of The Week Proves It. [UPDATED]

Nice. Iran shoots down a passenger plane because its military forces are incompetent, and he blames President Trump.

The now apparent roles of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls, just to be clear:

Senator Warren is the demagogue.

Senator Sanders is the Communist.

Joe Biden is the sputtering, over-the-hill boob.

Andrew Yang is the eccentric gadfly.

Tom Steyer is arrogant rich guy.

Amy Klobuchar is the moderate by comparison only.

And Buttigieg is…what exactly? What do you call someone who will go so far to pander to Trump haters that he will tweet utter, illogical nonsense like that?

Iran killed an American citizen and engineered an attack on American property. Retaliating for that wasn’t “unnecessary,” it was essential. Killing the terrorist Soleimani  was self-defense, not tit-for-tat.

The Iranian missile attack, however, was tit-for-tat, and obviously unnecessary, especially because it did minimal damage, except to 160 Ukrainians. Some suspect the attack was intentionally toothless.

The various angry and mocking  responses to Buttigieg’s anti-Americanism were all spot on:

Sen. Ted Cruz: “Uh, Pete, they weren’t ‘caught in the middle.’ They were shot down BY IRAN. Military incompetence by the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Just because Dems hate Trump doesn’t justify false equivalence w/ Iran. Soleimani was a brutal terrorist who killed hundreds of Americans.”

Pundit David French: “Nope. Nope. Nope.Iran launched a missile strike against our own troops, and then blundered by shooting down a civilian airliner when it wasn’t even under attack. That’s the story. This is on Iran.”

Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy: “If these reports are true, it means this airliner filled with hundreds of people was shot down by Iran just after Iran fired upon bases housing U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The U.S. did not fire back that night or since. There was no ‘in the middle.’ It was Iran. Iran did this. Period.”

NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck: “If running for president doesn’t work, Mr. Mayor, you should apply to be a host, correspondent, or even president of Iranian state-run @PressTV.”

Federalist co-founder Ben Domenech: “Well, there goes you being a serious person.”

Washington Examiner editor Jay Caruso: “Have you lost your mind?”

National security commentator and analyst John Noonan: “Iran launches a ballistic missile salvo at Iraq. It fails to shut down its airspace during this attack. As it is attacking, incompetence by Iranian air-defense artillery leads to an IFF misidentification. In their confusion, they kill an airliner. So this is America’s fault.”

Conservative blogger Jim Treacher: “A candidate for president of the United States just blamed the United States for Iran shooting down a commercial airliner and killing dozens of civilians. Buttigieg could’ve just expressed his condolences. He could’ve said nothing at all. Instead, he decided to blame his own country for the actions of one of its enemies. That was his instinct. It’s not really a surprise, but it’s informative to have documented proof of it.”

Iran did this. It’s Iran’s fault. But Dems can’t say so because everything has to be Trump’s fault.

“Country over party.” Ha!

Is this the sort of wisdom we could expect from a President Buttigieg?

Oddly, no mainstream, as in Democratic  party allied, pundits or journalists, have made similar comments about Buttigieg’s despicable tweet. Well, not so oddly, because they have no integrity. Something that bad shouldn’t require partisan bias to condemn. It is objectively wrong…and Buttigieg, unless he isn’t as smart as his credentials indicate, knows exactly why it’s wrong.

That kind of vile tweet, appealing to the worst in his party’s worst supporters,  is signature significance for some kind of bad character, but which kind? I’m torn.

I’m in a polling mood today, so help me out. We will rule out idiot: I’l stipulate that Buttigieg knew exactly how stupid his statement was, but was betting on either appealing to the dumb and ignorant, or making readers more dumb and ignorant than they already were.

Full disclosure: I really distrust and dislike this guy.

Here’s your poll…


13 thoughts on “Mayor Buttigieg Is—What, A Panderer, A Jerk, An Ass?—And His Unethical Tweet Of The Week Proves It. [UPDATED]

    • As I have pointed out here more than once, Pete is arrogant and tone deaf, so he continues to communicate on the world stage as if he is preaching to the small sycophantic choirs to which he is accustomed. Twitter is not small city retail politics, but he doesn’t know anything else. Retail is where pandering works. It works far less well on a big stage where other constituencies can read or see what a tell them what they want to hear panderer you are. Welcome to the show Pete, as long as your cup of coffee lasts.

    • Other Democrats have made the same claim as Buttigieg.

      I will try to organize and present my thoughts. I am reminded by something CG Jung said. That when one finds oneself in a psychological environment of *anima possession* (hysteria) that one has to do everything in one’s power to remain centered: so to avoid the psychic conflagration.

      The ‘psychic conflagration’ now affecting the US culture is at an extreme pitch. One hysteric has a blow-up and the hysteric next door is then affected. And so it goes. What are the main elements that have got people in such an agitated psychic state? That is the question that requires an answer. There is no *scientific* way to know, certainly, so one is forced to *make guesses*: to theorize, to speculate — to interpret.

      My theory — it is only a theory — has to do with the affects of war. Anyone who reads my writing quickly discerns that I regard the Forever Wars as vastly damaging to America. But here I refer to ‘the American psyche’. There is a wound, a national wound, but not from being struck but from striking. Americans have been tricked by leadership, by intelligence agencies, by media-systems, by corporate interests that manufacture weapons-systems (the post 2000 ‘military industrial complex’), and by a rabid faction of Neo-conservatives, to wage wars on sovereign nations. The level of destruction wrought is never made visible to the American people, and so they often cheer it on. Yet I submit that in the grand scheme of things a nation cannot avoid ‘judgment’ (in the Christian sense) or ‘karma’ if you wanted to look at it from that angle. Hundreds of thousands of deaths — unjustifiable deaths, deaths brought about by the lies of political leaders — cannot be *swept under the rug*, and I suggest that the toll is psychic and psychological.

      So many of these events have spun out of the events of 9/11. Yet there is a sort of obscuring cloud that surrounds those events. Remember: “2 planes, 3 buildings”. I spent 6 months researching not so much the ‘hard science’ of these events (there is none! because there was no investigation!) but the various *pools* as I might call them of interpretation of these events. More went on here than meets the eye. And the more that one looks at the event — let us call it *the surface* of the event — the more murky things get. I suppose I might say I am ‘glad’ that some people are not burdened by any doubt or confusion and believe, without question, the ‘official story’. It will make things much easier.

      However, if that *story* is false or incomplete, then one’s entire retributive attitude and the war-response that followed 9/11, and then the psychic results on the nation, and the present conditions within America (if we see them from a ‘holistic angle’) take on and show a different meaning.

      This is the sort of analysis that underpins a great deal of what I think. That is, the interpretation of the present which I am forced to make, as we are all forced to make. I believe very little of what I am told because — it always seems so — there is an interested party there who *spins* for their own purposes. Every controversial topic becomes a mire when interested parties inflict their distortions. If there is any meaning in the term The Swamp it means, most obviously, corruption. But ‘corruption’ is also elaborate lie-telling. It involves public deception. And at that level what ‘public deception’ will lead to is national decisions that are in themselves disastrous or that lead to disaster. Ipso facto I argue that these Forever Wars are precisely that. Disasters. Certainly for the hundreds of thousands dead, but obviously far more for the social and psychic wounds inflicted and which, if ‘judgment’ exists and is real, will rebound against the aggressor. You might desire to see yourself as outside of that circle of retribution but think again: you are not. A nation pays for the evil it wrought, in one way or another. In the present or in the future.

      So, I do not really hide my view: anyone reading can parse through it. But all of this is just *my own view, my own opinion*. And I am trying to work in quite unconventional areas (as anyone reading what I write can easily see). I want to define my critical posture not through left-oriented critique but through a Constitutional and conservative stance.

      Therefore, the present tone of Rah Rah Rah! for the Washington Neoliberal war-mongers — those who, according to my analysis, are engaging in harmful, destructive actions (that is, carrying on as Swamp Creatures) — looks to me very suspicious. Very suspicious. But what most stands out for me is that there is a ‘psychic invitation’ to join in with the hysteria of war-mongering. Of cheering it on. Of explaining and justifying it. Of arguing the *rightness* of some action.

      It is pretty clear to me — and I gather similarly clear to many people of the world including Canadians who are now dealing with a great many deaths of citizens — that the plane incident happened within a *context* and that as people analyze that context they are going to see, and sense, and feel, and then believe (interpret) that the US certainly has responsibility here. It is the way our minds worked when we look at an *entire situation*. One thing causes another thing.

      Clearly, Buttigieg is ‘making political hay’ and this all happens in a generally hysterical ‘pool’ where the social hysteria jumps all bounds and becomes dangerously irrational. And yet — if the truth is told — he is not wrong. If one looks only at the event of the assassination of whats-his-name it is largely justifiable. A military decision was made against a combatant. But it is in the larger context of geo-political machinations where another level of analysis must take place. The American Jingoists (as I might call them) certainly will not — cannot! — deviate from their *narrative*, this is obvious. But as everyone knows — they should know this — they are of course liars. But we simply relegate that knowledge, that *clear seeing*, out of our frame of perception. The false-justifications for the Iraq attack and occupation are no longer even considered. The mind has been conditioned to see through a limited crack. Utterly superficial and then fed with hysterical currents.

      Carry on with your confusion, your lies and deceptions. Deceive yourself and deceive others! And then see where it leads you and what marvels it results in. There is an alternative though: Begin To Tell The Truth.

  1. “except to 160 Ukrainians”
    It’s worse than that, for Iran. A majority of those aboard were Iranian. From a statement from Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, the flight included 82 Iranians, 63 Canadians, 11 Ukrainians, 10 Swedes, four Afghans, three Germans and three Britons, with nine of the Ukrainians being the crew.

  2. I think Mayor Pete puts his finger in the air, feels where the wind is blowing from the other blowhards in his party and goes from there. He’s a panderer.

  3. Panderer. He, and a large majority of people occupying administrative positions these days, will make any sound which is expected to be beneficial in the moment. He may not technically possess free will, just reacting in every moment in to perceived advantages. If he ever apologized for such low character, we could be sure that his automated, inhuman mind simply perceived an advantage to doing so and know that he wasn’t setting aside self-interest in the name of some ideal, rather like a houseplant naturally bends toward sunlight without need of a brain. He’s the most complete form of utilitarian, having achieved the pinnacle which all our regurgitative public education and reflexive social approval apparatuses are tuned to produce. He’s the end-state of social evolution, the mass-man, having totally outsourced his thought and actions.

    It would be hard to hate a man like this, having been rendered functionally inanimate. It’s like hating a floor after stubbing one’s toe.

    Then consider any successful politician or corporate administrator and despair. We’re ruled by pod-people!

    -That was the box I checked.

    • Harsh and pretty damning…

      But, after seeing Pete show up on these pages more frequently and reading what he’s saying…?

      …I think you’re pretty accurate as well.

      • Indeed, one can be an asshole and not be a panderer, but one cannot pander without also being an asshole. Pete’s clearly a panderer, and therefore must also be an asshole.

  4. It’s funny what a difference a couple of days makes. When reports of that airliner going down started breaking, there was chatter about how the timing was really suspicious, how Iran might have hit one of their own planes, and wondering whether CNN would spend a fraction the time on this plane that they did on Malasian flight 370. (I admit, that last one was me).

    For this, we were called crazy conspiracy theorists. To which I snerked, because planes don’t just fall out of the sky at random, and that was too big a coincidence. Those messages were going to age *horribly* because in a day or two the story would break, and would almost certainly prove me right.

    This isn’t *entirely* an I-told-you-so moment (although I did tell them so), I just don’t understand why anyone would take in those fact patterns and assume anything else. I mean, sure, wait for more information. But a plane going down in the same airspace that had ICBMs flying through it being a military SNAFU doesn’t seem exactly like a “conspiracy theory”.

    • To which I snerked . . .

      As an ESL reader I am uncertain the definition of this neologism. Google has not helped. I’d imagine it to be some sort of involuntary twitch? like an uncontrolled facial tick? I can’t imagine that the thought of a plane falling from the sky would cause you to sneeze . . . does it mean ‘to snort’? . . . or is it that you might snerk after a nice meal? 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.