Democrats Affirm The U.S. is Ready For A Gay President

A Word from the Publisher, Adam Gonzalez:

Having Americans vote twice for a black American man, a Young Man at That and then having the voters fall sleep and vote for a Tweeting crown which makes up as he goes like he did with the Casinos. What Experience did he have with casinos? This is a man who refused to serve but likes to have Generals around him to them fire or make them quit. He loves the title "commander in chief" like he was a real commander which has an experienced team which he consults before declaring war or making decisions which sometimes cannot be undone, a good example is North Korea, which he doesn't even talk about anymore. Nothing good to say, he laid the thousand year egg there. Not to take away from Mayor Pete and his commanding experience in the Armed Forces or his experience in serving as the chief executive of a city in trouble when he came in but not now. Yes, America is more than ready for a good looking, executive, experience in the military to take the oath of office. There won't be any nazis or ex nazis or people that can not tell the truth like the ATTORNEY GENERAL! They won't be any pictures of naked girls and he won't be grabbing them. Not even guys because he is married and believe in something I believe too and know all about it and that is being faithful to your spouse.  We won't have it easy with Pete as commander in chief because we will be paying what Donald is done to this country and all so the richest among all can make more money on the stock market. Yes, there are jobs and let the average American if he/she has to work more because the extra money either pumped into the economy by the last tax relieve for the rich or the money the economy makes. I also would love to call the president Pete. Love that name. Even the Catholic church would approve of a Peter in the White House (not that it matters).

(CNN by  LZ Granderson)I was at a political fundraiser in 2007, in the company of several deep-pocketed longtime donors. President George W. Bush was near the end of his second term and much of the conversation wasn't about the anemic economy, the wars we were engaged in or the policies of the people vying to take his place.

Instead, it was about electability and whether the country was ready to vote for a black or female president. 

Needless to say, we got our answer.

I was at a political fundraiser earlier this year, again nestled in among several longtime donors with deep pockets. President Trump was not viewed favorably by this crowd and much of the conversation wasn't about the Mueller report, the trade war we are engaged in or policies touted by the people vying to take Trump's place.

Instead, it was about electability and whether the country was ready for an openly gay president.

It makes sense that the millionaires in these spaces would hedge their bets based on the most pragmatic of questions: Can this person win? After all, a person doesn't get to be a one-percenter by making a habit of investing in companies they don't believe will turn a profit.

But I couldn't ignore the irony of hearing so many blue-state-living/rainbow-flag-adjacent /"love-is-love" liberals in one room dismiss Pete Buttigieg's bid for the White House largely because he's gay, even from those within the LGBTQ community.

Buttigieg brings a military record in Afghanistan front and center 

 

They like him. Hell, many even love him. But they don't believe the country's ready. Two of three Americans support same-sex marriage, including more than 80% of Democrats, and yet ...

In a Quinnipiac poll early this month, only 40% of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic thought the United States was ready to elect a gay president (though 86% of that same group said they were open to electing a gay president).

"We need to win," is what I've heard repeatedly over the past couple of weeks, even as Buttigieg has ascended from "Mayor Who?" to a candidate who has gained the collective recognition that he is one of the most impressive in the field. More than 1 million viewers tuned in his Fox News town hall on Sunday, and even hard-to-impress Chris Wallace found him compelling -- much to the consternation of the President.

Would this war vet who offered condolences to the people of France in French after the devastating Notre Dame fire be the front-runner if he weren't married to a man? Given his relative youth and position as the mayor of a small city, would he have graced the cover of Time magazine if he were not?

For all of the chatter about downplaying identity politics in the hope of rebuilding the blue wall in the Midwest, it has been my experience that despite the fact Buttigieg is a fairly successful elected official from the Midwest, it is precisely his identity as a gay man that gives many Democrats the greatest pause.

Pete Buttigieg: God does not have a political party

 

As someone who has worked in South Bend and written for the South Bend Tribune, I have a sense of the financial devastation that swept the area, especially for minorities. Buttigieg's policies may have helped revitalize the downtown area, improved infrastructure and brought tech jobs to an area that was heavily reliant on the auto industry, but it would not be unfair to characterize his time as mayor as not being overly beneficial to minorities.

But then again, front-runner Joe Biden helped write the 1994 crime bill that helped to lead to the mass incarceration of minorities -- and co-front-runner Bernie Sanders voted for it, so there's that. In fact, if an audit of policies and comments were performed on all the men and women running for president, you would be hard pressed to find one without a significant blemish.

A key difference here is that only Mayor Pete is being dismissed for who he loves by some of the very people who claim no one should be dismissed for who they love.

Pete Buttigieg on faith, his marriage, and Mike Pence

 

The Democrats can call it pragmatism, they can call it being politically savvy, they can call it playing the odds... just as long as they are also being honest about the nature of the friendly fire directed at Buttigieg's candidacy. Again, if his executive inexperience or lack of substantive policy talking points were the main question marks, I would not have felt compelled to write this. But that's not what I'm hearing.

Yes, there is a legitimate question about whether or to the country is ready to elect a gay president. But there is also a legitimate question about whether Democrats -- for all their talk -- believe it's worth fighting for one.