by WorldTribune Staff, February 9, 2020
Since his rise in the polls and alleged victory in the Iowa caucuses, Pete Buttigieg is getting much more attention from his competitors for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
In explaining the appeal of Mayor Pete, political observers note that what he says sounds good, but what did he actually say?
“Pete Buttigieg has a near magical ability to never answer a question. His bullsh—ing skills are second to none in the Dem field. No one bulls—s like Pete, no one,” Dan Bongino said during a Saturday appearance on “Fox and Friends”.
Bongino noted that when asked a question Buttigieg “will often speak for four or five minutes without providing an actual answer. But, his mastery of the art of bull—ing, his eloquent and near-perfect delivery leaves people in awe.”
In a recent New York Times survey taken by all of the 2020 Democratic candidates, Buttigieg failed to answer half of the questions. The survey consisted of “36 questions on 11 foreign policy topics.”
The Free Beacon reported: “The former mayor did not answer a single question on China, U.S. cyber policy, NATO, or Afghanistan…Buttigieg refused to say whether he supports current levels of military aid to Israel or keeping troops in Afghanistan.”
Riding the momentum from his strong showing in Iowa, Buttigieg has significantly cut into what was once a huge lead for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ in New Hampshire polls. One poll actually showed the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana in the lead.
RedState’s Elizabeth Vaughn noted that “Buttigieg has now reached the point in the primary where his BS will no longer win the day. His vague, rambling, metaphor-filled non-answers will no longer satisfy voters who are trying to make an informed decision about which candidate they will support. They’re looking for some substance.”
Given he did go to Harvard, “bull—ing” is something Buttigieg is well acquainted with, Breitbart Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak, also a Harvard grad, noted in November of last year.
“One night during final exams at Harvard College, I complained to a friend over dinner that I had a fifteen-page paper due the next day and hadn’t started writing it yet. ‘Just bullshit,’ he advised. ‘It’s the Harvard way,’ ” Pollak wrote.
“That advice came to mind as I tried to make sense of what Buttigieg told an interviewer about whether he would be willing to send troops to Mexico,” Pollak wrote.
Q: Mr. Mayor, after a number of Americans were murdered in Northern Mexico, President Trump suggested sending U.S. troops to help Mexico deal with the cartels. With your military experience, is there a way to deal with the cartels that doesn’t violate Mexico’s sovereignty?
Buttigieg: Well, one of the biggest things I learned during my time deployed abroad is the importance of our alliances, our friendships. And this president, needless to say, has destroyed just about every relationship he can find. That makes America less safe. Whether it is turning our back on Kurdish allies, who put their lives on the line to help us fight ISIS, or right here in our own hemisphere, alienating those very countries that we need to have a better partnership with. Remember, it is in the interest of both the United States and Mexico for Mexico to prosper with greater economic success and security then they have right now. So, if it is in the context of a security partnership, then I would welcome ways to make sure that America is doing what we can to ensure that our neighbor to the south is secure. But doing it in a way that calls into question Mexican sovereignty completely misses how we got here. By the way, a lot of this is a question of the demand side on the United States. Part of what we do is make drug trafficking less profitable by walking away from the failed war on drugs here in the United States. That is a policy that we know through experience hasn’t worked. We have got to do our part here at home, and partner with countries abroad.
Q: But Mayor, specifically — do you see a time when troops can go into Mexico, if Mexico welcomed it, for instance?
Buttigieg: There is a scenario where we could have security cooperation — as we do with countries around the world. Now, I would only order American troops into conflict if there were no other choice, if American lives were on the line, and if this were necessary for us to uphold our treaty obligations. But we could absolutely be in some partnership role if, and only if, it is welcomed by our partner south of the border.
“To summarize: he would only send troops in if American lives were at stake,” Pollak wrote. “But as a matter of fact, American lives are at stake, which is exactly what the interviewer said in her question. He sounded smart, but actually said nothing.
“It seemed to me that he answered the question by saying everything — and also nothing. Classic Harvard bullshit.”