Title : This cluster of headlines on the front page of the NYT seems to be saying a lot about the meaning of Michael Bloomberg in relation to Pete Buttigieg.
link : This cluster of headlines on the front page of the NYT seems to be saying a lot about the meaning of Michael Bloomberg in relation to Pete Buttigieg.
This cluster of headlines on the front page of the NYT seems to be saying a lot about the meaning of Michael Bloomberg in relation to Pete Buttigieg.
Screen shot from a little while ago:
Bloomberg threatening to get into the 2020 presidential race is something new, and that justifies the big, serious picture along with 2 articles, one about his potential candidacy and another looking back on how he did as New York mayor. It's that other article that catches my eye, right under the somber, flattering photograph of New York City's former mayor, the one about the little city's mayor, Pete Buttigieg: "Why Pete Buttigieg Annoys His Democratic Rivals."
Pete Buttigieg is annoying! I'll have to read the article to see what this annoyingness is all about, but the headline, standing alone, makes him seem like a little twerp. A pest. The next thing I think of is maybe what you want is someone who annoys his antagonists. That has clearly worked for Trump. He's dreadfully annoying to the people who want him out of there. But he's in there, and he looks like he's going to stay. You might want to fight annoyingness with annoyingness. Read that headline again: Why Pete Buttigieg Annoys His Democratic Rivals. He's annoying to his rivals.
That's a good thing, I'd say, if I wanted to push Mayor Pete as the one to go up against Trump. You want your candidate to be the one who IS annoying, not the one who gets annoyed. Remember when Trump was able to annoy Hillary Clinton just by slowly moving around on the stage in the background while it was her turn to talk? She proceeded to lose the election and to write a book in which she expressed regret that she hadn't lost her cool, cast herself as a victim, and snapped, "Back up you creep, get away from me!"
She wished she'd been even more annoyed. I'm suggesting you might want to fight annoyingness with annoyingness. But is Buttigieg really so annoying? As I run through the other Democratic candidates in my head, they all seem pretty annoying. To lean into annoyingness is to throw off the civility bullshit, to forgo the argument that X should replace Trump because X displays a cool, rational, respectful demeanor all the time. X is "presidential," like no-drama Obama.
When I look at that NYT front-page arrangement, I see Michael Bloomberg offered up as that X — the un-annoying, civil, serious candidate they've been waiting for.
But why pick on Buttigieg as the one to knock out of his way. Because Buttigieg is occupying the "mayor" niche? Because Buttigieg, like Bloomberg, is 5'8" and we might mix them up if we encountered them in a dark hallway?
Okay, I'll read the article now. Do I really care what's in the article? Not much! Okay, here's the thing. It's mostly about how the other candidates think he doesn't deserve the money and the attention he's getting because he doesn't have enough experience to justify running for President. To lack experience is not to be annoying. He's not annoying. They're annoyed.
More than a dozen participants in the Democratic campaign — including rival candidates and campaign aides — spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss their views about Mr. Buttigieg candidly. They conveyed an annoyance at the McKinsey consultant certitude with which Mr. Buttigieg analyzes and makes pronouncements about the primary....There's no link on "McKinsey consultant certitude" — no link and no explanation, like it's a well-known term. I'm reading the Wikipedia page on McKinsey & Company and not getting very much about its reputation for certitude. That wasn't a helpful reference! Very insider-y. Presumably, the NYT knows it so well they assume we all get exactly what "McKinsey consultant" adds to "certitude." Me, I'm just hearing "certitude." Is Buttigieg doing too much certitude? Maybe he's making things simple and straightforward, like Trump. That might be what's best in political speech.
But the certitude in question is about one specific thing that Buttigieg said — that it's "getting to be a two-way" race between him and Elizabeth Warren. Of course, that's annoying! It was meant to be, and well-played. He's getting us all to visualize the primary race as a choice between him and Warren, and once we jump forward to that, the great majority of us will heartily embrace Buttigieg.
Thus articles This cluster of headlines on the front page of the NYT seems to be saying a lot about the meaning of Michael Bloomberg in relation to Pete Buttigieg.
that is all articles This cluster of headlines on the front page of the NYT seems to be saying a lot about the meaning of Michael Bloomberg in relation to Pete Buttigieg. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article This cluster of headlines on the front page of the NYT seems to be saying a lot about the meaning of Michael Bloomberg in relation to Pete Buttigieg. with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2019/11/this-cluster-of-headlines-on-front-page.html
Related Posts :
"For a liberal boomer like myself, there’s much to admire about the young: their passion for social justice, their empathy for the underdog, their celebration of racial and gender diversity, their respect for rules..."- Cory Booker's great response to Biden's "Apologize for what? Cory should apologize. He knows better. There's not a racist bone in my body."
- Last Night's Trump Campaign Orgy
- "Biden’s nostalgia for the good old days of backslapping, and his conviction that it can be revived through interpersonal charm, is a durable Washington myth."
- At the Wilting Blue Café
0 Response to "This cluster of headlines on the front page of the NYT seems to be saying a lot about the meaning of Michael Bloomberg in relation to Pete Buttigieg."
Post a Comment