When you factor in where Pete Buttigieg was a year ago – poised as a potential Dennis Kucinich or Alan Keyes of presidential politics – and where he is today, poised as a top-tier candidate after what appears to be a virtual tie in the Iowa caucuses (Buttigieg had a 26.2 percent to 26.1 percent lead over Bernie Sanders with 96.9 percent of precincts reporting at this writing), the pertinent question is whether the sky, or 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., will be his limit?

From a Hoosier perspective, “Mayor Pete” has already eclipsed the late Sens. Birch Bayh’s (13 percent) and Richard Lugar’s (4 percent) presidential campaigns in their 1976 and 1996 Iowa caucus runs. He has outlasted and out-raised Sen. Evan Bayh and Vice President Dan Quayle in their 2008 and 2000 presidential excursions.

Brian A. Howey is publisher of Howey Politics Indiana at www.howeypolitics.com and the CrossroadsReport.com. Find him on Facebook and Twitter @hwypol.

(10) comments

sidearm

Thankyou for clearing the air Rasmus. We may disagree on some things but bringing this out into the open was the right thing to do and I appreciate you doing it.

sidearm

What happened to my comment? To truthful for the Truth?

RasmusSJorgensen Staff
RasmusSJorgensen

Hi sidearm. I did not let your comment go through because there were a couple of false statements in it. That goes against our site rules, which you can see below. If you would like to discuss this or get a more detailed explanation, please email me at rjorgensen@elkharttruth.com

sidearm

Tell me what the false statements are. Your let people make false statements daily about President Trump. Why hide this in a personal email Rasmus. Do you disagree that Mayor Pete supports late term abortion? Please refund my annual subscription fee I just paid and we can be done.

RasmusSJorgensen Staff
RasmusSJorgensen

Here is how I go about moderating our comment section: I let anything go as long as it is not in violation of our rules, which you can see below. The type of comment that is most likely not to go through is one with personal attacks or discrimination (just because there are more of these, not because I go after them more). There are often gray areas, and with those, I am on the side of allowing them, since you have a chance to report a comment if you think it crossed a line - then I will look at it again.

Fact-checking is more complicated because I do not have the time to check whether everything in every comment is correct. When someone writes something I know to be false, I double-check to see if I am right. If the statement is false, I do not allow the comment. That's what happened when you said Buttigieg fired Chief Boykins (I have seen many media outlets that falsely say the same). I checked because my recollection was that Boykins was demoted, not fired, and that is indeed what happened.

The other statement that struck me as questionable was on Buttigieg's stance on infanticide. But I did not know exactly where he draws the line on abortion. You are correct that Buttigieg thinks abortion late in pregnancy should be allowed, but after a long search, I could find nothing to support that he would allow infanticide, and certainly not in the way that you described.

I am happy when there is discussion and many views are represented in our comment section, so I do not like disallowing comments.

The same goes for comments about President Trump or anyone else (in fact, I had to disallow a comment this morning because it included a false statement about the president).

Comments may sometimes go through despite having false information in them - as I said, I check when I know something to be false or if it strikes me as questionable, since I do not have time to just check everything. I suppose that, since your comment was about a former local mayor and I'm a local government reporter, it was easier for me to realize that parts were off. But my hope is that, if something untruthful goes through, someone will report that comment. If you see something false go through, please report it.

fire111

So Rasmus, I know I'm not a party to this post! But! Aren't we arguing semantics here? I have had post turned down also. I try to in fact research my stand. So you argue that what you know to be fact and so do I! Case in point. Washington Post, CNN, Rollingstone, and USATODAY report Trump fired Vindman . When other news media got it correct. His assignment was ending and he was not kept on. But moved to another assignment. Back to Boykins! You will never convince the black voters in South Bend that Boykins was not fired!

RasmusSJorgensen Staff
RasmusSJorgensen

fire111, I see your point regarding Boykins and Buttigieg. It was a weird case because, at first, Buttigieg asked Boykins to resign, and Boykins said he would but then changed his mind. Buttigieg did not then choose to fire him. He demoted Boykins to captain. If that is semantics, I don't know, but it's fair to hold that position, and I respect that.

sidearm has every right to make the point that he was making, and it is not my job to say whether he is right or wrong. I disallowed the comment because it had two points in it that did not stand up to fact-checking - not because I have a personal stake in who is or becomes president (I am not even a U.S. citizen and won't be voting in November).

Similarly, the comment about President Trump that I mentioned above had a statement in it that was untrue. Much like the comment about Buttigieg, it was an exaggeration based on something that happened, but the commenter took it further than what reality could bear. Maybe that's semantics. But if I were to let falsehoods creep into our comment section knowingly, I think I wouldn't be doing my job.

I suggested having this conversation over email, but I think it's good that we can do it here so that it (hopefully) becomes clearer how comments are moderated. Feel free to ask any other questions about it or let me know if you think I should moderate differently.

fire111

Yep! Astonishing! Another 6 murders in wild west SOUTH BEND. Petey's legacy!

Joe King

What an ignorant thing to say....The republithugs have no dirt on Pete and they try to drag and make things up to try to smear him because he is gaining in polls... The world sees this and won't fall for it like the people falling for the Russian misdirection and lies to help trump....spreading nonsense won't work... By your ownd standards, Trump asking a foreign government for help is what? Or demeaning and trying to fire a serviceman for telling the truth? Or now, instructing his DOJ to look out for his rich,white friend Stone? Your double standards are getting old.....

fire111

Come on Joe! Get the blinders off. Average over 14 murders per year in da bend! A mayor quoted the city has no gang problems? Close to 150 shootings last year? The second largest civil city budget in the state. Twice the size of Ft Wayne's! And Ft Wayne is 2.5 times larger! Elkhart is half South Bend's size! Elkhart's budget $79 million. South Bend's $368 million. And Joe ya really need to look at the national polls Petey in almost everyone is 5th. As of 2/11/20. And soon that military record will be challenged. You do realize he was given those Lt bars. Right. Never went to an academy! Never was ROTC! No other military schooling. Just got the commission because he is intelligent. A research would help. + So far the city of South Bend has wasted almost $2 million dollars on the PD tape debacle!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.