Letters to the Editor: Why the fascination with Mayor Pete when there are more qualified candidates?
To the editor: It’s so frustrating to constantly hear how wonderful “Mayor Pete” is, and how he may be the best choice to take over after President Trump. (“Mayor Pete has the pedigree to clean up after Trump. But is that enough to win in 2020?” Opinion, Oct. 18)
Pete Buttigieg is not the only person who has served in Afghanistan as an intelligence officer, and he is not the only Democratic candidate to have been a Rhodes scholar. He is, however, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., a city of about 100,000 people with a large black community whose concerns he has not adequately addressed.
How capable is he to deal with a divided country of more than 325 million people?
Many in the media have given Buttigieg plenty of attention at the expense of other candidates who are more qualified to be president. Buttigieg receives more favorable coverage than others who might be a better choice not only to beat Trump but also to lead our country.
Victoria Francis, Los Angeles
To the editor: I rarely disagree with columnist Virginia Heffernan, because I rarely understand the point she’s trying to make.
I read her piece about Buttigieg twice and still can’t figure out if she thinks his experience at the management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. is a good thing or a bad thing, or how that experience shaped his style and capabilities.
Peter Coonradt, Redlands
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.