Former Texas state Senator and gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis (D) said she is looking “very seriously” at challenging freshman Rep. Chip RoyCharles (Chip) Eugene RoySmall businesses receive much-needed Paycheck Protection Program fixes House passes bill to grant flexibility for small business aid program The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Facebook – Major space launch today; Trump feuds with Twitter MORE (R) next year instead of running for Senate.
“I’m looking very seriously at Congressional District 21,” she said on an episode the podcast, “The Rabble: TX Politics for the Unruly Mob” that aired Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Texas’s 21st District, which includes parts of Austin and the San Antonio suburbs and has historically favored Republicans, is a top target for Democrats after Democrat Joseph Kopser came within 3 points of flipping the seat last year.
Kopser recently announced he will not be running for office in 2020.
“Joseph Kopser gave a valiant effort [in 2018] — worked so, so hard and came very, very close,” Davis said. “Can we do it for 2020? I want to make sure that we have the ability to win it, and I believe we do. And, I want to believe I’m the right person to help us do that.”
Davis had been seen as a potential challenger to Sen. John CornynJohn CornynSenate headed for late night vote amid standoff over lands bill Koch-backed group launches ad campaign to support four vulnerable GOP senators Tim Scott to introduce GOP police reform bill next week MORE (R) next year. But Davis, during the podcast, repeated her calls for Rep. Joaquin CastroJoaquin CastroTop Hispanic Caucus members endorse Melissa Mark-Viverito in NY House primary Ousted watchdog says he told top State aides about Pompeo probe CHC says George Floyd death shows ‘tiny fraction’ of what people of color confront in their daily lives MORE (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, to run for the Senate.
Castro is reportedly close to making a final decision on whether he will run against Cornyn next year.
“I’ve been very candid about the fact that my dear friend Joaquin Castro is someone that I’d like to see run,” Davis said.
Democrats are currently seeking to recruit a top-notch candidate to take on Cornyn, a three-term senator and former Senate majority whip who closed out 2018 with nearly $5.8 million in the bank.
The party has high hopes of flipping the Senate seat after former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) was less than 2 points short last year of unseating Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump’s public standing sags after Floyd protests GOP senators introduce resolution opposing calls to defund the police MORE (R-Texas).
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) had made entreaties to O’Rourke to run for the Senate again next year, but he instead opted for a presidential bid.
Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Milley apologizes for church photo-op Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness MORE (I-Vt.) leads the Democratic presidential field in a new Emerson poll, followed by former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenHillicon Valley: Biden calls on Facebook to change political speech rules | Dems demand hearings after Georgia election chaos | Microsoft stops selling facial recognition tech to police Trump finalizing executive order calling on police to use ‘force with compassion’ The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook MORE and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete ButtigiegPete ButtigiegScaled-back Pride Month poses challenges for fundraising, outreach Biden hopes to pick VP by Aug. 1 It’s as if a Trump operative infiltrated the Democratic primary process MORE.
The survey found that Sanders, who has come in second behind Biden in most polling, is leading with 29 percent. Biden, who has not yet announced a 2020 bid, is in second place with 24 percent, followed by Buttigieg at 9 percent.
Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisRand Paul introduces bill to end no-knock warrants The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook McEnany says Juneteenth is a very ‘meaningful’ day to Trump MORE (D-Calif.) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) are tied for fourth place at 8 percent, followed by Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWarren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Joint Chiefs chairman says he regrets participating in Trump photo-op | GOP senators back Joint Chiefs chairman who voiced regret over Trump photo-op | Senate panel approves 0B defense policy bill Trump on collision course with Congress over bases with Confederate names MORE (D-Mass.) at 7 percent.
The poll is one of several showing the meteoric rise of Buttigieg, despite his relatively low name recognition just a few months ago. An Iowa poll last week had him in third place, behind Biden and Sanders.
“While still early in the nominating process, it looks like Mayor Pete is the candidate capturing voters’ imagination,” Spencer Kimball, director of Emerson Polling, said in a statement Monday. “The numbers had him at 0% in mid-February, 3% in March and now at 9% in April.”
Meanwhile, Kimball said, Biden has lost some support in recent weeks. He led Sanders, 27 percent to 17 percent, in February before dropping to 26 percent in March, tying with Sanders. In recent weeks, Biden has been dogged by allegations from several women who say he touched them inappropriately at public events, though half of Democratic voters have said the allegations will not affect their vote.
Should Biden ultimately decide against a presidential bid, Sanders would be in an even stronger position, according to the poll, which finds the Vermont senator is the second choice for 31 percent of Biden’s supporters. Buttigieg is the second choice for 17 percent of Biden backers, followed by O’Rourke with 13 percent.
The poll, conducted April 11–14, surveyed 356 registered voters nationwide and has a margin of error of 5.2 percentage points.
Arms experts warned of negative global implications after the Pentagon on Thursday test-launched a second missile that would have been banned under a Cold War-era treaty that U.S. President Donald Trump ditched in early August.
Trump ignored concerns about the impacts on global security and formally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty after suspending U.S. obligations under the deal in February and giving Russian President Vladimir Putin six months to destroy weapons that the U.S. government and NATO deemed noncompliant with the bilateral agreement. The deal outlawed land-launched missiles with a range of 500–5,500 kilometers or about 310–3,400 miles.
The Pentagon announced Thursday that it successfully conducted a flight test of “a prototype conventionally-configured ground-launched ballistic missile” from a pad at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Robert Carver told Defense One that “data collected and lessons learned from this test will inform the Department of Defense’s development of future intermediate-range capabilities.” Carver said the missile flew more than 500 kilometers and landed in the ocean.
“This is a reckless and unnecessary escalation that’s going to exacerbate tensions with Russia, China, and North Korea—all of whom would be in range of this type of missile if it is ever deployed,” Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball told The Associated Press. “The other problem for the Defense Department is that there is no NATO or East Asia ally that has yet said they are interested in hosting such a missile because this would put them on the Russian, Chinese, or North Korean target list.”
After the test, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters that “once we develop intermediate-range missiles and if my commanders require them, then we will work closely and consult closely with our allies in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere with regards to any possible deployments.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that Esper did not disclose a time frame for those deployments. However, Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, said that given destabilization risks that come with development and deployment, “it seems highly unlikely that U.S. allies in Europe or Asia would ever agree to host such a system.”
“We could deploy such a missile in Guam, but its survivability wouldn’t be assured there,” Reif told the Journal, referring to China’s ability to strike the U.S. territory, which is located 2,000 miles from North Korea and 1,800 miles from China in the western Pacific Ocean.
In late August, within a few weeks of the Trump administration exiting the treaty that was signed in 1987, the Pentagon fired a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile from a mobile ground-launcher at San Nicolas Island, California. That move also alarmed arms experts and disarmament advocates, who declared that “the nuclear weapons arms race is here.”
Reif, in a tweet Thursday, suggested that the Pentagon’s latest test is more significant than the one that it conducted a few months ago.
“This is a bigger deal than the Tomahawk-on-a-trailer ground-launched cruise missile test in August, which itself was a big deal,” Reif wrote. “If it’s ever deployed, a 3,000-,4000 [kilometer] ground-launched IRBM could promptly strike deep into Russia and China (and North Korea).”
According to Russia’s state-owned news agency TASS, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Friday: “We’ve said more than once that the United States has been making preparations for violating the INF Treaty. This [missile test] clearly confirms that the treaty was ruined at the initiative of the United States.”
Putting the test into broader context, the AP noted:
The test also followed bipartisan approval of the $738 billion 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives. The military spending bill—which gives Trump “Space Force” as well as the ability to continue waging endless wars and fueling the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen—is expected to soon pass the GOP-controlled Senate.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Dying healthcare activist Ady Barkan in an end-of-year video to his supporters Monday called out the one candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination who has refused to meet with him: Joe Biden.
“I got to sit down and talk about healthcare with every major presidential candidate,” Barkan said. “Except for Joe Biden.”
Barkan, who is dying of ALS, or Lou Gherig’s disease, met with Democrats vying for the 2020 nomination over the year and filmed the conversations.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
As Common Dreams reported in September, Barkan made an impassioned request of Biden to meet in the fall but the former vice president and his campaign have not as yet made time for such a vist.
Climate advocates are calling on fossil fuel companies to pay for the damage caused by Australia’s unprecedented bushfires rather than that country’s taxpayers forking over an additional $2 billion for those affected by the crisis.
“Regular Australians should not be forced to pay while fossil fuel producers are being let off scot-free,” the Australia Institute’s deputy director Ebony Bennett said in a statement.
“It’s disappointing that the Australian community will be left to pick up the tab for a climate-fueled disaster,” she added.
Bennett, whose group is pushing for the Australian government to impose a “modest levy” on fossil fuel producing companies to cover the cost of bushfire recovery and first introduced the proposal in December, added that taxing those responsible for the climate crisis to provide the funds for disaster mitigation would “shift the economic burden of these disasters from regular Australians to the coal and gas companies that are fueling the climate crisis.”
Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced Monday that the government would obtain the additional $2 billion from the country’s projected $5 billion surplus for the year.
“The surplus is of no focus for me,” said Morrison, whose response to the fires has been seen as, at best, insufficient by critics.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Monday’s news of more aid from the government came as energy giant Chevron announced it would provide $1 million to the Australian Red Cross to aid in the group’s recovery efforts.
A donation—a fraction of the company’s annual revenue—is not what’s needed from Chevron, tweeted TIME editor-at-large Anand Giridharadas.
“We need you to stop making a killing at the planet’s expense,” said Giridharadas.
In her comments, the Australia Institute’s Bennett said that putting fossil fuel companies on the hook for the damage from the fires was the best way to ensure those behind the climate crisis pay for the damage.
“The government has now acknowledged the link between global warming and these disasters, so placing a modest climate disaster levy on the companies that are responsible is an important next step,” said Bennett.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Critics of the corporate media as well as supporters and staffers of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign blasted the moderators of the CNN/Des Moines Register Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night for employing centrist talking points and demonstrating a bias against Sanders in how they framed questions.
The debate, which ran over two hours, was moderated by the Register‘s Brianne Pfannenstiel and CNN‘s Wolf Blitzer and Abby Phillip. It featured six of the 12 remaining Democratic candidates: Sanders (I-Vt.), former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
As Common Dreams reported, the financial burden of deploying American forces was notably absent during first part of the debate—a lengthy discussion on foreign policy and war—but the moderators did ask candidates about the costs of implementing Medicare for All healthcare, as Sanders has proposed. That contrast, and the presentation of the healthcare questions, sparked swift condemnation from progressives.
Overall, a team of Rolling Stone writers called the debate moderators’ questions “mystifyingly inane.” In a piece titled “CNN Completely Botched the Democratic Presidential Debate,” HuffPost‘s Zach Carter called them “awful.” According to him, the debate on the whole was “tedious, interminable, frivolous… a fiasco of irrelevance held three weeks before the Iowa caucuses.”
“Again and again, CNN anchors substituted centrist talking points for questions―and then followed up predictable responses with further centrist talking points, rarely illuminating any substantive disagreements between the candidates or problems with their policy positions,” he wrote.
Carter pointed to examples such as when Phillip noted that Des Moines is an “insurance town” and asked Sanders what will happen to employees of private insurance companies if the country implements Medicare for All. She also asked Sanders, “How would you keep your plans from bankrupting the country?”
Those critiques and examples, along with others, circulated on social media:
The debate led some critics on Twitter to conclude that #CNNisFox or #CNNisTrash:
The debate came just a day after CNN published what critics called a hit piece involving a private conversation between Sanders and Warren in 2018. Citing four unnamed sources—none of whom were in the room for the conversation—CNN reported that Sanders told Warren “he did not believe a woman could win” the presidential race. While Warren issued a statement after the story ran endorsing the findings of the report, Sanders has repeatedly denied it, including during the debate.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
A team of writers at The Intercept detailed how CNN handled the topic Tuesday night:
The New Republic‘s Libby Watson declared that “CNN is truly a terrible influence on this country.”
Jeet Heer, a national affairs correspondent at The Nation, wrote in a piece titled “CNN Has It in for Bernie” early Wednesday that “the big loser of the night was the network that hosted the event. CNN was so consistently aligned against Bernie Sanders that it compromised its claim to journalistic neutrality.”
“CNN‘s treatment of Sanders raises a major problem that he’s going to have to confront going forward: Some major players in the mainstream media are clearly unafraid to cover him in a biased and one-sided manner,” Heer concluded. “But this problem also has an upside: Sanders thrives under adversity, and he can use these examples of bias to fundraise and to mobilize his base. The Sanders campaign is a gamble, and one major uncertainty is whether his base is strong enough to overcome consistently negative media coverage.”
Sanders, a longtime critic of the corporate media whose backers have repeatedly called out the U.S. media for ignoring his campaign during this election cycle as part of a #BernieBlackout, had his “single best fundraising hour of any debate so far” during the first hour of Tuesday night’s debate, according to Robin Curran, his campaign’s digital fundraising director.
“When we fight, we win,” Workers for Bernie SATX tweeted in response to Curran’s announcement. “And Bernie’s gonna win.”
Recent polling suggests that may be true—at least, in Iowa. The latest polling from the debate hosts, published Friday, had Sanders in the lead at 20% ahead of the Feb. 3 caucuses. J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll, told the Register, “For real, he could win the caucuses.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Social justice advocates in the United Kingdom are raising concerns over a trade deal being negotiated with the United States by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, after reports surfaced that American leaders are planning to use leverage provided by Brexit to force a scheme of privavitzation and the stripping of protections from British workers.
“These trade talks are being conducted with excessive levels of secrecy,” Global Justice Now director Nick Dearden said in a statement Sunday.
After the U.K. left the European Union on Friday through Brexit, Britons were left wondering how the island nation would renegotiate trade deals with its global partners. Johnson is expected to begin formal talks with both the U.S. and E.U. on Monday.
While the U.K. is now officially out of the E.U., the two sides have eleven months to work out what exactly that separation looks like.
The deal with the U.S. is slightly more straightforward, in theory, though Johnson and his government have kept negotiations a secret from the public and Parliament. Documents from the talks leaked in November show a push to privatize the National Health Service to make the U.K.’s popular universal system more like the U.S. private insurance scheme.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Beyond the NHS, Global Justice said in a press release, “U.S.demands are to radically alter the sort of food on sale in Britain after Brexit, undermine farmers’ livelihoods, threaten the NHS, make tackling climate change more difficult, and allow big tech companies like Facebook an effective veto over Britain’s tax policy; all things which would be impossible if Britain were to retain closer alignment with Brussels.”
Labour shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer told the Guardian Friday that Johnson’s approach to Brexit and subsequent trade deals could sink the U.K. economy and cause major damage to the country’s way of life.
“Johnson either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the damage the Brexit deal he is proposing will do to the country,” said Starmer.
Global Justice’s Dearden said that while a deal with the U.S. “would be a bonanza for big business,” it would likely hurt Britons.
“For all of this to happen, Britain would have to move away from our current standards and protections,” said Dearden. “That’s what Donald Trump is pushing, and the U.K.’s current position suggests that he’s succeeded and is pulling the prime minister’s strings in these trade talks, pushing us into a ‘shock doctrine Brexit.'”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lashed out at NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly in a statement Saturday a day after she pressed Pompeo on issues including former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and he reportedly yelled at her with expletives and demanded she identify Ukraine on a map.
In her Friday interview with Pompeo, Kelly asked about the administration’s Iran policy and pressed Pompeo about when—since he said he has “defended every State Department official”—he had done so for Yovanovitch.
He did not point to any such remarks.
NPR reported,
Pompeo then went on to attempt to berate Kelly.
Pompeo, in his statement, accused Kelly of lying about having the follow-up conversation off the record, asserted her conduct was “shameful,” and called the indent “another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt President Trump and this administration.”
He also suggested, contrary to Kelly’s account, that she did not point to Ukraine on a map. “It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine,” he wrote.
Pompeo’s remarks drew condemnation from journalists including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, who called them “a shameful assault on #PressFreedom. Americans deserve a Secretary of State that is diplomatic, can answer foreign policy questions honestly, upholds our values and respects the press. This one doesn’t.”
Wired also pointed to its reporting from October that “Pompeo seems to particularly bristle under tough questioning from female reporters.”
Pompeo’s Saturday attack on Kelly also sparked five Democratic senators—Robert Menendez (N.J.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), and Cory Booker (N.J.)—to write to Pompeo, denouncing the secretary of state’s comments as “insulting and contemptuous.”
“Instead of calling journalists ‘liars” and insulting their intelligence when they ask you hard questions you would rather not answer,” the senators wrote, “your oath of office places on you a duty and obligation to engage respectfully and transparently.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Beijing has hit on a new tool to win friends and influence people in the EU capital: a new media headquarters for one of the largest Chinese state-owned media powerhouses.
China Media Group is considering opening a European office in Brussels, a number of people with close knowledge of the company told POLITICO.
The group — also known as “Voice of China” — acts as the umbrella organization for the state-owned TV channel China Global Television News (CGTN) and its sister broadcaster China Radio International. It was formed in March 2018 through a merger of China Central Television (CCTV), CGTN, China Radio International and China National Radio.
The move to unify the state-run outlets was designed to centralize power and resources, according to David Bandurski, co-director of the independent research group China Media Project. It is part of a wider effort by Chinese President Xi Jinping “to ensure that China is able, from the Party’s standpoint, to centralize control over news and public opinion,” he said.
“Having a headquarters in Brussels could be seen as a necessary strategy in trying to influence the discussion about China in Europe,” he added.
It would not be the Chinese group’s first foray in Europe, but one they hope will go more smoothly than the last.
CGTN opened a European hub in London two years ago, only to have it quickly come into the crosshairs of British broadcasting regulator Ofcom, which found it breached broadcasting regulations on several occasions.
The company faces sanctions over the airing of a forced confession of British journalist Peter Humphries and repeated, biased reporting on the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
The leadership at China Media Group believes “the climate in [the] U.K. turned against them” and that “they can better undermine [the] EU in its own backyard,” according to one person at CGTN with knowledge of the group’s motivations.
China Media Group and China Central Television News did not respond to requests for comment.
* * *
The Chinese media group’s push to increase its influence in Brussels comes at a particularly sensitive time for the EU capital, which has stumbled in its efforts to handle a ramping up of Chinese diplomatic pressure in recent months.
In April, the European External Action Service — the EU’s foreign policy arm — came under fire following reports that it had watered down the wording in a report on Chinese disinformation after interference from China’s embassy in Brussels.
EU foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell was hauled in front of the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee where he denied the EEAS had bowed to the will of Beijing.
He insisted that consulting with embassies is a normal way of conducting diplomacy and that “there were two different publications for two different audiences.”
His answer didn’t do much to quell the unease, particularly after China took on a more aggressive tone with Europe in an effort to push back against perceived efforts to blame the global coronavirus pandemic on Beijing.
The EU is also in the midst of an ongoing public consultation on how to regulate non-EU companies that receive state funding and operate within the European Union. The European Commission proposed in a white paper to give itself powers to vet foreign companies with the same rules they vet EU firms.
Until those regulations are in place — a Commission proposal is expected in 2021 — the China Media Group will have more leeway in the capital, with few requirements to be transparent about how much funding it receives from the Chinese government.
The move to Brussels would boost Chinese media presence in the EU capital — the Belgian capital already plays host to the regional headquarters of the state-owned Xinhau news agency — and potentially allow the media company to influence debates.
It is also part of an effort by the China Media Group to clean up its image, as the reputation of its TV branch, CGTN, has taken a hit across the world.
In the U.K., the channel faces the possibility it may lose its broadcasting license over Ofcom’s rulings. A spokesperson for the U.K. regulator also said it is investigating three further “fairness and privacy complaints about programs broadcast on CGTN.”
CGTN responded to the U.K. regulator’s rulings by saying it is “disappointed” and that it has a “responsibility to present Chinese viewpoints and perspectives in our news reporting, which is what our viewers expect.”
Adding to the regulation breaches in the U.K., one of CGTN’s hosts of Australian citizenship, Cheng Lei, was recently detained in China amid escalating tensions between Canberra and Beijing over accusations from Australia about the origins of the COVID-19 virus.
CGTN, which has large studios in Beijing, Washington and Nairobi, isn’t expected to follow China Media Group to Brussels yet, according to someone working at CGTN.
If the television broadcast did eventually follow China Media Group to Brussels and set up a studio here, it would become the only non-Belgian TV news channel to base its European hub in the EU capital. Euronews is based in Lyon, Deutsche Welle is in Bonn and American channels like CNN and NBC base their European operations out of London.
Further moves into Brussels would be part of the Chinese government’s push for the group’s media outlets to “serve the party through its work.”
Not everyone sees the potential arrival in Brussels of a state-owned Chinese media giant as a cause for concern.
“Personally, I’m convinced that the large majority of Chinese journalists are very serious and trying to do their job in the most honest way possible,” said Bernard Dewit, the chairman of the Belgium-China Chamber of Commerce.
The more Chinese media is present in Brussels, “the better Europe will be known in China and by the Chinese public,” he added.
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete ButtigiegPete ButtigiegScaled-back Pride Month poses challenges for fundraising, outreach Biden hopes to pick VP by Aug. 1 It’s as if a Trump operative infiltrated the Democratic primary process MORE said on Monday that he came out because he wanted to date, and that doing so meant he eventually met his current husband.
“Frankly, I came out because I wanted to date,” Buttigieg said at a CNN town hall when asked by host Anderson Cooper about whether he would have been different had he come out publicly at a younger age.
“If dating had been available to me in my 20s I’m not sure I would have gotten that much done,” Buttigieg then joked. Buttigieg has said he came out publicly at 33.
ADVERTISEMENTBut turning more serious, the 2020 presidential candidate said his decision to date more meant he eventually found husband, Chasten Buttigieg.
“I don’t know how I would do this without him,” he said about the 2020 campaign for president.
Pete Buttigieg has talked openly about being gay in his campaign, discussing his decision to come out and what it has meant in his life and revealing that he met his husband on the app Hinge.
Chasten Buttigieg has also become a key part of the campaign, becoming a celebrity in his own right.