Mediaboss Marketing

In many countries, getting a national pardon is nothing but a very daunting task. In some cases, a national pardon is rejected to an individual for years, which is very heartbreaking. Still, there are many people who apply for a national pardon despite having done some of the most hideous crimes. Receiving a pardon removes multiple obstacles that a person creates by conducting a crime. In this article, we will explain a few benefits of a national pardon.

However, before we dig deep into the crux of the benefits, it is important to know what a national pardon is:

A Canadian pardon helps in removing restrictions that are caused by past criminal activities. So for instance, if you visit Canada for the first time as a tourist and get caught with a fake ID, the government will ban your entry unless you dont apply for a pardon and get it approved.

Canada is famous for its cosmopolitan culture and an open attitude towards everyone. However, your criminal record might discard any employment opportunity in the country. Millions of people flock the country every year in the pursuit of working and earning good money. Keep in mind, having a national pardon will eradicate your criminal record and make it easy for you to get employed. Every company conducts a background check to confirm the veracity of a persons lifestyle.

Universities also conduct a background check on the applicants to make sure they wont cause any trouble in the future. However, being accepted with a criminal record is also very common. Once you complete your education, opportunities that require on-the-job training will reject you. Therefore it is crucial to apply for a national pardon to get rid of such issues.

Millions across the world swoon over Canadian citizenship. However, you need to have a clean chit if you intend to become a concrete part of the country by becoming its citizen. Any person who has a criminal record will be rejected citizenship; that is why it is important to get rid of the stains of the past. So you better get a pardon before applying for citizenship.

Even if youre still in Canada after having convicted with a criminal record, you will very likely be rejected entry into different states of the country. Most countries ban criminals forever, which makes it difficult for them to navigate a trip again. Many people often get permanent cancellation of their entry in the US. This is why a lot of people apply for USA entry waiver to get entrance into the country again.

Therefore, no one can deny the fact, having a criminal record can bruise your entry status for a long time. Applying for a National Pardon is not as difficult as some people make it sound. So next time you plan a trip to Canada with a criminal record on your head already, you must get the problem out of the way by pursuing a national pardon first.

View post:
Five Benefits of a National Pardon - The Libertarian Republic

Daily News Columnist

Up until last week 2019 was a good year for the Libertarian Party in New York.

In 2018, Libertarian candidate Larry Sharpe ran a spirited gubernatorial campaign. His voice and vision were so fresh, so different that he became the only political candidate this writer has ever endorsed in 14 years of this column. Nearly 100,000 New Yorkers shared my assessment and cast votes for Sharpe. By surpassing the States 50,000-vote threshold, the Libertarian Party (LP) gained true ballot access in 2019 for the first time ever in the LPs 47-year history in the Empire State.

Feeding off the energy of Sharpes efforts and the very-important ballot access which led to the Partys increased visibility and viability in New York, more people joined the LP (36% growth since February) and more people ran for the LP (there were 60 candidates on local ballots throughout the State in Novembers elections). Seven Libertarians won their elections and, come 2020, they will be serving a variety of roles from city councilman to town clerk to district attorney.

But, after all those successes came news last week from the States Commission on Public Finance that could potentially close-off inroads being made by the Libertarians and other so-called third parties.

Instead of achieving ballot access by securing 50,000 votes in the race for governor every 4 years, the minor parties would, under the Commissions plan, have to requalify every 2 years by receiving either 2 percent of total votes or 130,000 votes in a presidential year or 140,000 in a gubernatorial year.

The nine-member commission, made up solely of Democrats and Republicans, looked at this as throwing a bone to the third parties as the original proposal called for a minimum of 250,000 votes per executive election.

130,000 is just as bad as 250,000 when it comes to ballot access. Its still a quantum leap from todays standards and it creates a significant hurdle for parties attempting to woo electors and elected to the fold.

How significant?

Of the most popular minor parties in New York only the Conservative Party would have been left standing after 2018s election were the rules in play, they having secured nearly 239,000 votes. Struck from 2019 and 2020 ballots would have been the Libertarians and parties that have for the most part become widely-recognizable across the state Working Families, Green, Independence and the Serve America Movement.

The loss of ballot access makes things very difficult for those that want to break up the status quo.

Rather than putting all of their grassroots and administrative efforts in developing ideas, candidates, and support the unqualified parties have to complete a petition process in order to get a candidate listed on the ballot.

Of course, the Commission has chosen to make that more difficult, too. Currently, it takes 15,000 signatures. Under the commissions plan minor parties will need 45,000. Just imagine the roadwork, hustle, and hassle that is needed to canvas the state for 3 times as many John Hancocks than are needed now.

Removing ballot access from a party also removes some democratic principles from party members. An unqualified party is unable to have a primary for state-wide offices. That means its up to party heads to decide whos running under their title; its not up to the people of the party. That not only silences different voices it can also lead to infighting among the power brokers of the party.

This is all part of the Commissions plan.

They want the infighting.

They want alternative ideas to be quieted.

They want the minor parties to be unrecognizable and forgettable.

They want the two-party system to continue its domination.

They want to control every one of us and everything we do.

Its not the least bit coincidental that the de facto chairman of the Commission is Jay Jacobs, the head of the states Democratic Party. It was a commission doing the work of the two Parties, not of the many People. If the Commissions very significant policy changes dont tell you that they think the minor parties could really pose a threat to their power, then nothing will.

Some will say thats conspiracy talk, that minor parties are meaningless and can have no positive impact. I could say the same about the major parties.

Look around the state. What have Governor Cuomo and his Democratic cronies done to improve our economys standing? What did Governor Pataki and his Republican cohorts do to stave off economic decline? Nothing and nothing.

Look around the country. Too many Americans are all-in with the Democrats or the Republicans. That partisan divide has made our nation an ugly mess.

It time for something a little different, even if that difference is sprinkled in a little at a time.

The LP won 7 seats this year. Thats where revolutions start.

State commissions? Thats where revolutions end.

Bob Confer is a Daily News columnist and president of Confer Plastics. He can be reached at bobconfer@juno.com. You can follow him on Twitter @bobconfer.

The fork ratings are based primarily on food quality and preparation, with service and atmosphere factored into the final decision. Reviews are based on one unsolicited, unannounced visit to the restaurant.

Read more:
Minor parties face major obstacles in New York - The Daily News Online

Today is the last day of Reason's annual webathon and you guys have really come through for us. Nearly 1,200 donors have kicked in more than $345,000 so far, which is pretty mindblowing considering that we set our initial goal at $200,000. Many of you stepped up to participate in the three (3!) generous challenge grants that turned every new $1 into $2!

Thanks again to the old friends of Reason who sponsored those matches, to the new friends who chipped in for the first time, and everyone in between. As always, we accept your donations in every form, including wrinkled dollar bills and bitcoin.

For those who haven't clicked the donate link yet, check out some of the reasons folks told us they donated this year. If you recognize yourself or your experience with Reason in the notes below, consider joining the ranks of our supporters:

First, an old school donor with an accurate perception of the Reason staff writes:

Carry on, wayward sons.

Some support for our calm, non-partisan approach in a partisan moment:

The only thing worse than a republican, is a democrat. Keep up the good work!

Thank you for helping to contest the spread of emotion-driven falsehoods in mainstream media with facts and sound theory.

This person probably liked our debate issue:

Thank you for the work you all do. You have had a tremendous influence on my thinking. And thanks for also exploring the tensions and disagreements within libertarian thought (for example, on abortion; btw, I'm with Stephanie Slade). I sincerely appreciate you folks. Keep on fightin'.

Reason pal and Fox News star Kennedy sent us some cash with this on-brand note:

To luscious, hot freedom!

We are not above taking candy from babies:

Robby Soave. Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Nick Gillespie. Jacob Sullum. They are the reasons (Reasonsee what I did there?) for the gift. My kids go hungry so you can publish. Don't eff it up.

Sometimes the babies even hand over the candy voluntarily:

I love Reason so so much! Y'all are the only libertarian journalists I can find. What y'all are doing is truly amazing! I wish I could donate more money but ima teenager and I don't make that much but I still am glad to contribute.

I just want to thank everyone at Reason for making such great content. I know it's not a lot (I'm a broke a** college student), but Reason gives me hope that good, independent journalism won't die, so thanks!

Your very thoughtful and engaging questions to the special webathon edition of the Reason Roundtable podcast were especially gratifyingplus some donors who name-checked it: "Love the Reason Roundtable podcast every week. Monday afternoon can't come fast enough!" You can see us answering a bunch of them here, and catch yesterday's podcast release to hear us answering a few more we didn't have time for in the bonus pod.

Every single day at Reason, this motley crew of weirdo journalists digs up stories no one else is paying attention to, puts a fresh spin on arguments about the importance of free minds and free markets, and shouts about the importance of individual liberty. These donationsand yours!make that important work possible. We're a nonprofit, so donations are tax-deductible and robbing the taxman is even more reason to throw some cash our way here at the end of the year.

On that note, a little free market nonprofit humor to keep things light:

More like market-fail-athon. Am I right, people?

Plus this excellent point:

I've been a Reason fanatic for decades, and I blame Nick for my affliction. I'm smarter than he is, but he looks better in leather, so I call it a wash.

And counterpoint:

Please deport Nick Gillespie

Two people (quite rightly) complained about our discrimination against robot donors on the online form:

Having one check I am not a robot is discriminatory against robots!

Why do I have to confirm that I'm not a robot? Don't you want contributions from robots? I really expected Reason to be more robot-inclusive.

And finally:

You go gurl

If you see yourself in any of the notes above, please donate on this, our final day of webathon 2019!

See the original post here:
On the Last Day of Reason's Annual Webathon, Donate To Join Our Awesome Crew of Supporters and Friends - Reason

A Porcupine, mascot animal of the libertarian party.

Authors note: The FSP mentioned here should not be confused with the Freedom Socialist Party.

In July of 2001, a Ph. D. Student at Yale University named Jason Sorens wrote an article highlighting the failures of libertarian activism and what might be done to further the cause of personal human liberty. The traditional method of capturing government power and influence through elections in order to reduce such power and influence simply was not working. The Libertarian Party had been around for almost 30 years by that point, having been formed in December of 1971 in response to growing concern over the Nixon Administration, the War in Vietnam, military conscription, and a move away from an economic gold standard of currency. In those thirty years, the party largely failed to accomplish any of its goals. It had only one single electoral vote in 1972 from the presidential candidacy of John Hospers and Theodora Nathan.

Up until 2001, with the exception of Ron Pauls candidacy in 1988, a series of political unknowns ran, gaining less than one percent of the popular presidential vote each time. To this day, the Party has not elected a single Representative or Senator to Congress. What victories the party has enjoyed, few and far between though theyve been, have largely come in state and municipal elections. Those victories have generally not been enough to sway federal, much less state, policy on a long-term basis.

A new approach other than electoral politics had to be adopted. Rather than working as disparate voices in the wilderness talking about government overreach and political corruption, libertarians would be better served congregating together in a single state in order to form an island of small government activity in a nation going increasingly mad with unwieldy government power. Such was the idea.

The number set by Sorens was 20,000 libertarian activists moving to a single state he called a Free State Society. In 2003, New Hampshire was chosen as the state where libertarians would settle, with Wyoming coming in second place. Thirteen years later, Free State Project (FSP) President Carla Gericke announced that 20,000 people had signed a declaration of intent to move. The number of people who had actually moved to New Hampshire was far less than this, coming in just under 5,000.

A person who moves for the Project is called a Free Stater. Such people settle in various parts of the state. Concentrations of Free Staters can be found in Portsmouth, Keene, Manchester, Concord, and other regions. Some Free Staters choose to live in small towns; others choose to live in densely populated areas. Their stated, overt goal is to overthrow the New Hampshire state government through an election process to establish a small, libertarian government which favors the individual over the state.

Tiffany Hale, who moved in 2017, reports in the Free State Projects Movers Stories blog that she was incredibly happy with her decision to move to Berlin. She writes, We have been welcomed with open arms into the community (FSP and otherwise). Were so happy to be here; making the move was definitely right for our family! It was emotional to leave family, friends, and all things familiar, but now that were here we couldnt be happier!

Elliot Axelman, who prefers to be called Alu, moved from New York. He writes, Eight months have passed since we moved here, and I maintain that it was the best decision Ive ever made. We have excellent jobs; weve made great friends inside and outside of the liberty movement; and we are living in a beautiful apartment. Unlike in NYC, its likely that you can afford to live in the apartment or house you desire in New Hampshire.

Participants identifying themselves as Robert and Carol moved together as a couple from Wisconsin. Robert writes, The people here are wonderful. The area offers so much from outdoor adventure to excellent shopping. We are within an hour of mountains, Boston, the seacoast, and some of the countrys most beautiful, clean and breathtaking forests, trails and waterways.

Tony Jankowski came to New Hampshire as a Free Stater and fully intends to return, but had to leave for a career move to Portland, Oregon.

There is no better place for a person to raise their children and no better, no more a diverse community than that of Free Staters and other porcupine, Jankowski said.

These are some of the experiences participants have had since moving to New Hampshire in search of personal human liberty.

Their guiding philosophy is the Non-Aggression Principle, also called the NAP, which states unprovoked violence against another person is wrong. Such violence is often found through state measures such as forcible confiscation of property and excessive force on the part of police officers toward average citizens. While this certainly sounds appealing in principle, in practice, things havent always gone smoothly.

In 2016, after arguing that 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sexual activity with adults, Ian Bernard, also known as Ian Freeman, was expelled from the Free State Project. He had been a participant for 10 years. A week later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation served a warrant at 73 Leverett Street in Keene, NH after a months-long child pornography sting. Later that year, Bernard ran for Governor of New Hampshire as a Democrat.

Bernard had long been a part of a libertarian radio show called Free Talk Live. The show regularly featured Christopher Cantwell who was expelled from the Free State Project in 2013 for advocating violence against government agents. (He would remain bitter about it for at least another year when another post appeared on his blog highlighting what had happened). Since then, Cantwell has become infamous for being the Crying Nazi of Charlottesville. He has become an unapologetic white supremacist who argues for selective genocide based on ones political ideology

He was also a part of a group called The Free Keene Squad who went around filming themselves harassing parking enforcement staff working for the city of Keene. While being interviewed for Comedy Central, Cantwell showed off his firearm and his proficiency with it. Whether or not he is still permitted to own firearms after beginning work as an FBI informant remains to be seen.

After seeing his friend expelled and seeing himself get expelled, Ian Bernard started a group called Shire Society, a cult-like group that requires each participant to sign a declaration similar to the Free State Projects iinformal agreement. Thus far, the Shire Society has done little more than congratulate itself on not banning pedophiles and white supremacists. They havent been committing physical violence against anyone by doing so.

On his website FreeKeene.com, Bernard has even gone so far to defend Cody Wilson, an anarchist who was charged with having sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old girl he met on a website called SugarDaddyMeet. In August 2019, Wilson pled guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child. Prior to this incident, Wilson was scheduled to speak at the FSPs yearly February event called Liberty Forum based on his knowledge of 3D-printing firearms.

Another FSP participant named Aaron Day has gained ill repute by supporting Mike Gill, who accused certain New Hampshire residents of being heroin dealers. Day and Gill together lost a civil suit for defamation in which a jury awarded $274 million to the plaintiffs. Prior to this, Day would regularly run for public office in Bedford. In 2016, he ran as an independent for the U.S. Senate just to prevent incumbent Kelly Ayotte from being re-elected.

The Free State Project, meanwhile, has enjoyed a modicum of success running candidates for the New Hampshire State House. FSP participants Mike Sylvia, Glen Aldrich, Emily Sandblade, Mark Warden, and Elizabeth Edwards have at various times been fixtures in the states political process. Anywhere from 10 to 20 participants can be counted on to win elections in the legislature every year. Far more Free Staters run and do not succeed in getting elected.

While not exclusively so, most Free Staters who run for office do so as Republicans based on the ideals of small government who spends its money responsibly. This, as often as not, leads to a divide among the participants between those who are conservative and those who are not. Increasingly, more conservatives (rather than libertarians) appear to be active participants, making it difficult for left-leaning participants to have an equal voice or be taken seriously by others.

The infighting which takes place usually centers around a classical definition of libertarianism as advocated in the 19th century by writers such as Benjamin Tucker which was synonymous with state-free socialism and todays definition of libertarianism which is synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, a political ideology which arose from the works of economists Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises, among others. The anarcho-capitalist philosophy traces its roots to Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations, who ironically was more politically left than those who espouse his ideas may realize. Left-libertarianism, or state-free socialism, has largely arisen from the works of Karl Marx, Peter Kropotkin, and Voltarine De Cleyre, among others.

While these two ideologies agree that centralized power is a net negative for society, left-libertarians would suggest that centralized power can be found in private organizations as well as public ones. An anarcho-capitalist would reply that all private authority depends on the consent of those who engage in it. A person who doesnt like their private authority figures simply needs disengage from them in order to obtain personal freedom.

Because the two sides have not been able to disagree, the Free State Project has not been able to offer a united front between all kinds of libertarians in order to achieve their goal. Indeed, as Jason Sorens observed in 2001 regarding the Libertarian Party, the Free State Project has yet to achieve its goals either of having 20,000 libertarians in the state or taking over the legislature.

When there is police overreach or government corruption, Free Staters are often among the first to respond. This was the case in 2016 when the police department of Manchester issued a shelter-in-place order for the West Side of the town in hopes of catching a fleeing suspect. The lockdown, as it came to be known, presented concerns as to whether community members were trading liberty for security.

The Free State Project soon protested these decisions in front of City Hall by holding signs for passers-by to view in their cars. The message presented that day was unambiguous: police officers should not take their authority too far. A counter-protest by other community members followed in support of their local police department.

While shelter-in-place orders have been used since then in Manchester, they did not have nearly the frightening, terrorizing aspect of the one from 2016 in which community members of Manchester were threatened by police officers who did not know whether or not they might be shot at any given moment.

The Free State Project is also known for alerting drivers of DUI checkpoints by holding up signs in the dark of night. The checkpoints, which are suspected of being a waste of resources, have long been disputed as an unnecessary disruption of someones day. While it is not under dispute whether drunk driving is a hazard for the public at large it is the checkpoints did little to reassure people that drunk drivers were actually being taken off the road among those who failed to see Free Stater signs, or who chose to ignore them completely. In 2018, after Representative John Burt claimed fewer than 1 percent of all drivers passing through such checkpoints are found to be driving under the influence, the statehouse passed a bill banning all DUI checkpoints throughout New Hampshire. As an alternative, roving patrols were suggested where police could identify anyone suspected of driving under the influence through erratic behavior. This was an unqualified success for the Free State Project, one of many it has enjoyed since it started in 2003.

Free Staters have long been activists for marijuana legalization. Legalization for medical marijuana passed in 2012 in both the New Hampshire House and Senate, only to be vetoed by then-governor John Lynch. Medical marijuana was later legalized and expanded upon by Governor Maggie Hassan. Based on the belief that a person should be able to do with their body what they please, the New Hampshire House has regularly considered whether various amounts of marijuana should be legal, and for what purpose. As recently as 2017, possession of of an ounce of marijuana is legal in the state of New Hampshire. Misdemeanor charges were also replaced with fines for the first three offenses; charges would only be brought after a fourth offense.

Despite their successes, the Projects participants most often remain hamstrung by their own need for ideological purity, if not outright terrible behavior toward their fellow human beings. The successes the FSP has won, which have often been small and incremental, remain overshadowed by the imperfect human nature of others. The Free State Projects reputation is often not the best with other New Hampshire community members.

When the move was triggered in 2016 by having 20,000 participants, a five-year window was opened during which time all interested participants from around the world could come to New Hampshire. If less than 20,000 people have moved by the year 2022, the Free State Project will reassess its current operations.

Editors note: The author moved to New Hampshire for the Free State Project in February of 2016 and has since withdrawn as a participant.

Winter Trabex is a freelance writer from Manchester and Inklink Community Contributor. Full disclosure: She moved to New Hampshire for the Free State Project in February of 2016 and has since withdrawn as a participant.

Link:
The successes and failures of the Free State Project - Manchester Ink Link

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

The McKinsey Mayor has a plan: Copy the most successful Democratic politician of the last generation. If an inexperienced but inspiring young black man from Chicago could become president, why not an even less experienced, even younger gay man from Indiana? John McCormick reports for the Wall Street Journal reports that "it is Mr. Buttigieg among the top-tier candidates who is trying the hardest to mimic the former presidents campaign style."

There are just two problems. Pete Buttigieg is running a radically different campaign in a radically different time. Where the party's center of gravity was decidedly moderate in 2008, today it is deeply fissured between moderates and a resurgent left. Thus where the Obama campaign could plausibly both promise optimistic, sweeping change and run on moderate policies, the Buttigieg campaign is going straight for moderates by cynically blasting quality leftist policy like Medicare-for-all and tuition-free college with conservative rhetoric.

Despite his smiling persona, Buttigieg, like Amy Klobuchar, is all about falsely telling the American people what they can't have. Call it the audacity of nope.

Over the past few weeks Buttigieg has started several policy fights with the left. He attacked Elizabeth Warren over her support for Medicare-for-all, demanding to know how she would raise taxes to pay for it despite the fact that he has still not fully costed out his own plans, which would certainly require at least several hundred billion per year in new taxes (though the campaign has said repealing Trump's corporate tax cut might pay for his health-care agenda). More importantly, Buttigieg failed to mention that his own plan would be more expensive on net than Medicare-for-all, because it would not have the same leverage over prices and would preserve much of the current duplicative and wasteful structure.

Most recently, Buttigieg has attacked Medicare with tendentious libertarian ideology about choice. "Youre not free if you dont have health care," he said in a recent stump speech, "but you should have the freedom to choose whether you want it." By this view, non-universal Medicare increases choice and is hence better but elides the fact that it would foreclose the choice of a complete system which covers everyone from cradle to grave, without exception. As usual, libertarian choice rhetoric obscures more than it reveals.

Now, this might sound somewhat familiar. Back in 2008, the major health care policy argument was whether the reform that would become ObamaCare should have an individual mandate. And Obama did cynically promise, Buttigieg style, that his plan would not need one, only to put it back in when it came time to pass the bill. But this was a narrow and technical point that only partly obscured that both candidates basically agreed about what needed to be done. Unlike Buttigieg, Obama was not running far to the right of a full-throated Medicare-for-all supporter.

Buttigieg's case against tuition-free college is just as bad. He would zero out tuition only for families making less than $100,000, and reduce it for families making between that and $150,000. His reason: "I have a hard time getting my head around the idea a majority who earn less because they didnt go to college subsidize a minority who earn more because they did." This is utterly disingenuous, and politically poisonous. In fact, it is the ultra-rich who would pay for tuition-free college under both the Sanders and Warren proposals, with a financial transactions tax and a wealth tax respectively.

As historian Eric Rauchway points out, tuition-free college was also the actual reality for most public American colleges for over a century just the kind of universal program that boosted citizen solidarity and fellow feeling. Indeed, back in 1974, Fred M. Hechinger predicted that then-new tuition fees "threaten to turn higher education into an instigator of class warfare," because if the "children of the [poor] are encouraged to attend college tuitionfree or even on a subsistence subsidy as they ought to be then hardpressed middleclass families are likely to react in anger and political vindictiveness."

That is pretty much exactly what happened, as middle- and upper-middle class families with young children now have to scrimp and save for decades to have a chance at affording college or their kids end up saddled with gigantic student loan debt, or both. Now Buttigieg is exploiting that class divide, using education policy that absolutely would benefit the overwhelming majority to drive a wedge between the middle and working classes. "[W]here I come from, three out of four people dont have a college degree," he said recently. "And if the message were sending to them is that you need a college degree in order to get by in life were leaving most Americans out."

The major concrete effect of this duplicity, of course, would be to protect the top 1 percent from taxation, and make post-secondary education more expensive for people not terribly far up the income ladder.

In the 2008 primary, just like health care, Hillary Clinton and Obama basically agreed with the since-abandoned education reform consensus, and it barely came up during the debates. Unlike Buttigieg, Obama was not running far to the right of a free tuition supporter.

Buttigieg's cynical moderation is reflected in his demographic support, which comes overwhelmingly from older whites. Every supporter quoted in the Wall Street Journal article is over 58. Where Obama racked up tremendous margins among the young and minorities with his energetic charisma, the ongoing Morning Consult poll finds that nearly 90 percent of Buttigieg supporters are white, 59 percent over 55, and 35 percent over 65. Just 6 percent of his supporters are black, and 8 percent between 18-29. The famed Obama coalition it is not.

In retrospect, one can see a great deal of cynicism in the Obama campaign of 2008, especially in his subsequent treatment of homeowners. But partly because his presidency was a disappointment, you can no longer promise "hope and change" without actually backing it up with genuinely aggressive policy.

Buttigieg might be rising in the polls with his elderly coalition, but he'll never recapture that Obama magic.

See original here:
Pete Buttigieg and the audacity of nope - The Week