Buttigieg suggests Biden's 2024 run was "maybe" a mistake
Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary under former President Joe Biden, appeared to acknowledge Tuesday that he believed Biden should not have run for a second White House term.
When asked by reporters if the Democratic party would have been better off without Biden as the nominee, Buttigieg responded, "Maybe, you know, right now, with the benefit of hindsight, I think most people would agree that is the case."
Buttigieg, who won the 2020 Democratic Iowa caucus, made the remarks following a town hall in the Hawkeye state hosted by a progressive veterans PAC. Buttigieg served as Biden's transportation secretary from 2021 until he left office in January.
Buttigieg addressed whether he saw signs that Biden was experiencing any kind of cognitive decline. Speculation about Biden's situation ramped up following his poor debate performance against President Trump in June, and the ensuing fallout ultimately led to Biden dropping out of the race.
"Every time I needed something from him from the West Wing I got it," Buttigieg said of Biden. "And the time I worked closest with him in his last year was around the Baltimore bridge collapse. And I want to tell you is that the same president the world saw addressing that, was the president that I was involved with."
This visit to Iowa comes amid a flurry of speculation that Buttigieg is considering a second presidential run in 2028. Buttigieg recently passed on a 2026 run for the U.S. Senate in Michigan, and has made a number of media appearances in recent weeks.
"Anyone can come to Iowa just before an election's coming up," Buttigieg joked with the audience shortly after taking the stage at the VoteVets event. "I wanted to make sure I had a chance to talk with the people I got to know five or six years ago, and people I'm seeing for the very first time."
Buttigieg played coy on whether he was assessing a potential presidential run, telling reporters that, "Right now, I'm not running for anything. Part of what's exciting about an opportunity like this is to be campaigning for values and for ideas rather than a specific elected office."
When asked by an audience member what can be done to combat some of the Trump administration's proposed cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Buttigieg encouraged them not to "back down."
"There's this sense of inevitability, invincibility, right, that the president's trying to create," he said. "But it's not true. Don't back down. They'll back down when he screws up badly enough, not as often as I'd like, but they change their mind all the time. They changed their mind on tariffs."
Buttigieg's remarks echoed similar comments he's made in media appearances in recent weeks, especially in speaking about the future of the Democratic party, which he has encouraged to "meet people where they are."
Buttigieg said it is "politically and substantively wrong" for the party to suggest returning to a status quo when Democrats were last in power.
"I am not here to say we gotta make things back the way they were in 2023," Buttigieg said. "The hard truth is, if our government, our politics, our society and our economy were working, we wouldn't be here. Pro-authoritarian populist movements, they don't just come out of nowhere."
Buttigieg refused to weigh in on whether Iowa should be the Democrat's first primary contest in 2028. In 2023, the Democratic National Committee, with the support of Biden, controversially changed the calendar to make South Carolina the first state in Democratic primary schedule. Prior to that, the Iowa caucuses had led off the process since 1972.
"People like me are makers, not takers, on the rules like that," Buttigieg said. "What I will say is Iowa showed me what can happen through a process where you have to be in backyards, doing a few town halls a day. It made it possible for me to emerge as a candidate, and it certainly made me better, not just as a candidate but as a public servant."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.
CNN
16 minutes ago
- CNN
Los Angeles mayor blames immigration raids for violence
The situation in Los Angeles has calmed down after protesters clashed with police over the weekend. CNN witnessed police using flash-bangs and tear gas to disperse crowds, with some hitting protesters, as well as protesters setting self-driving cars on fire. The city's mayor, Karen Bass, says she blames federal immigration raids for the escalating tensions.
New York Times
17 minutes ago
- New York Times
Mayor Bass of Los Angeles Blames Immigration Raids for Inflaming Tensions
Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles said on Monday that the Trump administration and its immigration raids were to blame for inflaming tensions in the city. In a televised interview, Ms. Bass sought to downplay the protests of the last few days. 'This is not citywide civil unrest,' she said on CNN. 'A few streets downtown, it looks horrible.' She noted that most Angelenos have been living life as normal, away from the clashes focused in a relatively small area outside a federal office building and detention center downtown. She promised that protesters who destroyed cars and threw things at police officers would be prosecuted, and said that the police were combing through video images of the clashes to identify people who had committed crimes. Ms. Bass said that it was President Trump and his federal immigration authorities who had provoked the unrest by sending federal agents in tactical gear to workplaces in the city to detain and deport immigrants. 'Why were there raids?' she asked. 'We had been told that he was going to go after violent criminals. It wasn't a drug den; it was a Home Depot.' Ms. Bass was referring to one of several immigration raids conducted on Friday that prompted days of protest, including at a Home Depot in the nearby city of Paramount, Calif., where day laborers regularly gather in search of work. She said it appeared that the Trump administration was deliberately trying to sow chaos in the city, and then generating more backlash by sending in National Guard troops. 'What was the reason that the president had to take the power from the governor and federalize the National Guard?' she asked. 'The night before this action was taken, there was a protest that got a little unruly, late at night. It was 100 people. Twenty-seven people were arrested. There wasn't a reason for this.'
