There is a lot to agree with here. As for which "conservatives" have attacked Butler - you have me there because there is no accepted definition of conservative that we would all agree on. We have sort of a no true scotsman situation. I could point to many pundits who have said that Butler was only selected because she is a black, queer woman. Like does Ben Shapiro count as a conservative for you? I genuinely don't know.SFCityBear said:I admit I am not as adept at searching the internet as most of you here, but I searched high and low to find any conservatives, disingenuous or otherwise, who "attacked her for being black and queer. Please help me out here and give us some names. And they should be conservatives, not just Republicans, because as you very well know, not all conservatives are Republicans, and vice versa, not all Republicans are conservatives. We should not conflate the two, IMO.Unit2Sucks said:
No one has mentioned this, but aren't all 3 candidates currently house members? The GOP minority is extremely slim and appointing one of them would have left a vacant house seat for the remainder of the term.
I don't think Butler is nearly as unqualified as people are making her out to be. She led a large labor union (almost 400k members, California's largest) for more than a decade and was a public policy director for Airbnb. She's apparently a prolific fundraiser and has been running an influential PAC the last few years. I'm guessing that Newsom thought that she would be a more valuable ally to him than any of the other candidates and I don't think he's wrong. It's also a sign of respect for Kamala Harris and maybe was an olive branch to her.
She has strong roots in California, so the fact that she most recently was living out of state isn't really a big deal.
I am not surprised at the number of disingenuous conservatives attacking her for being black and queer. They vote and support far less qualified people. I suppose just because they are white men. When white men are elected or appointed with no qualifications, the deplorable are silent and never say "he was just elected because he isn't black, queer or female." Gavin had plenty of qualified black women to choose from and it wasn't hard for him to find one better suited to be our senator than any number of dreadful white men currently serving in the senate.
What qualified RFK Jr. to be president? Or Trump? Or Andrew Yang?
What qualified Kelly Loeffler to be a senator when she was appointed? Or as pointed out before, Tuberville or Herschel?
Qualifications never matter to conservative darlings.
Not everyone will be as well qualified as Feinstein or Kamala Harris. Schiff and Barbara Lee are both well qualified, but I would consider Butler to be better qualified to be California's senator than Katie Porter. Porter has very little history of public service (just her second term as a rep) and as far as I can tell she doesn't have much history or connection to California.
As to qualifications, and who is qualified and who is not, politicians are chosen to run or be appointed to office by their qualifications, their past history in preparing for a job at the next level, but they also can be chosen for their loyalty to party higher-ups and cast their votes in step (sometimes in lock-step) with those who are choosing or appointing them. Sometimes they are chosen for their value in attracting prospective voters, and prospective donors.
As to the first qualification, one's work experience and life experience preparing them for the next level, what makes you believe that those qualifications would be a predictor of success in their position at a higher level? There are many examples of highly qualified politicians who failed badly after they won an election to a higher level. Herbert Hoover comes to mind. Lyndon Johnson. How about Joe Biden? Who could have been better qualified for the job he now has? 50 years in politics, rising to be named vice-president and working 8 years in that job. As President, blunder after blunder, plunging the country into inflation, caving in to China and Iran, horrible exit from Afghanistan, selling off strategic oil reserves at a low price, letting a spy balloon from China hover over sensitive military installations, with nothing more than a wave at it?
How about his highly qualified cabinet? Many are highly qualified. Austin had a fine military record, and he's in charge of the Afghanistan debacle. Harris had a good career in law and as a senator, and she completely fumbles her main responsibility, keep the border secure. Blinken seemed to check all the boxes with his work history, and what has he done? We are less respected in the Middle East, and in China. Mayorkas was eminently qualified to be the Border Czar, and all he has done is mess it up, and lie constantly that the border is secure. Secure from armadillos maybe. Garland? He is highly qualified, but he is also an example of a yes man. That is not a qualification for office, it is a qualification for doing what his party or his President wishes. He will do as he is told, meaning stifle or at least slow-walk, all investigations of the Biden family, and come up with enough charges and lawsuits, and enough partisan judges, to keep the most popular Republican off the presidential ballot in 2024. His performance in front of Congressional Committee did not impress me. He was so tentative, so nervous, I wonder how he got his job in the first place.
On the other hand there have been a number people with seemingly unimpressive or even no qualifications for office, who have been successful after they won their election. Abe Lincoln comes to mind. Harry Truman had even less qualification for President. I would say say that Barack Obama did not appear to have the qualifications to be President, but I should think that you would say he was a successful President, wouldn't you?
As for everything else you've said, I think you are right on the money. Qualifications aren't the be all end all and they are highly variable. Butler may be considered extremely well qualified across some dimensions (fundraising, let's say) and less so across others (legislative experience).
We may disagree on how well certain people you've mentioned above have done at their jobs, but I think that's more about our own perceptions and biases. Categorically I agree with your logic.
