Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Time For Patrick Kennedy To Shut Up !

By

Congressman Patrick Kennedy is not doing himself or the Democratic Party any favors with his petty remarks about now Senator Scott Brown. They were inappropriate under any light and mean spirited.

I know Congressman Kennedy has been fighting  bouts of depression for a number of years and don’t want to pile on with this posting. Now, with his father’s death he has lost not only a father but an advisor and guide in Congress and life

Perhaps, Patrick Kennedy might find life a lot easier outside of Congress. It is time for him to stop and think of his own well-being and happiness outside of the political circus.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

        • Your point on Patrick Kennedy is correct. I am sympathetic to his problems and hope he has found a way to bring his demons under control. I even understand that seeing Scott Brown take his Dad’s Senate seat may have been an emotional experience. That said, he was out of line and he owes Scott Brown and his constituents an apology. Then he needs to decide if continuing as a Congressman is in his best interest.

          • She made repeated personal attacks on the President of the United States for her own political gain.  Will you be calling on her to step down from Fox News?

            • Would you respond with any seriousness if I asked you about the 21st Annual Fag Awards that are coming up this year?

              • Mr. Whelan is demanding Patrick Kennedy issue a public apology for calling a politician’s campaign “a joke.”

                <

                p>Sarah Palin spent 50 minutes making personal attacks on the POTUS.  Why isn’t he demanding an apology for that?

                <

                p>It’s exactly the same issue.

                <

                p>That you felt the need to insult gay people in response is amazingly creepy.  

                • I did not demand an apology from Kennedy although it would be appropriate. As for Palin, I am not a supporter and could give a damn if she says something good or bad about the President.  

                  <

                  p>The gay insult is also out of line. Are we cool?

                • My point is it’s all politics.  If calling the campaign a joke is the worst thing that gets said about Brown (by either side), I’ll be surprised.  

                • Why was the campaign a joke? You may not like Brown but he ran a good campaign. Conversely Coakley’s campaign is arguably why she lost.  

                • I’m not calling the campaign a joke.  It was clearly well run.  I just don’t understand the outrage over Kennedy’s remark.  It seems manufactured.  

                  <

                  p>Brown is notoriously thin-skinned and even he’s letting it go.

      • All he said was Brown’s candidacy was a joke, which is an interesting word to use after someone wins.  Brown himself called the remark unfortunate, but I’m sure he’s a big boy.  My point is that Atticus has a tendency to insult anyone he disagrees with in public life, clearly missing the memo regarding “If you can’t say something nice about someone…”  My comment was specifically about WHO posted this diary, but was intended to be taken lightly.

      • for all the Atticus diaries I can remember now is to comment about the diary and not in response to it.

        <

        p>The most heated discussions revolve around whether such diaries should be deleted or retained, and whether they were merely offensive or offensive and counterproductive.

  2. Patrick Kennedy showed about as much class as I have on BMG by calling Scott Brown’s remarkable win a “joke”. WTF has his political life been since he “graduated” from Brown to the US Congress thanks entirely to his family name. If there is a joke on Capitol Hill it is Patrick Kennedy. Go home you JOKE but please avoid crashing into any barricades on your ride out of DC!

    • So if Patrick Kennedy and you show similar levels of class, and if that makes Patrick Kennedy a joke, a joke who should go home, that means you are a ———— and you should —— ————.

      <

      p>I mean not to acknowledge this equivalence would be the height of hypocrisy.

      Certification: No scary long words were used in this comment.

    • Mean spirited.
      No Republicans have ever had problems?
      ……Sarah Palin and her daughter of questionable “family values” comes to mind…A Men’s airport washroom, The ‘Don’t Cry For Me Argentina’ governor of South Carolina…a Republican Senator from La. who has a penchant for cheap whores…
      Sould I go on?

        • Today

          Since Cohen won the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, it has become widely known that he was accused of abusing his ex-wife and holding a knife to the throat of an ex-girlfriend – a woman who was herself charged with prostitution. He also admits using steroids in the past.

          • and condemning those who don’t, while getting caught with diapers on/cheating on your wife/picking up men in airport bathrooms/etc.  

  3. Whats most worrisome about this is Patches horrific polling in his district and the fact that some serious Republican challengers are ready to take him on, including Bud Cianci, Gov. Carcieri, and several others.

    <

    p>Boy a Cianci/Kennedy fight would be really ugly but incredibly entertaining.  

        • …but I’m not sure I want to lump him in with the “reality challenged” on this site.

        • But so did James Michael Curley, James Traficant, a Louisiana governor, Robert Torricelli, all sorts of politicians have been elected during or after prison terms. That is not a reality challenged position it is a position based on an understanding of political history. Politics1.com said Kennedy could be challenged by Cianci who has a popular radio show, who had high approval ratings when he was arrested and after he was let out, and who might make a credible run for mayor sometime in the future, where he is outpolling the incumbent. Did you know any of that? No because you live in a ‘reality’ where a Kennedy can’t lose to a former felon. The same ‘reality’ where a Democrat can’t lose a MA Senate election. The same ‘reality’ where Obama can deliver a victory for Corzine. Frankly the same ‘reality’ where no one can re-elect Dubya.  And the same ‘reality’ where Deval Patrick is a show in for re-election in spite of his dismal approval ratings. And these are the assumptions that continually end with Democrats getting caught with their pants down on election day and losing.

          <

          p>I am a liberal but also a realist. And I want my party first and foremost to win elections, I will whine about whether or not the politicians are doing their job after they win. To live in a world where credible data showing that Kennedy is vulnerable, or showing that Patrick is vulnerable, or showing that Coakley was vulnerable somehow makes me unrealistic or an apologist for right wing politics is completely ridiculous. It is people like you sir, not I, who is making a mockery of this sites professed goal to be ‘reality’ based.

          <

          p>Apparently for you ‘reality based’ is simply a euphemism for ‘overly optimistic liberal propaganda’. I am not peddling conservative propaganda, I want Kennedy to stay in Congress as much as the next Democrat (not cause I like or respect him but just to keep the majority) but I also think continuing to pretend that the Democratic majority is invincible, or progressive victories are inevitable, is to pretend that the world is not what it actually is-and that is the opposite of accepting reality my friend.  

            • Go to [www.rwinters.com] to look up Deckers record, go to Red Mass Group and link to local RI blogs mentioning a Cianci run, or politics1.com. Go to wikipedia and look up James Curley, Jim Traficant, and a host of politicians that have won elections in spite of being former felons. Murtha survived Abscam to be a Congressman for another 30 years. McCain survived Keating Five to become a two time presidential candidate and nominee of his party. That is history and its plain to see. Cianci has an incredibly popular radio show and the Providence Journal has commissioned polls consistently showing that he is still politically viable for either Mayor or a statewide office.

              <

              p>I am not saying I would vote for Cianci, I am saying to presume no one would vote for a felon is to be unrealistic. If no better Democrat steps up to the plate, I want Patches to win, especially against Cianci. But simply wanting that does not make it so, you have to do the research and look at the facts, something I have a record of doing when it comes to politics because I am a huge political junkie. I have not made anything up and your attacks are baseless.

              • From calling BrooklineTom a radical atheist to claiming Deval has done nothing to your claims about Ken Reeves’ motivations, to your bizarre rants about Cambridge voting, you have a long history of making shit up. It’s obnoxious.

                <

                p>One more example — you seem to have a deep personal hatred for Majorie Decker.  Rather than provide specifics, you accuse her of “pedantic resolutions” and using “being a woman as an excuse to do nothing or grandstand on pointless issues.”  When called on it, you tell folks to go do the research.

                <

                p>Do you understand why people might find your comments both misogynistic and less than credible?

              • I’m well aware there are felons who’ve been elected to office. I’m also aware that the Rhode Island constitution makes Buddy Cianci ineligible to run for state office and that, while Buddy has joked about running on his radio show, he’s also talked extensively about his hatred for campaigning and has repeatedly vowed never to run again.

                <

                p>Further, I’m aware that Trafficant ran and LOST.  Same with Torticelli. Edwin Edwards won by having the good fortune to draw David Duke as an opponent.  In fact, this sentence mostly false — felons winning are few and far between:

                <

                p>

                But so did James Michael Curley, James Traficant, a Louisiana governor, Robert Torricelli, all sorts of politicians have been elected during or after prison terms.

                <

                p>Since you’re the person claiming Buddy is a threat to Patrick Kennedy, the burden is on you to 1) show he’s genuinely interested and 2) name a politician elected from prison in the last 20 years.

                • Here

                  <

                  p>and

                  <

                  p>here

                  <

                  p>Guess you’re the one ignoring reality.

                  <

                  p>Go to rwinters.com it will show that Decker has spent 90% of her council resolutions discussing foreign policy which the council has no control over, Reeves is already arguing he is entitled to the Mayors salary and official car as ‘acting Mayor’, check the Chronicle. Also look at its archives and see the extensive reporting on Reeves past tenure as Mayor where he abused his city issued credit card on personal expenses, his abuse of rent control back in the 1990s which resulted in an FBI investigation, and his abuse of the Mayors car during his last turn, essentially using it as a personal car.

                  <

                  p>Decker mentions repeatedly that she would love to be the first woman to have the Senate seat and that she has fought to get women ahead during her time in office. Simmons by contrast is running on her record and not on identity politics.

                  <

                  p>BrooklineTom wanted to outlaw religious speech outside of churches or the home, and even said he wished religion would ‘go away’. I am not saying that all atheists are radical, I am saying he is from a radical branch of atheism that sees eliminating any form of religious expression its ultimate goal.

          • I want my party first and foremost to win elections, I will whine about whether or not the politicians are doing their job after they win.

            Which attitude gives us the party of Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson. If you do not offer a real alternative, why would voters reward you? Brown is Senator because the Democrats’ majority did not deliver on the Party’s promises. The time for noisemaking is before the candidates are chosen, not after the election. Put up genuine progressives who will do more than pay lip service to serving the people. Then you won’t have to whine about the results. The notion that Republican-Lite candidates are the best ones to put forward because they appeal most to the moderate Republicans is a great way to stop any progress. You want to make a difference? Be different.

            • You can’t play ball without fielding a full team. Would I rather a Democratic party confined to the Northeast, heavily to the left, and voting in lock step or a party in power that can actually get things done, even if it has to compromise? I would choose the latter while I suspect many here would choose the former. The former is the path to electoral defeat and misery. Do Lincoln and Nelson make my blood boil? Sure. I want health care reform as much as anyone else. But can a more progressive Senator be elected in this states? I asked that question and only one of you responded saying Lincoln is getting a challenger who could outpoll her Republican opponents in the general election. That is a reality based answer that comes from data rather than blindly hoping the rest of the country follows your ideology. So fine she does deserve ousting. I have not seen a similar case made for Nelson. And CT can easily do better than Lieberman and can in fact sustain a more liberal Senator and I believe it shall do so in 2012 and that is a cause we can all agree is worth donating to and fighting for.

              <

              p>That said Republicans have won 6 of the past ten Presidential elections, so I do not live under the illusion that liberal candidates have an advantage nation wide, nor do I believe liberal solutions can be implemented nation wide to every problem. I do believe the right leader, like an Obama, can make liberal solutions palpable to the great majority of Americans that are independent or stuck in the middle. That’s the main difference between us-you are chasing after Senators and Congressmen that do not exist because the voters do not exist to elect them. There states are red for a reason because most of the voters are Republicans.

              <

              p>Would I rather have a Democrat that voted with Republicans 60% of the time or a Republican that voted with Republicans 100% of the time-that is the true question. I’d side with that Democrat any day of the week-especially if there is no one better who can come forward. You can’t vote for ghosts. If there are real candidates willing to challenge these bad Democrats that also have a shot at winning the seat than I am all for it. Until those candidates come forward, I will continue to support a conservative Democrat with us half the time than a conservative Republican with us none of the time.

              • to so-called liberals who are really crypto-Republicans, you guarantee that your (presumably) progressive agenda will not be fulfilled. You also guarantee that the voters will spurn your party like week-old fish. When given a choice between a Republican and someone who claims to be progressive, but performs just like a Republican, the voters will usually go for the genuine article.

                <

                p>I believe that most people are like me, and want to see officeholders trying to do the right thing, even if it’s unlikely that they will win at it. Seeing them give up and not even try, time after time, does not incline me to support or vote for them.  

                • I only support electing ‘crypto-Republicans’ as you call them, or as I would call them moderate-conservative Democrats in districts and states where it is IMPOSSIBLE to elect a true progressive. I think Stephanie Herseth is a great example of a Congresswoman who is not with progressives on guns, gays, or the public option but she has also been consistently against the war and civil liberty encroaching arms of the Patriot Act and the War on Terror. Politics is about the art of compromise, about taking what you can get.

                  <

                  p>The political reality is I can’t think of a pro-choice woman who could get elected in South Dakota without assembling the conservative record Stephanie has on guns and fiscal issues. If you can think of such a candidate you are welcome to support them, but I doubt they would win in South Dakota.

                  <

                  p>Lieberman is a prime example of where we could be doing better, a true crypto-Republican in a deep blue state is unaccetable. Ben Nelson is probably the best Democrat we can get from Nebraska-that’s just the political reality.

                  <

                  p>The Republicans are the party that is trying to past ideological purity tests, we shouldn’t follow them down the oblivion to marginalization.

  4. Whenever there is an election for a government position, and there is more than 1 candidate, the first question to ask is….

    <

    p>Who is running?

    <

    p>His Democratic primary opponent, Jonathan Brien (D-Woonsocket), has a reputation as an immigrant-basher and is going to run to Kennedy’s RIGHT.

    <

    p>If Kennedy had a Democratic primary opponent to his LEFT, I might support his retirement from the House. Such an opponent might….

    <

    p>1. Push Medicare for All in a very aggressive manner
    2. Critique Kennedy on NOT voting as his father did in 2002 over the Iraq war
    3. Push to end trade deals that send American jobs to third world, low-wage nations

    <

    p>This is not who the opponent is, however.

    <

    p>Right now, Kennedy is pushing for laws to prohibit lifetime spending caps per person in health insurance. This is the right stand to take and is admirable.

    <

    p>I am 33 years of age. For all my life, the Kennedys have had a reputation for “party” lifestyles. They are not hypocrits because they have NEVER campaigned on “family values.” The policy positions taken by the national government of this nation of 300 million are much more important than 1 man’s drunken and fried hijinks. And, of all of the candidates running for that seat, Kennedy’s positions are the best.

    <

    p>The Martha Coakley bloodbath taught that Democrats must fight back aggresively, and have solutions to people’s economic problems that resonate, or they will lose.

    <

    p>It is time for the man to fight back, not quit. Not with Jonathan Brien and John Laughlin (R-Tiverton) as the alternatives.

    • Glad to see you’re a fellow reality based Democrat who is not living under a rock and just pretending the Brown election didn’t happen. It did happen and our candidate lost, because she was a bad candidate but also because people think we are no longer representing their interests. When Democrats are clearly aligned with working class and middle class aspirations, and yes in many of those cases white aspirations, we win elections. When we are viewed as simply catering to minorities, feminists, and the urban poor we lose elections. This is not to say that Democrats should not continue to make the interest of advancing civil rights for minorities and women, and advancing the working poor, not part of their agenda. It does mean selling a broader agenda that embraces the middle class. The middle class views health care reform as a welfare/entitlement expansion that will be paid on the back of their labor and go towards illegal immigrants and undeserving poor people. Is that true? Of course Im not saying it is true, but to deny that’s what people out there think is to deny reality, the opposite of what a reality based community should do. Democrats should stop running away from health care reform and really sell it as a plan that helps middle class Americans. That should be the message. We have been saying for months this will cover the ‘uninsured’ which to some people=’the irresponsible’ or ‘illegal immigrants’ or ‘unemployed poor people’.

      <

      p>This reform saves COBRA and ensures it will survive the recession. It prevents HMOs from stopping coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It allows the working poor, including the typical white working class voter, to get some subsidies under the plan. It drastically lowers costs and is deficit neutral so it won’t raise taxes. Why isn’t that the message?  

Archives