I can’t bring myself to watch a State of the Union from 45, and I’ve always had mixed feelings about the tradition of an opposition response, but this year the latter will be presented by our own Congressman Joe Kennedy.
Please share widely!
Kennedy to deliver SOTU response
Why CNN also has an official GOP response and a ‘Tea Party’ Response is beyond me. For a ‘fake news’ ‘liberal’ station, they certainly are giving unequal time to the far right.
Also Markey should step aside for Kennedy, so he can be a viable candidate in 2028. Or maybe he and Moulton can duke it out.
How about neither, because they both stink (Moulton much more so)? Moulton is actively bad on some things (consumer protection, defense), but there is nothing Democrats love more than a person with a great resume (or name!) and the willingness to talk lame [stuff] about bipartisanship or the importance of addressing the deficit.
Leave my senator out of your silly succession scenarios, please.
Could not have said it better myself….
Ditto. This is one of those fake “insider” arguments with zero substance behind it. Nobody who has experience in Congress would make this argument but a family member might make this mistake.
I’m gonna pile on here, jc. Markey is consistently progressive where it matters; bipartisan in a principled and effective way; outspoken on a bunch of technical issues that affect American life in a profound way — think net neutrality. Also a climate hero, a guy who really gets it. He is drastically under-appreciated, especially on the left.
He tells corny jokes and his residency is suspect, I get it. But until Ed Markey gets senile and ineffective, you’ll have to make a *realllly* strong case to replace him.
Also too (sorry man), I’m a little baffled on the Moulton appeal to progressives. He takes some good shots at the GOP, sure; but he’s never made a substantive, much less convincing case vs Pelosi for a new direction in the party, for instance. So I keep waiting: when’s he gonna show us some depth?
Moulton is bad. We should have listened to him when he said he’s a “pretty centrist guy” when he decided not to run in the cycle before he jumped in.
I think the recent FISA vote is more than enough to be a disqualifier for him but he’s got a bunch more terrible votes in which he was one of a small group of Dems to join the GOP. He’s got great PR, though.
Charley, your best 2016 take was the need for more younger leaders in the party. I never said Markey should be primaried or that he is doing a bad job. I am only saying if we want a younger bench with new leaders we probably should start electing them and encouraging them to run…
Just a note for the record that the words Senator and Senate derive from roots meaning old man. Obviously we can elect someone as young as 30, but I don’t understand why there seems to be an ageist streak in what some people are looking for in our elected officials. Last I checked with age comes wisdom and experience (though not guaranteed of course as proven by our 71-year-old POTUS).
Moulton’s involvement with the New Dem Pac was enough for this working class Democrat to hope he does not rise too high in the party or our government,
Two gripes concerning Markey. First, using his office to help a donor short sell Am way stock. Second, his craven ,Trumpean,pandering to the yahoos who demanded that Tsarnaev’s body not be buried in Massachusetts.
His proposal to strip the nuclear codes from Trump is also foolishly short sighted. The time to have that debate was well before he was elected and his Republican opponents, the media, and Hillary failed to make that case. The decision to launch nuclear weapons has to rest in the executive alone or they are completely ineffective as a deterrent. If we honestly feel he is that unstable, the 25th amendment is there as a remedy.
The weakness of 25 is that it has to be invoked by his own VP and cabinet, the very ones presumably most loyal to him. Even just giving the combined authority to a couple more people (say VP and SecDef) will be enough of a check on unilateralism while still being able to move fast enough if it is that obvious we need it.
I’m not denying it’s a weak remedy, but it’s a constitutional one and one created after the realities of nuclear weapons unlike Markey’s proposal that takes us back to an 18th century understanding of war powers. It’s a very strict constructionist approach to Executive Power. We should remember why nuclear weapons were centralized in the presidency in the first place.
The first reason under Truman was so field commanders would not simply use it as another weapon. It’s a recognition that it’s power is so severe only an elected leader should have the ultimate say regarding its use. Under Eisenhower it evolved further since our main adversary at the time would not have to consult with a legislature to give such an order. So our elected executive needed sole authority to make that decision for the weapons to deter such an order from the Soviet Union. I shudder to think how different some Cold War scenarios would’ve been if that authority was spread across 435 other people with their own agendas.
I am all for repealing the AUMF and Congress reasserting war powers. Particularly over drones and questions like the Nigerian operation where legislators were only informed we were there after our men were killed. Nuclear weapons are entirely different.
Am I comfortable with Trump having authority over them? Absolutely not. It’s the single best reason why me and a majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton. I am even more uncomfortable with a future Democratic President having to ask the Freedom Caucus for permission to do her job.
Again, I suggested VP and SecDef, not Congress.
I wonder what name calling stunt Trump will try to pin on Joe. I’d love to see a debate between the two. Joe’s extensive knowledge of the government and understanding of how it all works would have Trump backpedaling for hours. I watched Joe go up against Sean Bielat at Wellesley in a debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters (I think) and he clearly owned the stage. Plus, Joe has a heart.
I’m legitimately curious, what is the case that a Kennedy backer would make that he’s deserving of this? The counter-argument (got where he is because of name, doesn’t show party’s diversity, not progressive) seems much more obvious.
The same thought occurred to me, and that the Democrats might be appealing to a certain tone-deaf nostalgia by picking “a Kennedy”. He’s not a terrible choice at all — well-spoken, passionate, sincere — but there would be many good ones.
Who knows — they may be trying to avoid a “winner’s curse” here, since the record of those delivering the SOTU response is decidedly mixed. It’s not Kamala Harris or Gillibrand (say) because they have legit Presidential prospects. JKIII is low-risk/high-reward.
Ageee with Charley. Low risk/high reward. He’s not a 2020 contender. My response to Green Miles is that his name is a liability more than an asset outside of Massachusetts. It certainly had everything to do with his quick rise to the House, something I was a critic of at the time.
That said, if you hear him speak and look at his record, it’s obvious he’s smarter and wonkier than the typical celebrity politician. I’ve been fairly dismissive of the Kennedy legacy and their entitlement to office, yet he won me over. His uncle Chris is running one of the most honest campaigns for office I’ve seen in Illinois as well.
Why more of a liability? I suppose it’s possible I’m blinded by my MA roots, but I thought Camelot still carried many positive nostalgia vibes nationwide.
I think it’s always been a double edged sword. There is definitely a faction of the country sick of dynasties in both parties and we fatally underestimated that in the last presidential campaign. I weigh each Kennedy on their individual merit. Joe’s grandfather remains a hero of mine, his father was a lightweight, and he’s becoming his own man with the potential to be a great leader.
” his father was a lightweight”
Not true. He was the best voice for a progressive policy on housing in the Congress when he was there. I was very disappointed (to say the least) that he was elected, but he surprised me (to say the least again) by working hard on housing and tenant issues at a time when those issues did not have much cachet.
Having long lived outside of Massachusetts, the name doesn’t evoke Camelot but the many personal foibles of the late Senator. I’m a little disappointed in the choice because it conveys the impression, once again, that elected positions in the Democratic Party can be passed down in families like an earldom.
They have nobody ready for prime time who isn’t in their 70s, or a “family name”?
I don’t think this is something one “deserves”. I think you go with someone who can clearly articulate the party’s message.
I learned more about Kennedy’s record on marijuana today. It’s despicable.
He was one of 10 Dems to vote against an amendment that would prevent the federal government from arresting and prosecuting someone who was using medical marijuana legally under their state’s medical marijuana laws.
He was one of 24 Dems to vote against a similar amendment that would prevent the federal government from acting against an individual who was using marijuana legally under their state’s marijuana laws (this one extended to recreational use).
He voted three times to limit access to medical marijuana by military veterans.
And he was one of 5 Dems to vote against a measure that would protect children from being targeted by the DEA for using non-psychoactive marijuana extracts to treat severe seizure disorders.
Also, Keating voted the same way on all of these votes.
Frankly I would also likely vote against provisions designed to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law. I believe Kennedy’s position on drugs are largely informed by his cousin Patrick’s struggle with them.
Ok, but would you call support for his (and your) position progressive? If you think that position could be progressive, how so?
His position may be informed by his cousin’s experience, but it is clearly not informed by an understanding of the impact of the war on drugs, anything from the public health community, or respect for state lawmaking.
“Frankly I would also likely vote against provisions designed to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law.”
These things becoming law would have the effect of changing federal law. You don’t think Congress should do that?
I don’t know if it’s progressive or not and I really don’t care, I was never one to automatically look for the most progressive position or candidate, though I’m by no means convinced that introducing another drug into the legal market is progressive either. I’ve said for a while that I’m open to rescheduling marijuana altogether, but if that’s what you want then just do it. Don’t keep a law on the books then tell the feds they are only allowed to enforce it in certain states. I know there are some who will argue distinctions, but for states to legalize what the federal government has declared illegal still has a feeling of nullification to me.
His position on drugs is wrong, but it’s hardly a litmus test for me.
Given that the “War on Drugs” is evolving into a tool to go after political opponents in the Sessions Justice Department, I would have to say that it is fast approaching deal-breaker issue for me.
Those votes are favors to AG Sessions. I am unimpressed.
PS It’s not just a question of who, but of where. Check out this bracing commentary from the Fall River Herald News:
http://www.heraldnews.com/news/20180127/livin-and-dion-fall-river-perfect-backdrop-for-kennedy-response
That was an awesome editorial. I think we write places like Fall River off at our own peril. The other irony of places like that is, they are usually full of new immigrants working side by side with working class whites. Hence the tension, and also in my view, an opportunity for a real leader to bridge those divides. I think Joe Kennedy has a name that appeals to older Reagan-Obama-Trump Democrats as well as a record that appeals to minorities and millennials. Unimpeachable on women’s rights, uniquely for a Kennedy, in both his private as well as his public life. I’m all for highlighting the party’s diversity and reflexively flinch at dynasties, but the old Eddie McCormack line can be reversed for this Kennedy. If his last name were Patrick we would still be taking him very seriously.
What record appeals to millennials? Being young?
His marijuana stance is closer to a Boomer Republican than a supposedly progressive young person. Marijuana legalization is showing to be extremely popular across the board and outrageously popular among young people.
He has a very bad vote on warrantless wiretapping. He cosponsored that incredibly bad and unamerican bill that would make support for a boycott of Israel a federal crime (another area not too popular among young people). He’s also the only House Progressive Caucus member to not join with 120 (!!!) Democrats in support of Medicare for All.
I don’t dispute that the package looks good, I dispute that the there is really there.
What’s he really good at other than scratching the West Wing-loving itch of centrist and center-left Democrats?
He’s making the mistake of listening to the donors, not the voters,at least for the short run. I’ll give him a few years to get beyond that.
Totally. I think he’s a donor-aligned Dem who says nice things on the easy topics but doesn’t back it up with support for stronger policies (Medicare for All, tuition-free public higher ed, etc.). The $500K he has in stock in Gilead Sciences isn’t great either.
My main point is that we can do better. Much better.
Even just looking around at our current delegation, Katherine Clark is much more impressive with her record, policy positions, and getting important things done (as much as one can in the current Congress). Why is she not getting the national love?
Of course, I was very disappointed with Joe when he supported Clinton and not the one Democrat pushing for single payer, a principle that was near and dear to his Uncle Teddy. That really pushed my doubt buttons about him.
He can afford to be bold, but isn’t. That troubles me.
My hunch is that the Democrats are putting him out there to troll Trump who, if Joe does well, will no doubt say some awful things about the Kennedy family just as he said awful things about McCain, a Gold Star family, and a physically handicapped reporter.
The only problem with that is we have already seen that Trump’s base will support him no matter what he says. If anything, more disgusting the remark the more his base adores him.
Doubleman makes a great point re: Katherine Clark.
Also the text of the speech leaked, and…it’s not good
Not sure what transcript you read, but it sounded great to me and he’s getting good reviews.
I am not a fan of JK111, not at all, but I give him mad credit for inviting transgender Army staff sergeant, Patricia King, to be his guest at the State of the Union address.
Trump’s speech was verrrrry good, hitting all of the notes he needed to cement his base and also reach out to the mushy middle. It was scary but he may throw it away with tomorrow’s Twitter barrage.
Joe Kennedy, with my previously expressed doubts to the contrary, was brilliant in both substance and delivery. He was impressive in a way I did not expect. The text is here https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/read-rep-joe-kennedy-s-response-trump-s-state-union-n843101
Yup, he’s ready to be crowned from the responses I’m seeing around.
It was a fine speech that tickled the “higher angels” desires of liberals, but was completely empty on specifics. Obama with less skill and a odd choice for the face of the future of the party. A ginger scion worth $40M, not, you know, a woman or person of color? It was also inaccurate as casting this Administration’s policy approaches as something new in American politics.
“They are turning American life into a zero-sum game.
Where, in order for one to win, another must lose.
Where we can guarantee America’s safety if we slash our safety net.
We can extend healthcare to Mississippi if we gut it in Massachusetts.
We can cut taxes for corporations today if we raise them for families tomorrow.
We can take care of sick kids if we sacrifice Dreamers.
We are bombarded with one false choice after another:
Coal miners or single moms. Rural communities or inner cities. The coast or the heartland.”
None of that is new or unique to this Administration. I don’t doubt that this will be the campaign against Trump – “We’re America, we’re better than this” – but can we finally start promising people good stuff that they want?
Switching to Spanish to address Dreamers was weird. The whole point is that they are Americans and have been here their whole lives (and come from countries all over the world).