I’m just getting to writing up the Senate debate last night. (This is school vacation week and my schedule is not my own.)
And right from the outset, Ed Markey dominated. Joe Kennedy got his licks in — some of them legitimate. But never did Kennedy make an affirmative case for himself, rather than Markey, as the Democratic standard-bearer, or a movement leader, or a preferable alternative in any way.
He failed the Roger Mudd test; he failed the BMG Coakley test, when she told me in late 2009 that the important thing about the “Kennedy seat” was “how much he loved the job.” Yes, I’m sure that Joe Kennedy would love the job. But he hasn’t earned it.
When asked why he wants the seat, Kennedy gives no inspiring answer; apparently it’s because of TRUMP and to be a movement leader. When asked why him instead of Markey, the answer is even more insubstantial. While Kennedy talks about being a movement leader — someday, maybe, if you vote for him — Markey is actually leading a movement, with young climate activists of the Sunrise Movement affectionately calling the author of the Green New Deal “Dad”. Mr. Kennedy: Show, don’t tell.
Indeed, it was a telling moment when, asked why he should keep his seat, Markey had so much substantive ammunition — new proposals, bills authored and passed — that Jim Braude had to cut him off. He was, after all, just answering the question.
It was, on balance, not a great moment for the moderators Braude and Margery Eagan. It was good and apt to ask the candidates about the Weymouth compressor, but not framed around supposed financial conflict of interest, for either candidate. The question is not whether they’re compromised and therefore not really trying, since there’s no evidence of that from their actions; the relevant question is what leverage a US Senator can use to prevent this and future such projects.
Both candidates had very good, heartfelt answers on immigration and Trump’s ICE swat teams. In my estimation. Markey added more detail, including where he took on Trump admin and won on medical deportations. Markey gave a Michael Corleone answer to what he would offer Trump for his wall; and called for admitting many more refugees. To me, the refugee issue is a moral litmus test like few others; and certain prominent Massachusetts politicians have failed it utterly. So this matters, and it is right and brave to lead.
Markey’s worst moments were in response to the People’s Pledge question, where his position is frankly untenable; and when Kennedy noted his Iraq War vote. I can’t blame anyone for voting against Ed, or anyone else, for the Iraq War vote. But in my discernment, I view that vote as a sunk cost: A bad mistake, but not indicative of how he’ll act in the future.
There are no good answers on Afghanistan and anyone who tells you otherwise is kidding themselves. If we leave, the country collapses, the Taliban take over, women are brutally repressed, and the country slides back into a theocratic Dark Age. If we stay, more Americans die for vague policy goals that may or may not at all affect US security.
Some hot-button leftist issues did not fare well from either of these progressive candidates, Neither candidate is terribly warm to Medicare For All; both would apply means testing for free college. I actually agree with the leftists on both counts, but this indicates that Bernie Sanders’ online hordes might do well to broaden their scope beyond just getting a President elected. The President is not the Great Pumpkin, and can’t grant Medicare For All to the children of pure sincerity without Congress’ buy-in. That means big cultural change, which … hasn’t happened yet, and it’s not going to be cured by dank memes and mean-boy podcasts. If Massachusetts’ senators aren’t hot for Medicare For All, it’s not going to happen. So for now, it’s Buttigieigism in the Massachusetts Senate race.
So in conclusion: Did Joe Kennedy provide a “fierce urgency of now” motivation for his candidacy; or, on the other hand, a compelling reason why Markey has to go? Goodness no. He landed some punches on People’s Pledge and Iraq, but put little flesh on the bones of his claim to be a progressive leader.
Did Ed Markey provide compelling reasons for his unique leadership going forward? Absolutely yes. As mentioned, he is indeed leading the youthful climate movement right now — one of the most vital and exciting movements in politics today, and one that might well save the world. #GreenNewDeal is a chant, a cause, a calling card, a reason for hope among young people (and their parents). And his expertise on climate and energy policy, his command of the levers of power, are invaluable in this era, if human civilization is to survive.
Markey’s not perfect, as I stipulate above. But we must use discernment: He is necessary. This is his moment. We need him.
This isn’t close. It’s Ed.
Sorry but that debate remind me of Ed’s 44 years of mediocre and tepid representation as a government servant.
He portrays himself as a fighter for the environment, but dodges questions about why he takes money from natural gas interests building a project in Weymouth that he claims to oppose.
He tried to dance around his “getting money out of politics” hypocrisy by justifying walking away from his 2012 “people’s pledge” calling on NO OUTSIDE SPENDING FROM 3RD Party MONEY GROUPS with smoke and mirrors. Instead of opposing outside money, this time his new and improved “People’s Pledge” allows for outside groups. How convenient.
And I forgot he voted for the Iraq War. But I didn’t forget that he voted to deregulate banks and the financial system in the 1990’s, setting up Wall Street to run our financial system in 2008.
Sure, JoeIII has similar baggage. But not 44 years of the same old, same old. I may blank this race (probably not). But I can say for sure that Ed Markey is just a typical politician who calculates what he can get away with and appeases those he needs to appease. He is no profile in courage and how he deserves another 6 years after being a steward of the decline of our political system over the last 40 years is beyond me. So I guess this is a tepid endorsement of Joe III.
And if I could say what Jim and Marge were politely saying to Ed during the debate: STFU Ed, your just blowing hot air up here. I mean how many times to they have to remind him that he was filibustering? the man is clueless.
Unfortunately the longer this race goes on, the less impressed I am by both campaigns. I think the post-debate coverage was correct. Markey, like Capuano, is a run of the mill moderately liberal Senator who wisely attached himself to AOC’s coattails to inoculate himself from a Pressley style challenger. It’s largely succeeded in endearing him to the left wing of the party and climate activists. The same folks who will be ready to knife him the second Ayanna or Healey or the next woke millennial shows interest in the seat. The most laughable line of the night was when Markey called himself a leader for a new generation and a candidate of the future. Okay boomer.
Fortunately for Markey, his main opponent has not articulated a rationale for his candidacy and is treating these debates and this campaign like an open contest rather than a referendum on the incumbent. He’s also coming across like Buttigieg-an old persons idea of a young person. Tepid where he should be bold. Markey’s reluctance to sign onto Medicare for All, decriminalizing the border, or wading into our local housing crisis is a huge opening for Kennedy to flank him from the left that he won’t take. He just can’t take his eye of the next prize to focus on winning the one in front of him. Could be a fatal flaw.
I think the phrase “okay boomer” should be disallowed in courteous company. It is explicitly ageist.
I frankly think the TOS of BMG should be adjusted to reflect that. If any of us wrote commentary that was explicitly sexist, racist, or anti-Semitic, that commentary would rightly be removed.
Please stop.
Is the 65 year old retirement age ageist? Even the hidebound Catholic Church does a better job removing old cardinals from the voting pool than our own Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, and sadly now the presidency. I find it especially rich the same generation that proclaimed they hoped to die before they got old are clinging to power long after the likes of DeGaulle and Churchill and even Reagan gracelessly aged out of governing. Biden is an embarrassment. Bloomberg came pretty close. The only septuagenarian with any vigor on that stage is the one recovering from a heart attack. Markey’s been in power too long. You’re the one always saying the voters should be the ones to set term limits-this one is.
I see. So Elizabeth Warren lacks vigor?
Were the Jim Crow laws racist? Was it sexist to advertise job openings as “Help wanted for men” and “help wanted for women”?
I’ll tell you what’s rich. What’s rich is you busting Christopher’s chops for racism while you shamelessly advocate ageism.
Complaining about Ed Markey because you disagree with his policies is fair game. Complaining about him because you’ve decided that he’s “too old” is ageist.
I have a body mass index well into the “obese” range. Is it ok for somebody to say “Ok Fatso” to me? There really isn’t a great deal of difference between “ok boomer” and the invective that civilized society long ago decided was unacceptable.
The more you try and defend the indefensible, the more credibility you lose.
The boomers are by and large better off than the generations that came before and sadly the generations that came after. I don’t think it’s at all fair to compare people refusing to step aside in the twilight of their well paying careers for younger talent to rise up to the indignities and violence of Jim Crow.
Obviously the age of Warren or Sanders does not bother me because their ideas are new, and authentic, and genuine. What bothers me about Markey is he was once a pro life/pro union Catholic liberal who became a pro choice/free trading bank deregulating Atari Democrat Iraq hawk Clinton moderate who is now reinventing himself again as an AOC approved Green New Dealer Iran dove. He seems to care more about keeping his job than doing his job. He goes with the flow rather than leads a movement as Charley laughably argues above. That said, I may still vote for him since the young buck is just as bland and has few authentic or new ideas of his own. Our state deserves much better than this debate. I’m ageist on a case by case basis. When someone is out of touch, it’s time for someone new.
In the second paragraph of this comment, you present a typically (for you) clear and well argued case that, as you observe, makes no ageist references at all.
As to your first paragraph, I grew up in a MD suburb of Washington DC that never had Jim Crow laws. Nevertheless, phrases like “Show some respect, boy!” were commonplace. People of color were expected to cross to the other sidewalk to make way for whites. People of color were expected to sit in the back of the bus, while whites sat in the front.
In my view, there is no difference AT ALL between “people refusing to step aside in the twilight of their well paying careers for younger talent to rise up to the indignities” and “Colored people refusing to cross to the other side of the street so that respectable white people can pass”. None.
I find your first paragraph abhorrent. I like and admire your second.
The phrase “ok boomer” is an unacceptably ageist insult. The attitude that it reflects is indistinguishable from a demand that blacks should sit in the back of the bus.
There is room in the bus for all of us. Some of us have to stand for awhile (if we are able) until those who got on first get off at their stop.
It’s a joke Tom, one that can also be ironically deployed against younger people as Trickle Up did against Kennedy or my students do to get a rise out of me. It’s nowhere near equivalent a racist term from your childhood.
If you truly find it offensive I’ll monitor my use. My main point is Warren has done more in her six years than Markey has done in his 44. AOC has done more in one year of Congress than Markey has done in 44, and frankly he’s piggybacking off her bill and using it as a facelift for his record.
I guess I see it hurting enough people (myself included) that I don’t appreciate the humor in it. There is genuine hurt implicit in all identity politics and “jokes”. Interestingly, I’m reminded that I found “Cheers” to be hilariously funny — especially Carla — when it was first being broadcast. When I rewatch it now, too much of it now strikes me as simply cruel. I guess my skin is getting thinner as I age.
I agree with everything in your final paragraph about Ms. Warren, Mr. Markey, and AOC. I would add that I think the same is true of AOC compared with JKIII.
OK Boomer.
Signing on to the GND is right in Markey’s wheelhouse. I don’t think it takes a challenger to get him to do that.
love tooo tell myself that the AOC crowd will get behind Healey to take out the guy who has worked with her to promote the GND, and then deride woke Millennials as a Boomer would, while piggybacking on their expression “ok boomer” to unintentionally ironically mock myself.
A tepid endorsement is suitable for the tepid campaign JoeIII is running. You attacked Markey far more effectively in this little blog post than he did in a televised debate. They both sorta suck. Too bad Pemberton and Liss Riordon didn’t make it. Really happy our convention and caucus system is there to protect us from compelling outsiders who actually do things rather than insiders who spent the better part of a decade buttering up town committee chairs.
* sits down, cracks knuckles, thinks to self…*
“I’m going to do it. I’m going to write this diary, and nothing’s going to stop me. I’m going to take on reporting on the MA Dem primary debate for a Senate seat. Lots to cover, but I think I know my talking points, and how I’ll say that Ed Markey won. This is not really that big a project if you think about it. I’ll just keep it simple!”
* pauses, tenses up *
“I’m not going to do that again! I’m not going to let it happen this time. This is about the Dem Senate debate! Stay focused, Charley!,” he commands himself.
* gets through 1st paragraph, lightly edits, looks at it and feels happy, moves to second paragraph and then third, thinks to self…*
“Wow, I’m on a roll! See, I only had to concentrate on one thing! Life is so much easier when I stay focused. I could really get the knack of this!”
* sweat starts to emanate from his forehead, he completes the fourth paragraph and then the fifth paragraph *
“Uh-oh, I’m feeling weak. The temptation is too powerful. Am I low on blood sugar? Should I eat a Snickers bar? Maybe I should do some jumping jacks!*
* his legs start jittering *
“No, I just have to remain focused. I’ll get through this. I can feel the urge growing, but there may still be time to finish this diary and post it before if fully comes rushing in, and I become completely powerless to it! I know! I’ll rush through the rest. I probably have around 3-5 minutes left before the attack. I can do this!”
* he runs through the sixth paragraph, then the seventh, then the eighth, then comes close to finishing the ninth *
” Oh GOD!!! It’s too much! I can’t hand it anymore. I don’t know what I can do! This urge is uncontrollable. I … just … can’t … fight … it.”
* powerless, he types up the last few words of the last sentence of the paragraph that he had been holding in his head as he struggled to control his urges, he begins the 10th paragraph *
In the end, he found that this was just another day, and that once again, he would have to go through the litany of tropes about Bernie Sanders, his supporters, all the straw men he had been obsessing over, but then he felt better about himself… in the middle of a post that was supposed to be solely about a debate between one Markey and one Kennedy from Massachusetts, and not a senator from a nearby state who was running for president and who had not said anything at all to intervene in the event.
What?