I defended Joe Kennedy from attacks against him because he ran against Ed Markey, someone with a mixed record whom I thought this blog overrated as a progressive champion. Later I decided to support him for two key reasons. I felt like he could be a better progressive communicator than Markey and that he was reaching out to constituencies Markey neglected. With those two qualities overshadowing Markey’s seniority which has become a devalued currency in Mitch McConnell’s Senate.
A few things have changed. Markey knows he’s in the fight of his life and has activated the growing power of the youth vote and climate vote while actively closing the gap with Hispanic voters and communities of color.
Secondly, his seniority and expertise will now be invaluable under a much more likely Democratic President and Democratic Senate. Joe Biden has vowed to sign a major climate bill in his first 100 days and Markey is the person to craft it. Especially since Joe Kennedy is trying to have it both ways on the Green New Deal. Arguing essentially he was for it before he was against it.
Like Pete Buttigieg and Seth Moulton before him, he’s another rising talent whose campaign is suffering death from a thousand consultants. Speaking of Moulton, it’s obvious now he viewed his seat not as an opportunity to serve but as a stepping stone to a laughably quixotic presidential run. Ted Kennedy became his best self after he lost a largely self serving primary challenge to another Democratic incumbent, and I think his great nephew has a model to follow after this primary.
We need a workhorse to get climate done right in a Democratic Senate. I wish Joe the best and unlike many others here, I like him and hope he runs again in the future. Maybe the near future if our senior senator joins the Biden ticket or the Biden administration. Now is not the time. Not when a simple majority in the Senate could pass generation saving legislation.
Upgraded for the headline. I’m for as many primary races as possible. Uncontested races are bad for democracy.
Wow.
Also: Wow.
Also too, +1 for the reference to Ted Kennedy, who really didn’t become Ted Kennedy until the ‘80s, as you say. To be fair, JKIII is much more substantial than 1962 TK.
Two candidates the caliber of Markey and Kennedy are what make me proud to be a Massachusetts Democrat. They are both strong candidates, progressive in their respective ways, and activists in many states would kill to have either of them represent them in Congress. I for one will have no objection to either of them as our nominee.
I’m still happy if Kennedy does win and admire him for taking a risk and running this campaign. My thinking changed over the weekend as I listened to an episode of the Ezra Klein show interviewing the Lt. Gov of Washington state, who is retiring from politics to join the Jesuit priesthood. One of the reasons he cited was the rising temptation and need to be a celebrity politician rather than a workhorse legislator.
He felt a figure like Patty Murray does a lot more good than he does, but he generated more excitement which is unfair. In a similar way, I think Markey definitely suffers from a charisma deficit to Kennedy, but Kennedy suffers from an experience and consistency deficit on climate. Markey should pass the GND or a similar bill then ride off into the sunset after a job well done.
I don’t see how either of these candidates can be considered progressive. They both oppose peaceful protest against Israeli Apartheid. In fact Markey cosponsored an anti-BDS along with Mario Rubio.
The best thing about primaries is that primaries provide real competition. It’s just possible that one of these candidates, facing defeat, will notice what happened to Eliot Engel and see the light. I wouldn’t bet on it, but without competition from another Democrat, it’s likely that both of these candidates would be comparing notes with people like Mario Rubio.
The name of the Senator from Florida is Marco — not Mario — Rubio.
The suggestion that Ed Markey is comparable to Mr. Rubio exemplifies the absurd utterances of some self-proclaimed “progressive” voices. Even a cursory review of the voting record of Mr. Markey (https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26900/ed-markey) and Mr. Rubio (https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/1601/marco-rubio) demonstrates the dissonance between reality and this dishonest slander.
Just a few highlights — (Mr. Markey’s vote highlighted):
These are just this year.
The insinuation that Mr. Markey is comparable to Mr. Rubio is simply a lie.
Thanks for the spelling correction. Your analysis is correct as far as it goes. But Rubio and Markey are both pro-Apartheid.
“pro-Apartheid”? Really?
You are making extraordinary accusations against Mr. Markey while offering no evidence to support them. You are making a false equivalence between Mr. Markey and Mr. Rubio.
Show us the votes. I want to see votes where Senator Markey has voted “pro-Apartheid”.
Check it out.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/170/cosponsors?searchResultViewType=expanded
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/02/combating-presidential-paranoia/
Your very own link points out that Mr. Markey voted “Nay” on this bill when it came to the Senate. The role call is here: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00016.
This dog can’t hunt.
Your full of it, Tom. He co-sponsored the bill, and only opposed some Republican provisions that he thought went too far.
In other words, he supports Israeli Apartheid, and only differs with Republicans about tactics.
Full of it? He voted against the bill. Even your most carefully picked cherry is as sour as your bitter words.
Is Markey for or against the BDS movement?
Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
Fred hears “idiot” and his ears perk up. He thinks someone must be talking about him.
As for Tom, it sounds like you didn’t like the simple answer to my simple question.
Markey doesn’t support BDS, a non-violent protest against Israeli Apartheid.
That’s not a progressive position.
My original point is that neither candidate in this race favors a boycott of Apartheid. Smearing the boycotters is especially shameful for Kennedy, whose grandfather famously supported Cesar Chavez and the boycott of grapes.
My opinion is that politics has something to do with the political positions taken by these two politicians. Just my opinion.
Nothing changes politics like a contested election. That’s why I agree that it is a good thing that Kennedy is challenging Markey.
I think the bigger disappointment is that they both favored censoring BDS over the first amendment. I personally find BDS inconsistent and inadequate to the task of putting pressure on the Netenyahu government to get back to the negotiating table. I think the bigger outrage is that both candidates supported censorship of a genuine grassroots group.
Bob is free to take the abstentionist position and sit this primary out, or pick between the candidates as I have.
Choosing a candidate and choosing to sit out an election are just fine — every registered voter does one of those.
Spreading egregious distortions is something else again.
The claim that I vigorously oppose is:
Commentary like this is not “taking an absentionist position” or choosing a candidate. It is instead slandering both candidates.
Tom, if you think either of these candidates arrived at their positions on BDS through anything besides political calculation . . .
Thanks James, for leaving Shakespeare out of it. But do you really believe that either Kennedy or Markey have some kind of moral blind spot about the first amendment? Or that they are incapable of digesting the concept of Apartheid? Or if they do change their position it will because they have been wrestling with their consciences?
Compare Mayor Walsh’s deferential (though grossly inadequate) response to BLM protests this summer to his response a few years ago, when protesters on the exact same issue blocked a portion of the SE Expressway
What’s happened in the meantime? Let’s skip past Macbeth and go straight to the Bible.
“…the fingers of a man’s hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall . . .Then the king’s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together.”
Daniel 5: 5-6.
Walsh saw the handwriting on the wall. Maybe, just maybe, either Kennedy or Markey will too.
I’ll take Shakespeare over Marty Walsh and Daniel any day of any week.
It isn’t that hard to walk back the offensive and absurdly untrue conflation of Ed Markey and Marco Rubio. It does take a degree of humility that some find impossible to summon.
Markey co-sponsored Rubio’s bill. Why?
Markey is “Pro-Apartheid”?
What a silly thing for you to believe.
I urge you to become better informed.
It certainly is silly. Nearly as silly as claiming that Ed Markey is the same as Marco Rubio.
Well, if you oppose BDS, a non-violent response to Israeli Apartheid, you are, in effect, supporting Apartheid. Much the same way as the people who supplied the Apartheid government of South Africa with nuclear weapons, were, in effect supporters of Apartheid.
If you have a less silly explanation I’d like to hear it.
The Israeli occupation of Palestine, as horrific as it is, is not the only issue facing the Senate in the next term.
The egregious lie that Ed Markey is or will be “comparing notes with people like Mario Rubio” is among the silliest things ever posted here at BMG.
Bluster about BDS doesn’t make that less silly.
On this issue, comparing notes with Rubio is pretty much exactly what Markey did (I notice that you are not defending Kennedy).
Is there something about this issue that is so much different than the other issues facing the Senate? So much so that it is slander to suggest that Markey and Rubio might try to find common ground?
In all humility, I don’t think asking questions is the same thing as blustering.
I don’t defend Mr. Kennedy because I know absolutely nothing about him.
If you do not already see the difference between this issue and, for example, universal health care, economic disparity, pervasive racism, or Russian corruption of the entire GOP, then nothing anybody writes here will make a difference.,
I see no evidence of humility in any of your bluster. My characterization of this commentary as “bluster” is, if anything, generous.
@” . . . because I know absolutely nothing about . . . “
That’s never stopped you before.
Why do you always seem to drag down discussions?
Thanks for posting.