I'm loving the negative reactions to Joe Kennedy's speech.

[Yavin4]

Some mock him. Some are already throwing shade on him from the left and the right. Some are dismissing him outright. What this tells me is that he made an impact and he got people's attention. I would like to see him use this attention to help get more Democrats elected to congress this year. If successful, then we can start talking about 2020.

Using a baseball analogy, he's a top pitching prospect in our farm system. On Tuesday, he pitched an inning of relief and got some big outs. If he can help the team win this year, then he may become our Ace of the staff heading into 2020.

[samnsara]

1. Ive yet to see his entire speech but the short part i saw was wonderful!

[RandomAccess]

63. Here's a TXPT

'We Fight.' Read the Transcript of Joe Kennedy III's SOTU Response
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-fight-apos-read-transcript-063523976.html

[left-of-center2012]

2. Loved the speech; loved him

But found the audience a distraction.

[nycbos]

3. Some of my Bernie of Buster friend though a tantrum on Facebook.

It just make me happier.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

39. Busters will tear down any prospective 2020 candidate not named "Bernie Sanders."

Last edited Thu Feb 1, 2018, 02:40 PM - Edit history (2)

And concoct a convoluted purity test, based on a single issue, as to why they're "not a true progressive."

They've already done so with Harris, Brown and Warren (in her case, the single issue was that she was -gasp- neutral in the primaries, and actually endorsed the nominee in the general, rather than SteinTrumping with Sarandon and co. Seriously. This was the basis of the Young Turks' hit piece).

Of course, Sanders gets a pass from such purity tests. For instance, point out his NRA-coddling,abysmal record on guns, as Clinton did, and his cultists scream you're being unfair.

They love the current situation and want four more years of it. And Bernie is gearing up to feed them and make sure it happens, hence his narcissistic insistence on giving his own SOTU response.

[Eliot Rosewater]

55. Yep, we see it everywhere, here as well, sigh.

[Brainstormy]

4. I hate to see so many

downright mocking him, and I'm even talking liberals here, just because he's a Kennedy. That's a peculiar kind of discrimination in my opinion, but I can tell he's up against it.

[Caliman73]

49. Yeah. That is ridiculous. Just because he is a Kennedy.

You know, because the Kennedy's were such screw ups, I mean JFK with his ... energizing speeches that gave the country optimism and a push to be better. His avoiding a nuclear war. His administration setting up the Peace Corp.

Don't get me started on RFK, with his trying to crack down on organized crime, his beginning prosecution on the KKK, and his call to continue his brother's and MLK's legacies of social justice.

Ted, well that guy was only known as the Liberal Lion of the Senate. Total screw up!


In all seriousness, the Kennedy's were human, hence they were flawed people who had some major screw ups as well as triumphs. For people to be critical of Joe Kennedy III just because of his family lineage is completely stupid. We should never just accept, nor should we reject a person based on their name. Look at what they say and what they have done. Look at what the policies would be.

[Brainstormy]

66. Yeah, and don't forget the space program.

from JFK. The uniting of blacks and whites in common cause in the Civil Rights movement by RFK. Ted, and his stupid ideas about universal health care. Those stupid Kennedys. What did they know?

[NewJeffCT]

5. I didn't have a problem with the speech

and, unlike the Bernie fans, I don't care that he has yet to sign on to College for All or Medicare for All resolutions yet, since they are never coming to a vote in a Paul Ryan run House, and I don't care that he's worth $40 million plus. I mean, FDR was from a wealthy aristocratic family and is a liberal and Democratic hero. The same with JFK.

I liked the text of his speech, but I think his delivery was only okay.

My concern with Joe Kennedy is that he is in a safe blue district but only has accumulated a moderate voting record. If you list the most liberal to most conservative Democrats in the House with #1 being Raul Grijalva, all the way down to #193 or 194 or however many we have in Congress now, he's ranked somewhere in the 110-115 range, I believe.

With a lot of good people already in the mix for 2020, I think Kennedy should get more seasoning before running for the presidency - if he's that popular, maybe he can try challenging Charlie Baker for governor this year?

[alarimer]

7. I swear all a person has to do is give a good speech and they are the second coming.

It almost doesn't matter who they are. Oprah gives one speech and she's the 2020 nominee. Same with this guy. We know little about him except for some previously stated policy positions which I, for one, think are nonstarters (especially his stance on the legalization of marijuana, which could be an issue attracting younger voters).

[Lulu KC]

9. Yes.

We've already forgotten how much more is needed. If we'll stop at a speech, give me Colbert. Actually, just give me Colbert.

[alarimer]

10. Colbert could be both candidates, actually.

He could be himself for the Democrats and his "Colbert Report" alter-ego for the Reps. Everybody wins!

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. Colbert in debates with shithole. Must see TV

[Yavin4]

11. First, no one is saying that he's the second coming. That's your hyperbolic spin.

Second, as I stated in my post, he has to use the attention that he got to get more Dems elected to congress this year.

Finally, I highly doubt that his stance on marijuana is going to be any issue with young voters.

[kag]

19. "I highly doubt that his stance on marijuana is going to be any issue with young voters."

Yeah, more likely it be an issue for the 50-and-older crowd like me and my friends.

[vi5]

29. The legalization crowd...

..is a huge block of voters and many of them are single issue voters who currently just sit things out. So not only is it by all accounts the more liberal and some would say moral stance to take, it's a slam dunk contingent that democrats are basically giving up on by not fully embracing the pro-legalization or at the very least decriminalization stance across the board.

[concreteblue]

32. The "Legalization crowd" cuts across

The "Legalization crowd" cuts across ALL political labels and demographics. From my 20 year old college student son, My 22 year old Ivy League grad daughter, My 54 year old Trump supporting brother and all his friends, my 70 year old sister, my wife's family, 22-78 years old with both Lefties (my wife) Conserva dems (her brother and sister) and old school blue dogs (parents), ALL are firmly in the Legalization camp. It is an issue that could unite support behind a candidate .
That being said, a quick Google of Joe Kennedy and Marijuana shows him to be misguided at best on the issue.
Loved his response to SOTU tho.....

[vi5]

52. Yeah, in general Kennedy is fine...

..I've got no issues with him as a whole but he is way wrong on this issue and it's not only sociologically and morally misguided it's electorally misguided as well.

Booker is someone who is on the right side of this issue without coming across as radical or out there.

There's just no way we're going to be putting this genie back in the bottle so it's short sighted and foolish to be on the wrong side of this issue.

[Yavin4]

34. If the legalization crowd is so influential then why did Trump win? Why do Republicans win? n/t

[MrsCoffee]

42. Because they cheat. They partner with foreign entities and corporations and disenfranchise voters.

They broadcast propaganda 24/7 on the airwaves. They disregard laws. They cover up crimes.

Need I go on?

[sheshe2]

77. "Need I go on?"

Not for me, MrsCoffee. You said it all. Preach!

[vi5]

51. Because right now, they sit out elections.

In general they are more liberal and are part of the crowd that just doesn't bother voting. So yeah, this proves the point. Our failure to take a strong stand on this issue and get out in front of a big voting block (with minimal downside) is causing things like Trump to happen.

Nobody is saying we need to be advocating for handing out free weed to grade schoolers, but clearly the society at large and our culture is moving in that direction. So playing it safe is getting us nothing, and playing the old school "reefer madness" card and misinformation on the effects is getting us nowhere and causing us to miss out on being on the right side of history.

[pnwmom]

72. I think the Democratic party is a big enough tent to include people who both support

and don't support legalization. If some people have decided -- for some inexplicable reason -- that this will be their single issue or they won't vote at all, well too bad.

[vi5]

79. I'm not saying some Dems can't not support it...

..but as a party, us not taking the lead on this issue and making it part of our platform is losing voters that I think we've learned by now we can't afford to lose. And haven't we learned not to say "too bad" for any particular group? Especially with as much time as we spend trying to pander to conservatives who will never, ever in a million years vote for us.

Like any issue that we as a party support, sure there will be ones among us who don't support it. Just like abortion or gay rights or whatever else. But as a party it is an issue that if we get out in front of we will reap the electoral benefits while at the same time doing what is right and being on the right side of history.

[LanternWaste]

18. You certainly read melodrama into, and place additional narratives onto a mere opinion.

You certainly read melodrama into, and place additional narratives onto a mere opinion.

Very creative, indeed.

[Tipperary]

65. This is so true.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Some of us are intensely averse to the idea of a political aristocracy.

That kind of shit gets you Dubya and Jeb. Both of whom are UTTERLY unqualified to the Oval Office, and just look at the wreckage W left behind. Dead people in the tens to hundreds of thousands.

His only credible claim to the white house, in the start, was HW.

It should have come across as a damn disqualifier.

[LanternWaste]

20. It seems that rejection of a candidate simply due to DNA is as irrationa

It seems that rejection of a candidate simply due to DNA is as irrational as acceptance of a candidate simply due to DNA.

I'm confident you'll justify six of one as wholly different than a half dozen of the other, and pretend aristocracy actually is relevant to the discussion.

No doubt it will be quite bemusing as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. It will always at least leave open the possiblity the person is there based on connections

rather than merit. (Again, W as an example.)

[BoneyardDem]

27. You fail.....

...to factor into the "connections" argument, that the voters do have some say. "Connections" is not an absolute fail safe for winning any Presidency. Just as Clinton.

IMHO, you go on to postulate the false equivalency that all Dem families are like all Republican families. Is Michelle Obama just like Jeb Bush, or is Hillary Clinton just like Ivanka Trump?

I'm not necessarily arguing for or against Kennedy, I'm simply not agreeing with your train of thought...but then that's nothing new, right?

[AtheistCrusader]

46. It took a unique combination of non-voter forces to influence the last election.

Hillary would be an exception for the most part, to the aristocracy rule' since she went on as Senator and State Department Sec and built her own resume. She clearly stood on her own merit.

That said, she also ended up with, in my opinion, some unfair familial baggage. My mom objected to her just over NAFTA, where, she wasn't president or in Congress for the passage of NAFTA. (And trump is a total shitshow on Trade anyway.) Not her monkey not her circus, but as a family member, people like my mom weren't able to separate her from Bill.


In the case in the OP, his public service record is pretty underwhelming. So far. No reason to think he won't do a lot more, but as things stand, name recognition and one good speech doesn't really amount to the level of adoration I've seen in this thread and elsewhere. He looks more like a rank/file Democratic politician (not a bad thing by any means, but not exceptional either) with an unfortunate poison pill on Marijuana legalization that is not going to fly with younger voters.

One good speech, a pedestrian track record, and a name, does not a presidential candidate make. In my opinion.


As far as trains of thought, I don't drag grudges from one thread to another. If you have something to say, that thread is still available. Grudges turn us on each other, and make DU suck. Every thread is an opportunity to listen, and start over.

[NewJeffCT]

23. I would hope that each candidate

is judged on their merits.

That said, W Bush was the 2 term governor of Texas and Jeb was the 2 term governor of Florida and both state economies were doing well, so basically had the same level of qualification as Bill Clinton when he ran for president in 1992 as governor of Arkansas.

And, while I did not love Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders, for that matter), the fact that she was a Senator for 8 years and Secretary of State for 4 made her well qualified to be president as well.

[R B Garr]

26. ffs, the last Kennedy in the White House was over a HALF CENTURY ago.

This kind of hyperbole is really overreaching. What on earth does Bush starting the Irag war and "dead people in the tens to hundreds of thousands" have to do with the Kennedy's?? Yikes.

edit: Reality is that the only reason Bush II got in was because of the smear campaigns about Al Gore from the Naderite types.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Its commentary on names for names sake.

Brand recognition over merit.

How do you feel about No Child Left Behind?

[R B Garr]

61. lol, What do you think about JFK's space program?? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Pretty awesome.

Why not answer my question?

[R B Garr]

67. Because its pretty one-sided here when only Democrats

are subject to what looks to be a prepared gripefest, probably to include such shallow bombshells as Ted Kennedy in pictures with George Bush.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. I never considered photo ops. I was more concerned with authorship of the law, and how we play

identity politics.

In the long run I think it matters.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

78. If you are intensely averse to the idea of a political aristocracy,

then I can only assume you were intensely opposed to Hillary Clinton running for President. If you weren't, at least at the beginning, then you're a hypocrite.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Not until she became the nominee, no. I supported a different candidate at the start.

Once she became the nominee, that question was removed from the table, and I supported her as best as I could.

Once the nomination process is over, there's no point continuing to belabor that issue, because the opportunity to change it is over.

[hatrack]

6. I thought it was a good speech, and he's an appealing candidate

I think he needs to put some more time in (House, Senate, maybe Governor?) but he's got serious potential.

[True Blue American]

31. Joe is too young, but just remember

He is the future. One of the pundits said yesterday we need a generational change.

We had that with JFK. Even Clinton and Bush were the younger generation. Obama really was.

But now we have an angry old man,who is not capable of reasoning. A bunch of hanger one and old goofs like McConnell leading Congress.

Time to bring in new faces and ideas. Clinton or Bernie are not the Leaders we want. Much too old..

[lunamagica]

56. Clinton was 46 years old, Obama was 47

[True Blue American]

62. And that is what we need now.

JFK was the generational change to WW 2 Vets.

[tritsofme]

8. I thought it was a fine speech, I just wish he would cut the reefer madness crap

If he truly has national ambitions, that would be a deal breaker for me. His retrograde views on cannabis are not acceptable in this day and age, I think he would be run off the stage by millenials, and all the other major candidates who have more modern views in a 2020 contest. Time for some “evolution” or he will be left behind.

[True Blue American]

33. That is the least of our problems

Today.

Legal Drugs are not that important to the average person. Opioids are. They are killing our young.

We need infrastructure, decent pay and getting out of the wars Bush created.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Disagree.

Marijuana legalization drives DOWN the Opioid usage rates. These issues are linked, and from what I've seen, that Kennedy is on the wrong side of the issue.

This is a MUCH bigger deal with younger voters than you think.

[pnwmom]

75. Obama's policy to let the states decide was working. In a few years, all the rest of the states

would have jumped in -- to get the tax money if nothing else.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. We need that policy supported in the house and senate.

He opposes legalization.

Certainly, we shouldn’t lock people up for marijuana use or low-level offenses, or revert to a “Reefer Madness”-style war on drugs. But we should also recognize legalization for what it is: the large-scale commercialization and marketing of an addictive — and therefore highly profitable — substance.

Many marijuana advocates have one goal in mind: to get rich. What we need, therefore, is a federal enforcement strategy that not only promotes human rights and social justice, but also actively targets and deters the special interests driving Big Marijuana.

Marijuana is not 'addictive'. Full stop. Not physically, and not in a way that commands profitability, like a dependent heroin user. It could be, in some extreme cases, addictive psychologically, like over-eating. That does not imply a physical dependence form addiction, and you can tell by attempting to contrast it with the controls on sale, and addiction rates of Alcohol. They don't compare at all, and alcohol is legal.

[pnwmom]

84. "Marijuana is not addictive. Full stop."

There is still disagreement on that among researchers. And there is also concern that the effects might be different on developing brains than on adults.

I think Obama was right to let the states decide, but I wouldn't oppose national legalization. However, I don't think this is an issue that the party should elevate to the status of universal healthcare, immigration, or equal rights.


https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20001127/heavy-pot-use-can-cause-physical-dependence#1

Nov. 27, 2000 -- Heavy marijuana users who stop cold turkey experience a host of withdrawal symptoms, including irritability, anxiety, and depression, but most symptoms begin to lessen after 10 days or so, a study from Harvard Medical School suggests.

Reported in the November issue of the journal Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, the study is the first in humans to examine marijuana withdrawal in a setting outside the laboratory. Participants agreed to give up smoking pot for a month, and they submitted to daily urine tests to make sure they stayed drug free. But with the exception of not smoking marijuana, they continued their normal activities.

There has long been controversy over whether daily pot smokers actually become addicted to marijuana and whether withdrawal symptoms are real. Recent animal studies and studies evaluating the use of cannabis in humans under laboratory conditions support the notion that marijuana withdrawal syndrome exists.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Agreed that it should not be accessible to children.

Generally speaking, the same controls that exist on alcohol seem to be directionally accurate for pot for similar reasons. Maybe it needs to be fine tuned.

It certainly doesn't warrant the doom and gloom, especially again, in contrast to socially acceptable alcohol.


I've read a couple studies on that, some newer. The jury on withdrawal symptoms seems to still be 'out'. I'm certainly open to revising my position, in the face of good data. I don't see any good data that supports Kennedy's position at this time.

[pnwmom]

86. I read something Kennedy said recently and it sounds like he is open to reconsidering his position,

based on information -- including the experiences of the states that have legalized it already. So I don't think people should be panicking about this. In any case, we know his position will be better than any Republican, with the exception of Rand Paul.

[rollin74]

60. even most elected rethugs here in Nevada have given up on

promoting cannabis prohibition and respect that the voters want a change in that policy

imo, it would be unacceptable to have a Democratic presidential candidate who is OK with turning millions of Americans in legal states back into criminals

especially when it flies in the face of the will of the majority of voters in those states

[tritsofme]

68. Once millenials find out he is the only candidate with extreme views on cannabis

They will desert him in droves, if they were ever with him to begin with.

There are plenty of great potential candidates out there with positions on this issue that are in the mainstream, there is simply no reason to step backward, no matter what the guy’s last name is.

[pnwmom]

76. He won't be seen as extreme when he announces that he wants to go back to Obama's

policy, letting the states decide.

[moriah]

73. That makes no sense. Most opoids "killing our young" are legal. Nt

[pnwmom]

74. Agreed. n/t

[radius777]

69. Agree, it would kill him w/his natural base

which would be millennials and the Obama coalition.

But he's green and has lots of time to evolve.

What he does have is charisma, authenticity and idealism.. things that can't be taught.. so I agree with the OP, he's like a young/talented pitcher that needs some seasoning, 2020 is likely too early, but he has a bright future...

[mopinko]

12. helping get other dems elected is my #1 desired trait in a candidate.

someone who feels responsible to rebuild the party.

[Yavin4]

13. Exactly. What good is a presidency with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan in charge of congress.

Nothing would get done. No matter how much you protest.

[True Blue American]

36. That is why we need

To elect Democrats all the way down the line.

[TNNurse]

14. Just think if the speech was done

by a woman or someone not lily white. They would have been worse. They only focus on what they think if worth criticizing. They did not care what was said.

[ananda]

15. Love Joe Kennedy!

No problem at all.

[Aristus]

17. The Susan Sarandonites are already tearing into him.

"He's not a real Democrat!" Shit like that. How in the world can we ever trust them when they consider having Trump for President preferable to an imperfect Democrat?

[R B Garr]

30. Love that "Susan Sarandonites"!!

That is the PERFECT description of that irrational mindset. I want to credit you if I use it because it really helps to differentiate between the types of underminers who are always anti-Democrat more so than saying, "far left" and other descriptions. She is an inflammatory blowhard devoid of credibility, and that perfectly defines the "Susan Sarandonites."

Love that.

edit: fits with the "Naderites" which is another apt description of the hyperbolic divisiveness that gave us Bush.

[Aristus]

40. I think it's important to draw a distinction between them and the far left.

I'm pretty far left myself. Practically a socialist. But I understand at least some of the hard-headed practicalities of modern American politics. Having someone as far to the left as me in the White House would be wonderful, but it's not very likely. I don't look for ideological purity in a Democratic candidate. Largely progressive views and the ability to win an election are the major criteria.

I have a such a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that supposed ideological purists on the left would rather have Bush Jr or Trump or whoever in office than a flawed, left-leaning figure, that I can only conclude that they are right-wing trolls under deep cover. Insisting that we need a candidate who will "shake things up", thereby ridding the slate of 'establishment' types is leading us to ruin.

Well, things are shaken up pretty badly now. Hope the purists are happy.

[R B Garr]

50. Wow, such a great post! Totally agree with every word you say here, Aristus.

I also cringe when associating the "far left" with the knee-jerk anti-Democrat sniveling that has become the face of the Sarondonites and the Naderites. The far left does not deserve that. I can remember when Al Gore was excoriated as being "far left" decades ago with his many ideas, especially his signature issue of climate change. I was so interested in everything he said and was called far left for that and many more things. It was just a subject I was interested in but was denigrated. That also happened with Hillary's universal health care issues. I thought about changing jobs or other start up employment where I wouldn't have health care and I was interested in her proposals, but remember how she was severely maligned about her "far left" ideas.

The Naderites and Sarandonites don't deserve to be in the same esteemed categories as the far left who have actually put the work in and put their names on the line YEARS before it was popular. Now the disgruntled blowhards with nothing to offer but division want to be "listened to" and massaged over every abstract thought. It has to be for some other motive like RW infiltration or other inane "purity" demands. TOTALLY AGREED that Bush and now Trump could not have been their ideas of a "shake up."

Everything you said in your second paragraph is word for word how I feel about the current events that have TWO Republican Presidents presiding over what should have been Democratic administrations. I bet this will now ensure that people will seek the reassurances that come with stable government and known names and faces, hence a shake up will be completely dismissed since look what that has gotten us in the WH.

Loved your posts, Aristus. Thank you.

[Aristus]

54. And thank you.

[lunamagica]

58. + a million!

[hatrack]

44. How about . . . "Sarandonistas"?

[Aristus]

45. Even better.

[lunamagica]

59. How about Vomit-inducing-Sarandonistas?

Since they are fans of the vomit-inducing-Sarandon

[radius777]

70. they're the alt-left, not Democrats

or patriots.. they're people who enabled Trump and some outright voted for him.. they're just as deplorable as their alt-right cousins.

[iluvtennis]

24. Love that pitching analogy - spot on.

[Jakes Progress]

25. The GOP will get rid of him easily.

He's a top contender for the nomination, so they get breitbart to find someone to accuse him of something. A whole host of Democrat nominee wannabes will jump at the chance to demand he resign. It's not hard for republicans when Democrats do so much to help them.

You'll see it coming in 3.....2......

[R B Garr]

28. Yes, you can see it coming from some in our corners, also.

Not even a lot of help needed by Brietbart.

[SWBTATTReg]

35. At least he's on our side, for most part...

I'd take him easily over any of the current tRUMP gang anyday. And there are a lot more coming from where Joe K. is coming from. We are seeing a surge of all kinds of new candidates including some listed in this PO or trend/ perhaps signaling a rebirth of the demo. party? Just an opinion.

In a way, this is a good thing, as the GOP is used to attack, attack, attack, and when all of these candidates pop up, they are going to find it hard to keep up w/ the attacks and have to go on the defensive, which based upon their recent actions, they are already doing, looking at the blue tidal wave coming to wash them all away.

Too little, too late, I say. GOTV!

[True Blue American]

38. So would I.

Really,who cares what Susan says?

Of course Republicans will Attack Joe. Look what they did to Obama. That just made him more popular than ever.

They are scared of Joe,after the fool they elected. Good!

[SWBTATTReg]

41. I think Michelle Obama would be great!

A great lady, whom even tRUMP couldn't badmouth...

Michelle Obama is someone who's got class...I guess it runs in the family?!

[honest.abe]

47. Agreed. I think he may be our Ace.

[Horizens]

53. Outstanding

It was an outstanding speech. He's 37. He'll become an even better crater with age.

[applegrove]

71. I agree we should see negative attention from the right as a sign he

has incredible gifts as a leader.

[Gothmog]

80. I am also enjoying the fact the deplorables are afraid of Joe Kennedy