"RFK Jr. meanwhile, a prospective president of the United States, watched calmly on."

I'm highlighting that amusingly elevated sentence that appears in the comic chaos of "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. press dinner explodes in war of words and farting" by Mara Siegler in the NY Post. 

[A] guest asked Kennedy... about the environment. And it seems that the mere inquiry was enough to set off apparently drunk gossip-columnist-turned-flak Doug Dechert, the host of the event, who became enraged and screamed at the top of his lungs: “The climate hoax!” 

"Mr. Kennedy is the one person who has the qualities that can bring about the unity that most Americans are hungering for. He speaks a language of conciliation and compassion."

Said Dennis Kucinich, RFK Jr.'s campaign manager, quoted in "Why Robert Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 Bid Is a Headache for Biden/The unexpected polling strength of an anti-vaccine activist with a celebrated Democratic lineage points to the president’s weaknesses, which his team is aiming to shore up" (NYT).

Notice the descriptor: "anti-vaccine activist." A lot depends on the strength of that label. If people accept it as a warning — steer clear of this nut — then Biden easily prevails. But if that insult is questioned — what is it they don't want us to look into? — then Biden is caught flatfooted.

On Joe Rogan's podcast, Kennedy expressed his skepticism about the relationship between vaccine manufacturers and the federal government. It isn't the idea that vaccines don't work, but questioning why so many vaccines, why they are mandated, especially for babies, and how the side effects are balanced against the benefits. Right now, we're seeing an avoidance of debating with Kennedy, but will that strategy work? People who lived through the rigors of the coronavirus pandemic may demand that the experts prove they were worthy of the trust and obedience they demanded. 

"A president who uses the power of the Oval Office to seduce a 20-something subordinate is morally bankrupt and contributing, in a meaningful way, to a serious social problem that disadvantages millions of women throughout their lives."

Matthew Yglesias takes a strange position on why Bill Clinton should have resigned.

[L]ooking back through today’s lens, this whole argument was miscast. The wrongdoing at issue was... a high-profile exemplar of a widespread social problem: men’s abuse of workplace power for sexual gain. It was and is a striking example of a genre of misconduct that society has a strong interest in stamping out. That alone should have been enough to have pressured Clinton out of office....

I think the key to understanding what Bill Clinton did wrong is equality in the workplace.  So Yglesias is right to stress Clinton's use of "the power of the Oval Office" and "men’s abuse of workplace power," but the point shouldn't be that Bill Clinton or some other powerful man achieved "seduction" or "sexual gain." Rather the problem is that the workplace conditions are unequal because of sex. That's why it doesn't matter that Monica Lewinsky was happy and enthusiastic about her love affair with the President. One woman got special access to the President, but other women did not, and the workplace for men had nothing to do with sex.

What Yglesias wrote suggests a more wide-ranging critique of sex — that it's a "social problem" that men can use power that they've acquired in their careers to attract women. I personally believe a woman is better off with a sexual partner who's close to her age and not significantly more powerful economically or politically, and I may privately think less of some men who use their economic or political power to get relatively easy access to a young or naive woman who is — even in her own self-interest — eager to use a man to advance her own condition in life. But I'm not going to call that a "serious social problem" or say "society has a strong interest in stamping out" that sort of thing, especially when the idea is to remove a man from a position of power he's worked hard to attain.

Maybe Yglesias didn't mean to suggest all that. But it's a little funny, as a thought experiment, to think of all the politicians who seem to be part of the "serious social problem" by having spouses they "seduced" when there was a big power differential. I know he's not in Congress anymore, but should Dennis Kucinich have been expelled for getting a beautiful woman 30 years his junior to marry him?

I wanted to find a good video to go with that last question, and look at this incredibly sexist "Daily Show" clip I found (from 10 years ago):

You could never do a comedy bit like that today.

Dennis Kucinich: "I have never gone public with this story, but when I saw the derision with which President Trump’s claims were greeted—and notwithstanding our political differences—I felt I should share my experience."

"... I can vouch for the fact that extracurricular surveillance does occur, regardless of whether it is officially approved. I was wiretapped in 2011 after taking a phone call in my congressional office from a foreign leader."

What the Republicans need is "a real conservative with a great personality, and those people are hard to come by."

So said Bernard Goldberg, perhaps not intending to insult Republicans (as people with a personality problem). Context:

Nobody articulates conservatism as clearly and passionately as Rush Limbaugh. He'd be the first to acknowledge that he couldn't win a national election. The true blue real conservative Republicans need to understand is that, despite what they think, most Americans don't think the way they do. They'll never elect a Dennis Kucinich on the left, and I don't believe they're gonna elect a Ted Cruz on the right. The only reason Barack Obama, who's more liberal than all of them, got elected, wasn't because of his politics, but because he created a cult of personality, and that's what the Republicans need, a real conservative with a great personality, and those people are hard to come by.

That's a very high standard of great personality: the Barack Obama standard. A personality upon which you can build a cult of personality. But the point is: America wants moderates, and they only deviate when bamboozled by someone with an over-the-top great personality. Such folk are hard to find, and it's a good thing too.

That was quoted on Rush Limbaugh's radio show yesterday — unsurprisingly. (Rush loves to play clips that call out his name._ Rush takes Goldberg to be saying Republicans — including and especially Rush — have off-putting personalities. Rush believes himself to have a great personality, and he also thinks — one of his most often-stated beliefs — that Americans do want a true conservative.

The reason I couldn't win is that I've been demonized. My reputation has been demonized and assaulted for 25 years.  And even had I chosen on each occasion to respond to it and to try to defend it, it wouldn't have mattered, because I woulda still been a lone wolf.  The truth of the matter here is, it's not conservatism that can't win.  It is that conservatism has been so ogre-ized and so demonized by an alliance of the Democrat Party and the media.

"The one thing that's being tamped down here is, we're losing characters... The place needs character, and characters."

"When I got here, you had Jim Traficant, you had Barney, and then Dennis came..." says Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), a nine-term veteran, reflecting on Kucinich's loss yesterday in a primary "in a newly drawn district against his once-close ally, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)."

Well... does Joe the Plumber count as a character? Actually, he "almost lost his House bid to an obscure auctioneer named Steve Kraus — when the dust settled, Wurzelbacher escaped with a narrow 51 to 48 percent victory."

Ohio is losing 2 districts, including Kucinich's, and Kucinich might run for a seat in Washington state...

... which is picking up a district:

... Mr. Kucinich figures his aggressive brand of antiwar, pro-working class politics could sell well in a solidly blue state where he has ideological allies and was popular during his unsuccessful White House bids in 2004 and 2008. It is a somewhat novel idea that could be summed up as: Have seniority, will travel...
Mr. Kucinich’s attempt would certainly be unusual. In the early days of Congress, a few House members won election years apart in two different states. But Ed Foreman, now a motivational speaker, was the last to do so more than 40 years ago; elected as a Republican from Texas in 1962, he lost his re-election attempt in 1964, then won one term in New Mexico in 1968...

Should he decide to go ahead, Mr. Kucinich is certain to face charges of carpetbagging and confront questioners like a woman on Saturday who pressed him on whether political candidates should be homegrown or not. He had a ready answer.

“Where people live is always interesting,” Mr. Kucinich said. “Where they stand is quite instructive.”

Ha. Cool. Why not?! In case you're wondering about the Constitution, the relevant clause is Article  1, Section 2, Clause 2:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

So all Kucinich needs to do is start inhabiting Washington by election day.

"The Patriot Act represents the undermining of civil liberties," says Dennis Kucinich, who got 26 Republicans on his side.

What happened in the House yesterday?!

House Republicans suffered an embarrassing setback Tuesday when they fell seven votes short of extending provisions of the Patriot Act, a vote that served as the first small uprising of the party's tea-party bloc.

The bill to reauthorize key parts of the counter-terrorism surveillance law, which expire at the end of the month, required a super-majority to pass under special rules reserved for non-controversial measures....

The vote was the latest signal... that on certain matters House leaders could face a sizable resistance to compromise from within their own ranks, both from the 87 GOP freshmen and from conservative veterans who have been emboldened by the newcomers.

Good! The Republicans don't own the Tea Party movement.

"Expecting kucinich to bodily ascend to heaven any second now."

Babbling in the Church of Health Care, Ezra Klein-style.

Needing to give up something, the Democrats gave up abortion rights.

"If enacted, this amendment will be the greatest restriction of a woman's right to choose to pass in our careers,' said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, one of the lawmakers who left Ms. Pelosi's office mad."

***

Here's Dennis Kucinich explaining "Why I Voted No." He says nothing about access to abortion services.

The King of the Offbeat Interruption. Larry King brought his distinctive style to the debate last night. I found this one-two interruption especially amusing:

KUCINICH: I agree with my friend John Edwards about we need to do something about poverty. And that's why I'd like you to join me in this proposal to have a universal single-payer, not-for-profit health care system, because that would lift tens of millions of Americans out of poverty. And, Larry...

KING: By the way, Harry Truman proposed that in 1948.

KUCINICH: Well, and you know what? John Conyers and I introduced the bill in this Congress. And that would provide all coverage for everyone, all medically necessary procedures, plus vision care, dental care, mental health care...

KING: In other words, socialism?

KUCINICH: ... long-term care. Wait a minute. You know what? What we have now, Larry, what we have now, what we have now, Larry, is predatory capitalism which makes of the American people a cash crop for the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies.

Did Kucinich say "Larry" enough? It seems that Larry is always there ready to pounce--possible tiger influence noted--with one of his Larry-isms and needs to be fended off with consistent acknowledgement.

I was also amused by the way camera shots of Kerry and Edwards often included the outstretched, wizened hand of Larry King. King rules!