Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launches unlikely presidential bid as a Democrat

probably deserves its own thread

 

Conservatives are attacking Dr Holtz in person….

Keep it classy

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/opinion/robert-kennedy-democrat-president-2024.html

Take Bobby Kennedy Jr. Seriously, Not Literally
June 20, 2023
By Bret Stephens

In 1968, Senator Eugene McCarthy challenged Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic presidential nomination and ran a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The near upset by McCarthy, a Minnesota progressive, helped convince Johnson that he should not run for re-election, opening the way for Robert F. Kennedy. History might have been very different if tragedy hadn’t intervened that June at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

Could a similar scenario (minus any violence) unfold again, with President Biden in the role of L.B.J., Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the role of McCarthy, and a more credible Democrat than Kennedy in the role of his dad, ultimately winning the nomination?

There are good reasons to doubt it. There are also good reasons to wish for it — which is why I find myself in the weird position of cheering a candidate whose politics I detest and whose grip on reality I question.

Among the reasons for doubt: Kennedy is a crank. His long-heldanti-vaccine views sit poorly with most Democrats. He has said the C.I.A. killed his uncle and possibly his father, that George W. Bush stole the 2004 election, and that Covid vaccines are a Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci self-enrichment scheme. He repeats Kremlin propaganda points, like the notion that the war in Ukraine is actually “a U.S. war against Russia.” He has nice things to say about Tucker Carlson.

Further reason: We aren’t living in 1968, or even 1967. Thousands of draftees aren’t being killed in a faraway war. Liberals have come to like Biden more during his presidency, whereas they came to like Johnson a lot less. McCarthy was a serious man who had held a high office for nearly 20 years when he challenged Johnson. Kennedy’s a princeling activist with a troubled past who has never held elected office.

Also, the prospect of Donald Trump back in the White House focuses the mind in a way not even the prospect of a Nixon presidency did. Many Democrats may have quietly wanted Biden to step aside instead of run. Now that he’s running, the safe call seems to be to rally behind him, lest a challenger help sink his chances. That’s what another Kennedy, Teddy, helped do to another Democratic incumbent, Jimmy Carter, in 1980.

But what if it isn’t the safe call? What if the 15 percent to 20 percentof the Democratic voters who support Kennedy, according to recent polls, are sending some messages other voters need to hear — and not because they are drawn to conspiratorial nonsense?

The most obvious message is one that too many Democrats want to wish away: Biden is a weak candidate against almost any Republican, including Trump, and he’s probably even weaker with Kamala Harris as his running mate.

Sixty-six percent of registered voters think Biden is too old to be president and 59 percent have doubts about his mental fitness, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll conducted last week. Sixty-three percent think the economy is on the “wrong track.” Thirty-three percent of voters cite inflation as their chief concern; only 19 percent cite guns and 11 percent women’s rights. If an election were held now, Harris found, Trump would get 45 percent of the vote to Biden’s 39 percent (with 15 percent undecided). Trump’s federal indictment seems to have barely made a dent.

These numbers are terrible — and that’s despite declining inflation and rock-bottom unemployment. What happens to Biden’s candidacy if the economy takes a turn for the worse in the next 12 months, or a foreign adversary springs its own version of the Tet offensive on the administration?

There’s a second, more powerful message implicit in Kennedy’s candidacy: a profound undercurrent of discontent with a party that is losing touch with its once-powerful, even dominant, populist roots. This is the party whose base has substantially shifted from the high school- to the college-educated; from factory floors and service jobs to breakout rooms on Zoom; from champions of free speech to promoters of speech codes and trigger warnings; from questioning authority (including scientific authority) to offering — and demanding — unblinking fidelity to it.

The spirit of rebellion in America today now rests mainly on the Republican side. It may be the ultimate reason for Trump’s enduring, even outlaw, appeal.

Which is why Kennedy’s candidacy is resonating more widely than nearly anyone expected. As with Trump in 2015, the media is treating his message “literally, but not seriously,” to borrow the political reporter Salena Zito’s important insight. His supporters may be doing just the opposite: taking him seriously for being the voice of revolt, irrespective of how they feel about his specific views.

Will this be enough to deny Biden the nomination? Probably not. Then again, not many political observers in 1967 saw what was coming. There’s an unfulfilled hunger for a liberal leader who can capture Kennedy’s spirit without his folly.
​

 

It is so funny how right wingers are the most obsessed with RFK. The dnc hasn't spend one dollar on negative ads on rfk yet the right wing nut jobs obsess over how much of a danger he is to the party.

Democrats aren't braindead morons like MAGA

 

Lol….. Opinion pieces and Turley….

Take figuratively…. not literally….. Will any legislation that RFK proposes just be figurative bills? Help me out here….

Will we also get figurative competence?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/22/conspiracy-vaccine-gop-rfk/

Conspiracy theorists pleased RFK Jr. offers them an alternative to the GOP
By Alexandra Petri, Columnist
June 22, 2023 at 8:00 a.m. EDT

Americans who believe erroneous things about science, distrust and fear the government, and live in a world of conspiracy where every development has a sinister double meaning — but who are sick of having to vote Republican — have been overjoyed by the advent of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign.

“For too long, if I wanted a candidate who hated vaccines or believed something truly wacky about space lasers, or Bigfoot, or chemicals in the water, I was stuck voting Republican,” noted Kathy Glarb. “At last, a Democrat!”

Eugene Robinson: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sounds like a MAGA Republican 2024 hopeful

“It is my hope that this marks the end of the days when one party held a clear monopoly on fringe conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine sentiment!” Greg Slump observed. “Finally, finally, someone has a D after his name who is shouting nonsense linking the number of trans youths to ‘swimming through a soup of toxic chemicals’! I could weep with joy, except that all my bodily secretions are being stolen by the government to keep Bill Gates’s skin moist so he can fill us all with microchips.”

“It’s just nice to have a candidate who shares my belief that 5G is rewriting our DNA who isn’t also completely opposed to gun control of any kind!” said Ann Arrrrbor. “Someone who believes, as I always have, that Americans should die of preventable disease, not from gun violence.”

“I misread a series of studies and now I believe a lot of erroneous things about science, and it has long been the source of great sorrow to me that only one of the two major political parties had made room for me,” said Tiffany Oof, who knows that the truth about the Denver International Airport will explain everything. “That’s why I’m so excited about RFK Jr.’s candidacy! Someone with the anti-science conspiracy mind-set I’ve come to appreciate, who isn’t cheering for the events of January 6 or trying to replace my wildlife preserves with a big pipe of oil.”

“Finally!” said Loona Doone, who believes the moon landing was a hoax and is excited for more children to have measles. “I have been saying for years, let’s let measles fight it out with our children on a more even playing field! But I don’t want to take away everyone’s reproductive freedom! So for a long time, I felt like I didn’t have a home in the Democratic or the Republican Party. Now, there’s a candidate for me.”

“Yay!” added Stephanie Legolas, who believes Lyndon Johnson was actually a series of spiders who operated a human body using Martian technology that the government is keeping from us. “I have long lived in a world of conspiracy, where sinister puppet masters are pulling the strings and children are being mailed around the world in Wayfair furniture. For too long, I felt like my only option was to vote for Republicans, but I found off-putting how they’re so busy trying to ban books and keep history out of schools. Now, finally, there’s somebody who believes in just the creepy things I do believe and not additional creepy things I don’t believe! Thanks, RFK Jr.!”

“I, too, hate vaccines,” added Molly Frumious, “because I read somewhere that every time you refuse a vaccination that would have seemed like a miracle to your ancestors, it is like you are slapping their ghosts in the face, and I hate ghosts! I want to slap every ghost I can! But I don’t want to end Chevron deference. And for a long time, I felt like there was no home for me, politically! Now … there is! Kind of! Until the general election, at least!”

“I am a conspiracist first, but I’m glad I can be a Democrat second,” added Glowing Lorb.

“I want to bring back polio,” added Dave Tmbl, “because I invested very heavily in those old-timey braces that FDR used to wear before realizing that vaccines had wiped it out, and now I am really up a creek unless polio comes back right away! RFK Jr. is my only hope!”

“Yes!” added Mea Sles, definitely not a set of measles in a trench coat. “This is what we have long needed in this country: a robust debate about why we dislike science, from two sides! Just as long as we agree that science in general, and vaccines in particular, is the enemy! Good! More of this! Thanks, RFK Jr.!”

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/robert-f-kennedy-jr-vaccines/index.html

 

I have recently come to conclude that it's all about his pocket. I originally thought he was an honest advocate of "conspiracy theories" (yes, there are those people out there), but the more I read about how much he's pocketing and what he did to get there (cutting, slicing, and dicing conference talks by CDC experts to fraudulently push a link between vaccines and autism), the more I see that he's not an innocent believer. Instead, he's very smart and knows exactly what he's doing. In other words, he's committing fraud to make money for himself, engaging in a large-scale grift.

 

careful, that's a Democrat you're talking about

 

full article at the link.

TLDR: Joan Walsh, reflecting on her past involvement, regrets publishing an article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that spread false information about vaccines and autism. She acknowledges the mistake, takes responsibility for her role, and counters Kennedy's claims that pressure from regulators and the pharmaceutical industry led to the retraction. Walsh emphasizes the manipulation of data in Kennedy's piece and admits to being influenced by her admiration for the Kennedy name.

Just Another RFK Jr. Lie. I Know, Because It’s About Me.
I edited Kennedy’s error-ridden piece on a vaccine-autism link, which Salon later retracted. We caved to the truth, not Big Pharma.
Joan Walsh

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/rfk-jr-vaccine-disinformation/

 

Althouse

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/06/is-peter-hotez-winning-i-wont-debate.html

June 23, 2023
Is Peter Hotez winning the I-won't-debate debate?

Encountering his tweet this morning, I don't think so . . .
​

more at the link

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/23/opinion/rfk-jr-joe-rogan.html

It’s Not Possible to ‘Win’ an Argument With Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
June 23, 2023

By Farhad Manjoo
Opinion Columnist

In the summer of 2006, I jumped into the ring for a few rounds of debate with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was peddling reckless claims about an important issue on which he lacked expertise. It wasn’t vaccines. It was the 2004 presidential race. In an article for Rolling Stone, Kennedy suggested that the election had been stolen from John Kerry — a suggestion that, after thorough reporting, didn’t hold up.

But now I see where I went wrong. Not on the merits; there’s still no case that Kerry actually won in 2004. My mistake was attempting to debate and debunk Kennedy in the first place. At best, the effort was a waste of time and energy; at worst, a big bow-wrapped gift of the thing a conspiracy theorist desires most — recognition that his arguments are important enough to merit serious debate.

After getting in the mud with Kennedy all those years ago, I realized something important that we’d do well to remember now, as Kennedy mounts a long-shot run against Joe Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination: You can come armed with all the facts in the world, but when you’re dealing with a conspiracist, there’s no real way to “win” an argument. For people whose views aren’t anchored to facts, winning is simply getting attention — and when you publicly argue with someone like Kennedy, you’ve already lost.

I got to thinking about all of this last week, when Kennedy went on Joe Rogan’s podcast and served up a helping of misinformation on the issue for which he is best known, his conviction that several common, widely-used vaccines are harmful.

offered a $100,000 charitable donation if Hotez would come on the podcast to debate Kennedy. Not long after, Elon Musk chimed in, and soon an avalanche of Twitterati were pledging money for a debate; according to one Twitter user who claims to have been tracking the pledges, the pot is now over $2 million.

So far, Hotez has courageously refused to take the bait, rejecting, as a physician and scientist, an effort to goad him into defending his work from a skeptic who has for years resisted evidence on vaccines. A back-and-forth between Kennedy and Hotez or another vaccine expert wouldn’t prove anything. And that’s not scientists’ method, anyway. They have established ways of assessing empirical questions — you know, things like lab experiments and clinical trials — and none of them involve owning an interlocutor on a popular podcast.

And what would winning a debate with Kennedy even mean? As I learned when I argued with him about the 2004 election, trying to fight misinformation with facts is a tricky business. One side is bound by clearly documented evidence; the other side is free to cherry pick factoids from anywhere, to assert that establishment institutions are inherently suspect and that efforts to fact-check their claims amount to nit-picking, and that anyone who doesn’t see a bigger narrative in a collection of loosely related stories is, in effect, a naïf.


I was a reporter at Salon during the 2004 election cycle. I’d spent several months before Election Day covering the ways America had been changing its voting systems since the fiasco of 2000, including the adoption in some places of electronic voting machines that could be vulnerable to hackers or other security lapses. Throughout that time I’d cultivated many sources in the insular, nerdy world of election administration and I’d become familiar with the minutiae of how elections are run.

This left me well-prepared for what happened after Election Day — a barrage of theories from people on the left that, due to the electronic voting machines or other problems, the election had been stolen. In his Rolling Stone piece, referring to George W. Bush, Kennedy wrote that he’d “become convinced that the president’s party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004.” He argued that in Ohio, where Bush’s victory put him over the top in the Electoral College, enough Kerry votes were uncounted, flipped or otherwise kept out of the race to cast doubt on Bush’s roughly 118,000-vote margin in that state.

irregularities and efforts at disenfranchising voters, particularly in Ohio, where a partisan secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, had overseen several divisive voting measures and obstacles. But pretty much every expert I talked to said that none of the issues were likely big enough to have undone Bush’s win. An investigation by the Democratic National Committee which looked at precinct level voting counts found that the data “does not suggest the occurrence of widespread fraud that systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.”

And so: I wrote a point-by-point debunking of Kennedy’s breathless claims. Then Kennedy wrote a rebuttal to my rebuttal, which I, again, rebutted.

For a week or two this dust-up took over my life. Salon, a generally liberal-leaning publication, was deluged by letters from readers angry that I was defending Bush’s win. Thankfully, my editors supported me, and I remember coming away from the episode feeling bruised but journalistically vindicated: A man with a famous political name was wrong on the internet, and, armed with the facts, I had stepped in to correct the record.

Looking back, though, I cringe. The other day I went back and listened to a debate I had with Kennedy on public radio’s “The Brian Lehrer Show.” Lehrer opened the program by asking Kennedy for his big-picture case. But whether Kennedy is talking about vaccines, elections or other out-there topics (he told Rogan he is “aware” that he could be assassinated by the American government) he tends to present his theories in a particular way. He starts with a few sprinkles of truth — Ohio’s vote was run by a partisan official, some vaccines have serious side effects — and then swirls them up with enough exaggerations, omissions and leaps of logic to create a veritable McFlurry of doubt.

Such was his effort when we met on Lehrer: Kennedy offered an assortment of claims about the election that, in big and small ways, were unsubstantiated. So when Lehrer turned to me, I felt I had no choice but to start out by correcting Kennedy’s misstatements. I did so pretty handily, but because I had to point to sources and tease out the nuances Kennedy had elided, I couldn’t help but sound like the boring, persnickety nerd stuck in the weeds. After a few rounds of this back-and-forth, I can’t imagine that much of anything had been clarified for the audience. Instead, the impression was one of earnest complexity: One side says X, the other says Y, but whoever is right, it sure seems like this is a debate we should be having.

At one point, Kennedy even made this plain: “You’ll be able to dispute the numbers till the end of time,” he told Lehrer of the faults I found in his case. “Mr. Manjoo,” he continued, “has made a cottage industry of reciting the Republican talking points” by bringing up “arcane disputes of each of these numbers.” “The numbers are correct,” Kennedy claimed, but the arguments over facts were “almost a side issue.” The real story, he said, is that Republicans tried to suppress Democratic votes and “they probably succeeded or may or may not have succeeded in shifting the vote to President Bush, but they certainly tried, and the press has not covered this issue.”

In other words: Each side has their own numbers. We’ll never know what actually happened. This guy sounds like a Republican. My story could be right. And isn’t it suspicious that no one is talking about it?

 

I'm sure @Os Trigonum will soon post another braindead low iq OP ED how rfk is the canidate to unite America anytime now

 

frail Joe shook

 

what's inaccurate about that quote?