The Bipartisan RFK Acclamation That Wasn’t
He could still be confirmed, but at least there’s a fight.

Everything continues to be horrible bordering on nightmarish. But I wanted to point to one horrible thing that didn’t happen. RFK Jr did not get a ton of support from Senate Democrats.
It may seem like it should be a foregone conclusion that Senate Ds would vote against RFK, who is a stunningly unqualified antivax goon. His own cousin characterizes him as a dangerous and amoral “predator.”
And yet, over the last months and weeks, a number of Democrats have made weird fashy, acquiescent grunting noises in RFK’s direction. Colorado’s Democratic Governor Jared Polis expressed approval of RFK’s plans to “shake-up” (ie, destroy) the FDA. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (an independent who caucuses with Democrats) said he liked some of Kennedy’s ideas on food issues and refused to say whether he would oppose Kennedy’s nomination back in December. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is a longtime friend of Kennedy’s; some Democrats were concerned he would vote to confirm. And many Senate Democrats have voted to confirm Trump nominees; they all voted to confirm Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Those were some ugly omens. But in the event, when RFK actually sat down for his nomination hearing, Democrats were unified in gutting him like the disgusting pig he is. Sanders highlighted anti-vax T-shirts Kennedy had sold on his website and demanded that Kennedy admit that vaccines does not cause autism. When Kennedy said he could be convinced by evidence, Sanders went in for the kill.
“The studies are there," he said. "Your job was to have looked at those studies as an applicant for this job."
Whitehouse wasn’t quite as aggressive, but he didn’t sound like a yes vote either. He demanded that Kennedy make it “indisputably clear that you support mandatory vaccinations against diseases where that will keep people safe. You’re in that hole pretty deep.” He also told Kennedy, “Frankly, you frighten people.”
There have also been signs of skepticism, and even outright opposition, from the right. Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, a physician, told Kennedy, “Your past of undermining confidence in vaccines with unfounded or misleading arguments concerns me,” and added that he was “struggling with the nomination.” The reliably rabid right wing editorial board of the Wall Street Journal excoriated Kennedy for his antivax stance, accusing him (accurately) of being a corrupt turd who cashes in on disease and death. “The risk is high that Mr. Kennedy will use his power and pulpit at HHS to enrich his trial-lawyer friends at the expense of public health and medical innovation,” the WSJ wrote.
None of this ensures that RFK’s nomination will be defeated. Republicans control the Senate, the majority of whom have no conscience, and many of whom are antivax true believers. RFK could even get a Democratic vote or two; PA Senator John Fetterman and AZ Senator Ruben Gallego are both trying to out-MAGA each other, and while I would hope they’d want to protect children from measles, I wouldn’t necessarily want to bet anyone’s life on it.
Still, a few weeks back, it seemed like there was a real possibility that the RFK hearings would be a grotesque orgy of bipartisan acclaim for a uniquely unqualified hackish hallbringer of death. Instead, Democrats look unified enough, and impassioned enough, that Fetterman will have to think two or three times before doing his asshole thing, while Republican senators are wavering and influential right-wing outlets are actively trying to push them to a thumbs down.
Sanders and Whitehouse no doubt turned against RFK in part because he’s made it clear he’s manifestly unqualified. But I think Democratic interest groups, and Democratic voters, have also drawn a line in the sand. I don’t think the message here is, “these Senators were always going to do the right thing.” Rather, I think the message is the Democrats are wobbly and not especially trustworthy—but they can be pushed.
It feels right now that we’re helpless. Trump is charging around the federal government like a giant wrecking ball made of orange feces, threatening Medicaid one minute, announcing spanking new concentration camps the next, then turning around and putting tariffs on Canada or letting Elon Musk seize your social security records. The onslaught feels relentless, and so overwhelming, that there’s an impulse to give up.
But for all his threats and all his power, the fact is that Trump loses a lot. He lost in court over his first effort to roll back birthright citizenship. He had to rescind an order freezing federal spending. And he’s fumbled a chance to build support with Senate Dems for RFK’s nomination.
Even if RFK wins—which he may well—opponents successfully built power and eroded support for the nomination. We aren’t helpless; we aren’t doomed to lose. We can push our feckless representatives to be less feckless. We can win crucial battles. We can make the battles we lose costly for the right. Despair is all too easy right now; that’s why we need to highlight moments where fighting mattered, even if only incrementally.
"Trump is charging around the federal government like a giant wrecking ball made of orange feces" is the kind of reporting that I need right now. Everything is horrible. Pretending like there is anything that can be done about it now by anyone other than people in the judiciary or congress is not helping. I am counting on a real resistance being organized that we can support.
Don't forget that despite the "recinding" of the OMB order, some agencies (read NSF) are still withholding grant money in search of DEI--and in 23 states there is a TRO prohibiting this. Evidence that any agency is violating the TRO is quite likely to turn it into a full injunction.
The government also needs to DEFINE "DEI." Does it mean anything affecting, say, women only? Like research into the effects of menopause? Or anything that primarily affects Blacks (research into sickle cell anemia) or Jews (Tay Sachs syndrome?) Don't these "favor" the classes mentioned?
Trump has turned DEI into "anything that threatens the predominance of white Christian males." He should be forced to call his version that. How, of course, is the big question.