JFK is largely a myth

[Ardent15]

He campaigned on the non-existent "missile gap", was rather indifferent and overly cautious with civil rights (gotta love that "incrementalism", and pionnered the TV campaign of style over substance. He got most everywhere he went in life because of his asshole father. And he didn't accomplish much in his 14 years in Congress.

Plus, he was fond of counterinsurgency in Vietnam, and increased the number of "advisers" there by the thousands. But he was a good politician and powerful speaker, so I guess that makes him a great President.

I'm not saying this because I think JFK was actually a bad President (I don't think he was). What I'm saying is that if you look at his record, he wasn't a particularly great one, and there's so much myth about him-mostly because of his assassination.

Speaking of which, I loathe this image of the JFK administration as "Camelot" and "his untapped potential" and how he is routinely placed by the public as one of the Great Presidents. He was no FDR, Truman, Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt.

If you want to a true liberal icon, look at his youngest brother.

[saltpoint]

1. I'll trade you three dozen Evan Bayhs for one John Kennedy.

I'll even throw in a Ben Nelson, a Bill Nelson, both Senators from Arkansas, and a Bart Stupak.

For ONE John Kennedy.

[Ardent15]

3. I never said Kennedy was BAD

Yes, when you compare him to corporate assholes, he looks great.

[saltpoint]

11. I think he looks great as a stand-alone figure as well. I like the classical

education. I like the emphasis he and his wife placed on inviting men and women of letters to the White House.

I like what he had to say about Poetry.

And the Arts generally.

I liked the easy, good humor he had with the press corps, even on policy questions.

I liked the Berlin speech generally and the mastery of context especially.

He was a vivid man. It took him a long way in his life. He was reviled by the same sinister right-wing elements similar to those gathered last weekend in Searchlight, Nevada.

Someone plotted to kill him. I'm agnostic on who it was, or how many were involved, or how many bullets went where from a building or a knoll. But someone wanted him dead and got their wish. "Young god without wound / The West is the place to die, my President," Robert Hazel wrote.

[timtom]

101. Not to put too fine a point on it, but...

Bill Nelson is from Florida.

[saltpoint]

104. He is indeed. The Senators from Arkansas are Pryor and Lincoln.

My 'both Senators from Arkansas' is unclear as I wrote it. I oughta have slipped in an "...as well as both Senators from Arkansas," and I screwed up.

[timtom]

108. Having said all that,

your posts on this thread have been exemplary and dead on the money!

I didn't reply to the OP, as I didn't trust myself to be eloquent or gracious.

[saltpoint]

120. timtom, you are very gracious indeed to have been so civil with

me when I was the one with his head up his hindend.

I say more power to ya. Don't know where you are in Florida, but if you're nearby it, say hello to that ocean down there for me. I miss it pretty badly.

[timtom]

121. West Palm Beach

Consider the ocean greeted on your behalf.

Till next time.

[saltpoint]

103. re-posted to timtom's reply...

[NWHarkness]

2. And Attiicus Finch shot a dog

What's the point?

[aikoaiko]

27. nice

[Morning Dew]

42. Oh, my.

Perfect.

[troubledamerican]

118. + 1!

[Me.]

4. Sez You

[Ardent15]

6. Indeed. nt

[CatWoman]

5. why don't you just go ahead and dig him up

so that you can bury him again?

[Grand Taurean]

7. True. Remember though he had good intentions AND....

JFK as still to the left of the infamous right wing appeasing "DINO".

And yes, Lyndon Johnson fought for and got us civil rights. Like him or not, he understood power and had connections in the right places that could get him what he wanted.

While JFK was having, shall we say, "fun", LBJ was doing the hard work. LBJ was having "fun" too, but he did much for his constituency. As the Senate majority leader, he successfully held back the hard right's urges to dismantle the FDR welfare state as well as held influence over Eisenhower.

A few notes:
On economic matters, I would prefer Jack over Barack anyday.
On defense: Kennedy would NEVER play dead if the country were to be attacked, he was hesitant strike first, though
there is debate about whether or not he was going to actually pull out of Vietnam.

JFK spoke of doing great things, but never could push ahead to actually get those things done.

[Omaha Steve]

8. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you%27re_no_Jack_Kennedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Lloyd Bentsen

"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" was a strawman<1> used during the 1988 United States vice-presidential debate by Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen to Republican vice-presidential candidate Senator Dan Quayle. Jack Kennedy was a reference to John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States. Since then, the words "You're no Jack Kennedy," or some variation on Bentsen's remark, have become a part of the political lexicon as a way to deflate politicians or other individuals perceived as thinking too highly of themselves.

See the full page.

And could anyone else have kept Cuba from turning into W.W.III? The Peace Corp. Etc..

OS

[saltpoint]

19. It was a refreshing moment for many of us when young Dan Quayle,

who had spent some weeks making it a point to compare his resume with John Kennedy's, ran smackdab into the wiley and wise Lloyd Bentsen, who did not let national polling forestall the shot to the cranium he gave Quayle when he uttered that line.

I was fortunate to be watching that debate in a room of extremely pro-Labor Democrats, including one soon-to-be-named-delegate to that year's convention, and when Bentsen smacked little Danny, the rafters shook with cheering.

You are right to invoke the Peace Corps -- the oldest cousin of my family tree was a cradle-to-grave Big Oil Republican and nevertheless saw the merit and purpose of Kennedy's Peace Corps and was among the very first to volunteer for it.

[Bluebear]

9. What, you want to go to Arlington & blow out his eternal flame or something?

[Peregrine Took]

10. Get this book from your public library. Read it and come back here in 1 mo.

and say the same thing you just said. I dare you to repeat it.



http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1570757550/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269912597&sr=8-1

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scarletwoman]

28. Take your pointless OP to the same place.

[JanusAscending]

33. bye bye!!

[laughingliberal]

12. I'd place him at least 10 steps to the left of the current administration. nt

[scarletwoman]

13. So, is it Oswald's birthday or something?

JFK fired the Dulles brothers -- that one act gives him plenty of cred in my book.

[Art_from_Ark]

94. His brother also went after the mob

I would gladly take John and Robert Kennedy over any of today's active politicians.

[UTUSN]

14. I'm the one who K&R-ed #1. However, since I'm such an outlaw, if you want a true Liberal look at LBJ

[upi402]

17. LBJ did a ton! But VN cancelled all of it out

sad

[UTUSN]

20. It really IS sad. But the good part lives on. n/t

[ChicagoSuz219]

15. You left out the part...

...about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Had he not kept a cool head, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

[opihimoimoi]

16. At the Time>>>> HE WAS THE BEST we had to OFFER...The GOP sucked, still do

[happyslug]

72. We could have had LBJ from 1961 on instead...

First point, Vietnam, LBJ's nightmare, and a nightmare made certain with the Assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem in November 1, 1963, a coup and assassination approved by JFK and his staff.

People tend to forget that the Assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem in 1963, meant the US was going into Vietnam. The only member of Kennedy's Administration that opposed that Assassination was LBJ (I quote LBJ "You do NOT kill a Friend" on the agreement support the coup and assassination of Diem). If Diem had NOT been Assassinated in 1963, Diem would have OPPOSED US intervention in 1965. That opposition would have given LBJ the Political cover NOT to send in troops. With Diem gone, US troops were going in for the South Vietnamese were slowly losing the Guerrilla War against the Viet Cong in the early to mid 1960s. South Vietnam would have fallen by 1968, but Vietnam would have been a minor political problem for NO US troops would have been in Vietnam AND the President of South Vietnam (Diem in this Scenario) would have continued to oppose US intervention.

Ho Chin Minh, President of North Vietnam, made the following comment on the Assassination of Diem:

"I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."

The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit, predicting: "The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists ... Diệm was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diệm. Diệm was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists ... Among the anti-Communists in South Vietnam or exiled in other countries, no one has sufficient political assets and abilities to cause others to obey. Therefore, the lackey administration cannot be stabilized. The coup d'état on 1 November 1963 will not be the last."

More on Diem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

Now Diem had NOT been a democratic leader in any sense of the word, he had kept his power base happy by making sure any land reform was NOT done (and he undid any land reforms the Communists had done in the War with the French). Now, even the US accepted the fact that until there was land reform in South Vietnam the rural pleasantly would support the only group that had done anything in regards to land reforms and that was the Viet Cong, but the people that overthrew Diem also had no intention of doing land reform (Thus the comment from Ho and the North on Diem's assassination).

Even today, the chief problem with most of the third world is "landlordism". "Landlordism" occurs when the Peasants who work the land have to pay "rent" to the land owners for use of the land. This "rent" took up most of the money earned by the Peasants when they sold their crops. The Viet Cong told such Peasants the land was THEIRS and if the area was controlled by the Viet Cong no "rent" had to be paid. The Viet Cong demanded taxes, but the taxes were way less then the "Rent". Thus the peasants supported the Viet Cong. The main opposition to the Viet Cong was the Landlords. Diem kept them on his side AND tired to keep them from taking to much from the peasants (In that regard Diem failed, but because he did TRY to stop the excess rent, he had some support among the peasants).

"landlordism" continued till the Communists won in 1974, and do to the abolishment of "Landlordism" efforts by former South Vietnam elites to lead their own guerrilla war after 1974 never went beyond a few isolate attacks (Attacks which made the news in the US, way out of proportion to the affect at the time AND died out within six months of the fall of South Vietnam). Now "landlordism" also lead to one of the chief problems of that occurred AFTER the US intervention. The problem was the US would clear an area of Viet Cong, then the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (The "Republic of Vietnam" was the official name of South Vietnam) would enter the area and collect the "Rent" money that had NOT been paid to the ruling elite. This turned off even more of the Peasants as to the Government of South Vietnam and made the situation worse, even as the US and later the much improved army of South Vietnam cleared most of the Country of the Viet Cong.

Diem knew the above and foresaw the above and new sooner or later he had to compete with the Viet Cong as to land reform (i.e. giving the land to the peasants who actually worked the land). The main opposition to Diem in South Vietnam was the ruling elite who absolutely opposed such land reforms (and such land reforms had been done in China after the Communists took over in 1949 AND Taiwan where the Nationalists held on and were no longer restricted by the landlords of rural China). Now Diem opposed land reform himself (using land to reward his supporters, including his own brother the Main Catholic Bishop of Vietnam), but he was able to keep more of the elite and peasants on his side then any of his successors, a fact Diem knew in 1963 at Diem's Assassination AND seems to have understood in the 1940s when he meet with Diem at least once AND had sentenced Diem to Death for Diem position of NOT supporting the Viet Minh in the 1940s, while also not supporting the French.

I do NOT want to get into to much on Diem, he was a complex character and sooner or later would have lost Vietnam but he understood that to get the support of most of the people of South Vietnam he could NOT appear to be the lackey of any foreign power, including the US. Thus Diem opposed US intervention. That opposition, even as South Vietnam fell, would have given LBJ cover to stay out of Vietnam. With Diem's assassination on November 1, 1963, the US was going into Vietnam no mater what the President wanted. No leader of South Vietnam would say NO to such intervention (And thus give political cover to any politician who did not want to intervene) AND no South Vietnamese leader had the same level of support within the society of South Vietnam to even HOPE to win the war WITHOUT such US intervention. President Kennedy and his advisers all knew that with Diem gone and US was going into Vietnam to make sure it did NOT fall to the Communists. LBJ also saw this but opposed the assassination for it was a bad politics.

My point is simple had LBJ been elected in 1961, the US would NEVER have gone into Vietnam for Diem would NEVER have been assassinated.


Second point, Civil Rights.

People tend to like what JFK did on Civil Rights, but he passed no actual law on Civil Rights. JFK did "nationalized" Southern National Guard units during periods of Racial tensions in the South, but that is what Eisenhower had done in the 1950s (JFK called the Southern National Guard Units into Federal Service and then restricted them to their armories, as President of the US he had such authority and that act prevented any Southern Governor from using the National Guard in any state action Against Civil Rights protesters). On the other hand JFK did NOT do anything as per Civil Rights violations themselves UNLESS it was politically necessary (in fact JFK put LBJ in charge of Civil Rights and then objected to LBJ's use of that panel to bring to the public some of the abuses blacks were undergoing under segregation). The classic situation was George Wallace and JFK dance in regards to the integration of the University of Alabama. Wallace did his famous stand in the door way to block the first black students into University of Alabama. JFK sent a US Marshall who served the Court Order on Wallace, who then promptly stepped aside in obedience to the Court Order. That was a dance, pre-arranged between Wallace and JFK, Wallace could show he opposed desegregation and JFK could show he was for desegregation and no one actually had to do anything except obey a ruling the US Supreme Court made almost a decade earlier.

LBJ would have started to get a Civil Rights Bill passed in 1961 NOT 1964. LBJ had voted against earlier Civil Rights bills, but more do to the fact they were doomed to defeat anyway then any actual opposition. LBJ knew the Senate better then any man alive, if JFK wanted Civil Rights passed in 1961 all he had to do is give LBJ the mission and leave LBJ force it through (as LBJ did in 1964). JFK fully supporting LBJ as to passing the Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act would have passed in 1961. We would have seen a Filibuster, but Kennedy could have finesse that better the LBJ could (i.e. JFK would have handle the press better then LBJ, but LBJ would have been the person who pushed the Civil Rights Act through). The problem with that is LBJ had been forced onto JFK as his Vice President and JFK and the group around him disliked LBJ. Thus rather then work together on Civil Rights you see JFK undermining LBJ's efforts as head of JFK's panel on Civil Rights. In many ways a great failure, with JFK's charisma and LBJ's ability to get things done in the Senate what those two could have done if they just worked together instead of JFK's sidetracking and ignoring LBJ.

Point Three, the Great Society Program:

JFK had Camelot, but no real change in American society came about because of it. LBJ pushed through his "Great Society" program in the Five years he was President. How much more could have done to the inner cities and rural America to make both places better places to live? How much more legal, educational, housing and other improvements for the poor and working class would have occurred if LBJ started in 1961 instead of 1964?

A pro-JFK site on JFK and Civil Rights:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/Civil+Rights+Context+in+the+Early+1960s+Page+4.htm
I mention it for after reading the section "The March on Washington and The Civil Rights Act of 1964" notes that the March on Washington was in 1963, and that some congressional hurtles were overcome in the fall of 1963, but it left to LBJ to get it passed do to JFK's assassination. A great job of spin, JFK did NOTHING in regards to the March. The GOP leadership of the time had always supported Civil Rights laws (The GOP anti-Civil Rights attitude would NOT come into play till after Nixon's election in 1968) through Goldwater, the 1964 GOP Presidential candidate opposed the Act. LBJ used every trick in the books, including using the dead presidents memory (And something JFK would NEVER had done, agree to a three months filibuster not a filibuster used today where the Senate holds a vote to end debate and when that votes is done goes on to other business, an old fashioned filibuster (One Byrd of West Virgina Advocated to get Medical coverage passed) one in which a vote is taken and if NOT enough vote, the debate in continued on that subject only. You keep on having votes till the Senators doing the Filibuster give up. That is what LBJ decided to do in 1964 to get the Civil Rights act passed, three months of the Senate NOT doing anything but vote on closing debate on the Civil Rights act. Calling in the Senators for the Votes, LBJ calling each senator on what it would take to vote to end the debate. JFK would NEVER have done that but LBJ did.


Side note:

Now the space race was a JFK starting point, JFK was more into it then LBJ was and we have to give the Space program to JFK. But what was the result of the mission to the Moon? Under Nixon we retreated back to earth's orbit. Why? For in the 1960s and 1970s there was NO economic value in going to the Moon. More recent study of the moon has indicated the presence of water which makes the moot much more interesting then it was in the 1960s but all most all of that research has been done by unmanned missions NOT the manned Apollo Missions. I do NOT want to sound like it was a waste of money, but you can make that argument for we did NOTHING with that technology.

[opihimoimoi]

88. I prefer a more Positive Look o n that period of Time......In my mind he is a HERO

[Octafish]

18. All Kennedy did was keep the world out of World War III, what, three times?

You must not have heard: CIA Director Allen Dulls and JCS Chairman Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer counseled the young President to order an all-out nuclear sneak attack on the Soviet Union. The perfect time, they said, was "Fall 1963."



One author’s father is the tall fellow on the left, John Kenneth Galbraith; others in the picture include President Kennedy, Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, Vice President Johnson, the Ambassador of India to Washington, and Prime Minister Nehru.

Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect
September 21, 1994

SNIP...

The Burris Memorandum

The memorandum reproduced here was written for Vice President Lyndon Johnson, who did not attend the meeting, by Colonel Howard Burris, his military aide. Declassified only in June of 1993, it has not previously received any public attention so far as we have been able to determine.

The first paragraph introduces General Hickey and his group, the Net Evaluation Subcommittee. Although the subcommittee report is described as "annual," this would be the first one given to President Kennedy and his advisors, and it is not clear whether President Eisenhower received such reports in person. General Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stepped in to explain the "assumption" of the 1961 report: "a surprise attack in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions." The question arises: A surprise attack by whom on whom?

The following paragraphs answer the question. The second paragraph reports that after hearing the presentations, President Kennedy asked the presenters "if there had ever been made an assessment of damage results to the U.S.S.R. which would be incurred by a preemptive attack." Kennedy also asked for an effectiveness trend since "these studies have been made since 1957." Lemnitzer responded that he would later answer both of the President's questions in private.

Paragraph three records Kennedy asking a hypothetical question: what would happen if we launched a strike in the winter of 1962? Allen Dulles of the CIA responded that "the attack would be much less effective since there would be considerably fewer missiles involved." Lemnitzer then cautioned against putting too much faith in the findings since the assumptions might be faulty. The discussion thus provides a time-frame. December of 1962 was too early for an attack because the U.S. would have too few missiles; by December of 1963 there would likely be sufficient numbers.

Paragraph four reports one more Kennedy question: how much time would "citizens" need to remain in shelters following an attack? The President receives a qualified estimate of two weeks from a member of the subcommittee. The group was clearly talking about U.S. citizens protecting themselves from the globe-encircling fallout following a U.S. nuclear attack on the U.S.S.R.

Paragraph five adds to the intensity of the document with Kennedy's directive "that no member in attendance disclose even the subject of the meeting."

CONTINUED...

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_the_us_military_plan_a_nuclear_first_strike_for_1963

HERE’S THE MEMO:

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d254

You really should read more, Ardent15. For details, you might want to visit:

Thank God Jack Kennedy was President way back when.

[Me.]

63. !

Was waiting to see your post

[Octafish]

113. Hiya, Me! Thanks for reminding me, I misspelled ''DULLES,'' as in Allen Welsh Dulles...

The CIA head Kennedy fired after getting lied to over the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

I know you know that, Me, but I'd bet few Americans do. And even fewer are aware of the fact LBJ named Dulles to the Warren Commission, which helps explain a heck of a lot.

[opihimoimoi]

89. Ya tell um Octa :o) Aloha

[Octafish]

114. Tanks, Kaikunane aloha. What JFK Really Said.

It gets me crazy to read the nonsense spewed by those who don't know.



F'r instance, Philip (Friend of Condescenda) Zelikow is a current-day big time scholar who spreads (whether accidently or intentionally, doesn't matter) misinformation about President Kennedy:

What JFK Really Said

PS: Hope you and yours are well, Compay. Lewis sends his best.

[DearAbby]

98. Hats off to you Octafish

Our DU Historian. Keepin it real.

[Octafish]

116. Few in Government have stood up to the Secret Government since JFK.

One of JFK's contemporaries springs to mind for his work in the mid-1970s, which shone the light of truth on a group of chums who always seem to be above the law.



(L to R) George A. Smathers, John F. Kennedy, Frank F. Church, and Russell B. Long, Senators at opening of congress.

Frank Church and the Abyss of Warrantless Wiretapping.

Thank you, DearAbby. You made my DU Day.

[H2O Man]

21. Oh.

[saltpoint]

23. There is also, sometimes overlooked, the energy he represented to

a nation lulled to catatonia under Eisenhower.

This is not to say that Dwight and Mamie weren't lovely folks. They were. Bless 'em, etc.

But.

The Beats were already staying up late smoking cigarettes, drinking harsh coffee and making dramatic after-hours commentary. Kennedy nipped Nixon in one of the closest elections we've ever had, meaning in part that as winners of the recent World War some didn't see the wisdom of risking the White House on a brash young New Englander who after all did talk kinda funny and there was the matter of all that book-learnin'... while on the other hand a lot of people wanted a power surge. Black people in particular wondered why they weren't welcome in the post-WWII victory march and its correspondent rise in living standards, not to mention civil rights. Kennedy's candidacy spoke to them from quite a different place than Nixon could ever have done.

They had the ears to hear and Kennedy had the words to give them. He told them, "This is your country, too, and I stand by you as you stand up for yourselves and your children."

After the somnolent 50s Kennedy was the prince who kisses the snoozing princess awake. "Geez, I must have dozed off," she says, then realizes that she lucked out in slumber-ending kissers.

I've heard the telephone transcription between Attorney General RFK and his President brother as they try to persuade certain Southern governors -- all Democrats -- to stop playing to their bigot base and permit and endorse black Americans to participate in the schools and businesses of their country. The restraint in John Kennedy's voice is remarkable and historic and outstanding. The recalcitrance of the Southern Governors speaks of a deep-boned hatred of everything Kennedy stood for, not least his standing for the disenfranchised citizen.

[nevergiveup]

24. So if you are not an FDR, Truman, Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt you are a myth?

Whatever

[Ardent15]

25. Uh...no

I said that he's compared to those Presidents as being one of the greatest of all time, when he was not.

[JanusAscending]

30. I think there is a semantic problem going on here!

Either that....or you are on the wrong forum, and won't survive very long here. I think a better word you could have used (instead of myth..which means a LIE) is that he is a Legend? And to me, any Charismatic President with a beautiful wife, and young children in the Whitehouse, who is assassinated in the prime of his life...before he's had a chance to turn the country around....deserves the Legend of Camelot!! We'll never know what might have been, so please....do not call it a MYTH!!!

[Ardent15]

32. ....

What a bunch of stupid bullshit.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JanusAscending]

110. Are you calling me a "stupid bullshitter"???

against DU rules!!!

[nevergiveup]

36. Personally I have never heard anyone say he was one of the greatest presidents.

He was a very young popular president who had part of his skull blown away by an assassin. It was a very traumatic and extremely heart wrenching time for me as a young 20 yr old. I also vividly remember watching him address the nation on TV during the Cuban Missle Crisis and wondering if we were all going to die. Sorry, but reckon I just wasn't in the mood tonight to read an OP belittling JFK.

[ruggerson]

26. But he wasn't McCain

n/t

[Bluebear]

29. >>>>

:spray:
:spray:
:spray:

[leftstreet]

31. ...

:spray:

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

34. He died in service of his country. That trumps whether he kept his campaign promises.

sorry.

[Forkboy]

35. It's a generation thing. I think he was fine man, but not the hero others saw.

Much like I feel about any politician, even now.

Maybe it's time thing. :shrug:

[digidigido]

45. You know, the man didn't even serve 2 years, the judgment and ignorance

shown here are overwhelming. The man sent the Army to integrate a college
in Alabama, he issued an executive order banning discrimination in public
housing. He kept us out of WW 3 with Cuba and Russia. He led with wit
smarts and style, and got more pussy then most of the people on DU combined.
He took on the CIA and the FBI with Hoover, and even though he handled
Vietnam poorly, he likely would have handled it differently if he had
not been assassinated. He was a flawed man, but a smart, principled
and caring man. Arguably like Thurmon Munson, a great one who died before
achieving his full measure of greatness.

[Zomby Woof]

47. Not quite 3 years

January 20, 1961 - November 22, 1963. Nearly 3 years.

[Forkboy]

52. I know this.

And I don't mean disrespect, I just don't look to politicians to shape my definition of good or bad. I don't really care if he got more pussy than I did, nor do I care if he was as good as Munson was at baseball (an awesome player, this Sox fan says). JFK didn't play baseball, and the world isn't kept score by innings. He did, however, get all that pussy at Jackie's expense, and more importantly, at the potential harm of the party of which he was associated. If that's respectable than no wonder the world has gone to shit. :shrug:

Look, I know he as flawed (we all are). But not all of us are in the position he found himself in. There comes a time in life when you have to curb your longing for some wet pussy, wouldn't you agree? When you have political enemies looking for anything and everything to hang you on one doesn't give them more ammo. JFK did.

Not saying I'm better, but I didn't run for President (a sure win, if ever there was one ;). )

[PSzymeczek]

73. He served 2 years, 10 months,

and a couple of days. I was 10 years old at the time, so i know.

edited to correct typo.

[pipi_k]

37. Actually, he was a Myth-ter, but carry on... n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

38. You loathe talk of the lost potential of a young man murdered?

Lots of things to loathe in life, this is a hell of a choice.

[DainBramaged]

39. One question, were you there?

[edbermac]

40. He banged Marilyn Monroe.

That's good enough for me!

[Hammit]

96. Hell yeah!

JFK was no liberal, but he was a great man. :P

[L0oniX]

41. ...not to good at running a boat at night.

[JanusAscending]

60. Pretty damn good swimmer though!!

Didn't he save some of his men's lives? To put it in proper context...think..."it's a wonderful life"!! Had he never existed, what ripple effects would it have had on us???

[Naturalist111]

43. I totally disagree

You say his brother? Well let's look at some facts. JFK killed November 22, 1963, MLK April 4, 1968, RFK June 5, 1968. Within a 5yr span 3 of the most influential liberals had been killed.

Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces&feature=player_embedded#
This speech was given April 27, 1961

As for him being a good president. Do you rate a president on what he gets done or what he tries to do? Without a majority in Congress Senate and or House, it is hard for any president to do much. He however did create the Peace Corps, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." and more which some others have already stated. So I really must disagree.

[MellowDem]

44. I agree...

he's a myth. I think that if a lot of people had been around back then as they had with Clinton, they would come to realize that a popular president with a D next to their name isn't necessarily a good one.

[Naturalist111]

48. You wern't around back then, that is easy to tell.

So how would you know what people back then should realize? Geez. Oh and Bill Clinton was a great President also. Him and JFK had one major thing in common. They made people feel good about the Country. A sense of hope. With Bill we had prosperity.

[MellowDem]

54. I didn't say what they should feel like...

I was comparing it to the Clinton years for myself since I wasn't around. Bill Clinton was not a good president. He pushed mainly Republican economic policies. The prosperity we had had nothing to do with Bill Clinton being president. That would be a little thing called the internet. And it became a bubble that blew up right at the end of his presidency. I don't think Clinton was a very bad president, but he wasn't as good as he was made out to be at the time, much like Kennedy, or Reagan, etc. etc.

[Naturalist111]

64. I will agree with that.

[Odin2005]

46. When people idolize JFK they are really projecting "LBJ minus Vietnam" onto him.

Given that JFK didn't want to look "soft on communism" he would have got us stuck in Vietnam just as much as LBJ did.

[saltpoint]

49. Now Odin, you have no idea how Kennedy would have conducted the

remainder of his term or a second term if he had gone on to live and win won.

Really, you don't. You don't have the slightest idea.

[Odin2005]

58. What is wrong with what I posted?

[saltpoint]

61. Not much, near as I can tell.

But none of us -- you and me included -- have any idea what a political future holds, even if we think we can predict how a Representative will vote.

There are always surprises out there. I love Russ Feingold to death but he voted to confirm John Ashcroft for Attorney General.

The conservatives thought that David Souter was a reliable wingnut and he upended the apple cart right after being sworn in.

Kennedy was under a multitude of pressures -- both policy heat and re-election heat -- and we just can't say with any certainty how he would have conducted the U.S. policy in SE Asia when he was murdered before Thanksgiving in '63.

We don't know, and we can't know.

[Odin2005]

67. Of course we can't knoww, that's why it's speculation.

But there are more probable and less probable alternate futures.

[saltpoint]

69. Robert Kennedy is a vital clue, perhaps. He ran for president in 1968

on an anti-war campaign theme, and he and Eugene McCarthy were putting it to LBJ.

The depth of RFK's ferocity on the war was not a political expedient. My guess is he held those beliefs a long time, had them sharpened when he was attorney general and in the years to follow, and finally bolted from the administration's position and sought the presidency.

[apocalypsehow]

79. False. McCarthy courageously took on LBJ in the primaries, and RFK only came in after it became

obvious that LBJ was particularly vulnerable that year amidst all the political turmoil and national chaos in that tragic year.

He also largely dropped opposing the "war" as an active position when it became obvious that running on "Law & Order" was a much richer field from which to garner primary votes - "Cordon off the area in which the rioting or disturbances take place, move in rapidly with sufficient force to deal with it, and cut it off from the community" was his reply to 1968 California primary voters about how he would handle riots in the ghettos.

"cut it off from the community"

He was starting to sound more like Richard Nixon rather than MLK in the closing days of his primary campaign, and for the rather mundane reason that sounding like Richard Nixon was more likely to yield him the primary votes to overcome Humphrey in Chicago.

Actual history doesn't quite square with your hagiographies, I'm afraid....

[saltpoint]

85. Your anti-Kennedy bent is noted.

Not persuasive by any means, but noted.

[apocalypsehow]

87. Irrefutable facts are more or less persuasive depending on the intelligence of those reviewing them.

"Your anti-Kennedy bent is noted...Not persuasive by any means, but noted."

Doctor Zhivago?

[saltpoint]

90. Now don't get me going on the Russians. The best among them

moved to California and wrote the world's most demanding piano concertos.

Critics tried to debase Rachmaninoff, claiming his music did not sufficiently proclaim the range and depth of the Russian peasant's struggle.

But that's a steaming pile. Let's hear those same critics park their ass in front of a Baldwin SD10 and play the Rach third. From memory.

[saltpoint]

95. His biographers sketch the motivations for Robert Kennedy's

entry into the 1968 Democratic primary fight.

He effectively made the decision, by the way, in Southeast Asia.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/06/rfk_excerpt200806

[apocalypsehow]

74. Exactly right - JFK was a committed Cold Warrior. Curtis LeMay was his Air Force chief of staff, and

JFK appointed him not once but twice to fill that role. That tells one something about JFK's take on the Cold War, and where he had positioned himself on the ideological divide regarding it.

It's not a very comforting position for those who believe that JFK would have "gotten us out" of Vietnam to contemplate - especially considering that he was essentially, in terms of sheer troop numbers, the one who "got us into" Vietnam in the first place...

(Wait for it, wait for it.... "what about NSC Memo 263?!?!?" :eyes: )

[Art_from_Ark]

99. OK, what about this

http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm

It appears that Kennedy was trying to deescalate involvement in Vietnam in the waning months of 1963. And in the beginning, LBJ seemed to be against escalation, but the "Tonkin Gulf Incident" of August 1964, and the subsequent Senate vote of 98-2 to escalate the war, made it virtually impossible for Johnson to deescalate. At least one of those 98 votes, Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright, admitted that he was fooled into voting for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution; 2 years later, he had become one of the war's biggest critics (as related in his book The Arrogance of Power).

The real question is "If Tonkin Gulf had happened on Kennedy's watch, would he have agreed to escalate or deescalate?" It would have been hard to go against a 98-2 tide.

[onenote]

50. JFK inspired a generation and that's not a myth

Was JFK a perfect president? Of course not. But no president is. FDR? Think detention of Japanese Americans.

Anyway, JFK inspired a generation of Americans, both with his rhetoric and his proposals. From "ask not what your country..." to ich bin ein Berliiner.." to the quest to land a man on the moon to the establishment of the Peace Corps. He signed a nuclear test ban treaty, maybe not as sweeping as some might like, but a message nonetheless. He proposed domestic legislation, including Civil Right legislation, that he didn't live to see enacted. He stood up to George Wallace, even if he wasn't enthusiastic about doing it.

His accomplishments, both in inspiring and in leading, given the short time he was in office, compare quite well to Truman, if not Lincoln or FDR.

[Canuckistanian]

51. "I don't think he was a bad President"

Worthy praise, indeed.

[saltpoint]

53. Also, to begin with, your use of the word 'myth' as a pejorative is unsound.

May the ghost of Dr. Jung hunt you down like a mongrel dog and visit upon you significant torment.

Leaders who inspire strong personal destiny in those they lead usually do so by locating and then accessing a taproot of common imagery and purpose. The process by which image and purpose are joined is myth.

Mythos is the fuel -- often invisible but present and active and in play -- when that process is undertaken.

When little or no mythos is tapped, political careers end early and often badly. See under Tom DeLay.

When the taproot is firmly attached and the mythic adrenaline flows, John Kennedy is the great president. Franklin Roosevelt is the great president. There is some significant evidence that Barack Obama is also the great president.

[apocalypsehow]

68. The content of this reply, besides being non-responsive & ahistorical, is meaningless.

What does it mean to state that "the taproot is firmly attached and the mythic adrenaline flows"?

Does that really mean anything coherent? To ask is also to laugh. Which I'm doing now.

[saltpoint]

71. Now doggone it, there you've gone and hurt my feelings.

[apocalypsehow]

75. See #66 if you want facts, not myth. This OP is spot-on - we should embrace historical truth,

no matter what uncomfortable factual roads it my lead us down. That is the essence of progressivism/liberalism, and the values those beliefs represent.

[saltpoint]

77. You misunderstand. I want the mythos.

I want to inhabit it and let it surround everything.

I favor a mythocracy, preferably by the end of this week at the latest.

You don't know much about cowboys, is my guess.

[apocalypsehow]

81. Just like the myth of John Wayne & Ronald Reagan as dashing American heroes, only for OUR side, eh?

:shrug:

[saltpoint]

86. Wayne tapped the mythos through inadvertence. Some of the

people who saw his first films had family members with living memories of the Civil War. Some of those voters, in South Carolina, were veterans of that war who first cast a vote for Strom Thurmond. That's how long Thurmond served in public roles -- that he would have counted among his first supporters veterans of the Civil War -- and that is how soon ago the cowboy mythos -- and the allure of the open prairie that supported it -- is / was still vibrant.

If you were ten years old in Missouri in 1843 you might have spent some hours along the east bank of the Mississippi River looking out to the far West, wondering what was out there, without entirely knowing why it held your imagination so strongly. You would not have been the only ten-year old who dreamed at night one dream -- to go out there one day when you were older and inhabit the stories you'd heard at the docks when the boats and travelers and trappers came through the city.

Wayne is not a myth. You fall off the cliff there. At best, Wayne was a guy from Iowa who agreed to do stunts on Hollywood sets. Once "discovered," his characters embodied some, though not all, of the cowboy mythos, and then through inadvertence. He advocated atomic power. He got his children to help him advocate it. His audiences weren't that invested in it but he lent his profile to the cause. Wayne didn't like hippies much. He told reporters once that it didn't both him "if some fellow wanted to grow his hair down to his ass." At the same time, Wayne added, it wasn't the sort of fellow he wanted "to spend next summer with." Wayne was almost totally unmythic but the cowboys he played tapped the mythic vein. It's too bad he didn't have a lick of acting talent.

Most parts of politics are archetypal. Read as political tract, the New Testament collapses into platitudes without that mythic construct of the Messianic God-child, born immaculate of woman by divine means. Turns out, that's not really how reproduction works, but we navigate the text as it's given. I like it well enough as a political tract, because it argues for a significant number of socialist principles against high-strung batshit crazy tyranny. Still, there's the immaculate birth issue. Most 5th or 6th graders know where babies come from. But there is enough mythic force-field around many religious texts, certainly around the Judeo-Christian ones, to trump basic physiology.

Not unrelatedly, the fundamentalist nutbags who scream and yelp for the Ten Commandments to be posted over every school house lobby are able to advance as far as they get because they operate inside that force-field. Outside of it, they wither. Put to ballot test, they often lose. When your religious instincts aren't any more integrated than a 6th grader's knowledge of where babies come from, you're on a doomed commitment slung over a 3-legged horse.

Most cowboys, the ones who settled the Great Plains towns and the ones who people modern Texas, inhabit their own mythos. The life isn't very rewarding. There's a lot of lonesome dirt and not much delight. The wind is almost always present and rarely welcoming. What passes in the mythos as heroic reticence might just be a case of shell-shock for the inarticulate loner who realizes no one gives a shit. And each town is too small and uncomfortable, the opportunities too few, the wind too constant.

I don't do "Our side" arguments. I do myth. And I recommend the life.

[apocalypsehow]

91. Actually, on edit, deleted. I begin to think you pull my leg. n/t.

[saltpoint]

92. Dr. Jung said if one of his patients claimed she had gone to the moon,

then she had in fact gone to the moon.

Enjoy your facts.

[Toasterlad]

55. "He was no FDR, Truman, Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt"

Great line from the Sondheim musical "Assassins": "While Lincoln, who got mixed reviews, because of you, John, now gets only raves."

If you think Kennedy gets a pass for being shot, what's your excuse for exalting Lincoln?

[Naturalist111]

57. Bull hockey

Lincoln got raves loooong before JFK was born. Stephen Joshua Sondheim sure didn't know his history or was just making a joke. It certainly isn't the truth. Count on it.

[saltpoint]

59. In his time Lincoln was not so well received by members of his

own party, who heard his squawky back-hills voice and thought he was an ignorant yahoo.

Turns out he had done a bit of readin'.

They let the back-hills voice fool them into thinking it went with a back-hills intelligence and sensibility.

[Naturalist111]

62. Well aware of that

but JFK did not make everyone rave about Lincoln. Think Mount Rushmore.

[saltpoint]

65. Actually a lot of people became more aware of Lincoln's role in the

arc that Dr. King would come to discuss as a result of Kennedy's commitment to desegregate the American South.

I would argue that Dr. King's arc is comprised of just those kinds of components, and that the people he inspired to march for their dignity and for access to the citizenry promised to all began to see that arc as definitional more because of John Kennedy and not less.

[Toasterlad]

76. Thanks, But I'll Take Sondheim's Historical Knowledge Over Yours, Anonymous Internet Poster.

Sondheim was referring to how Lincoln was regarded at the time of his presidency. While he is of course referring to the unifying effect Lincoln's death probably had on the country, he's also referring to how Lincoln was regarded by the nation while he was president. Think he was universally loved before he got shot? Think again.

[apocalypsehow]

66. Spot-on OP. He derisively referred to liberals as "honkers"; started the largest peacetime military

buildup in American history to that point (only Reagan outdid him); and once expressed irritation that an African ambassador from the UN was complaining about the segregated restaurants he had to endure on the way down from New York to D.C. in Delaware & Maryland by saying "can't he just fly down?"

It was on the express orders of JFK that the first containers of Agent Orange were deployed to Vietnam, and it was under those same express orders that the American presence in Vietnam went from a few hundred advisor's to almost twenty thousand - with Henry Cabot Lodge, Nixon's VP nominee in 1960, put in effective charge of the situation in 1963 at, again, the explicit orders of the President himself.

When a network ran a critical analysis of Richard Nixon after the 1962 elections and his failed bid for Governor of California, JFK summed up the program as "a typical demonstration of phony liberals"...in the early 1950s, when a speaker at an Harvard alumni meeting expressed gratitude that it had never produced either an "Alger Hiss" OR a "Joseph McCarthy" Kennedy stormed out in protest, saying "how dare you link the name of a great American patriot with a traitor?!?" (hint: the "traitor" he was referring to was Hiss, not McCarthy)...JFK made himself conspicuously unavailable for the vote to censure McCarthy, and never apologized for it...

Also, his favorite music was not the classical refrains of "Camelot" (a post-Dallas Jackie invention), but rather the C & W refrains of Patsy Cline - not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is more - much more - that hardly qualifies him as a progressive hero circa 2010 but, like you, I don't think he was a "bad" president when I consider his generation, the time he grew up in, and the largest fact of his time - The Cold War. I do not judge JFK by "present-ism."

But neither do I indulge in the blind hero worship - a worship bordering on the morbid - one often sees expressed in progressive circles without the slightest nod to the historical realities. A blind hero worship that is routinely and roundly condemned and ridiculed here at DU when conservatives engage in the same exact thing regarding Ronald Reagan.

And, yeah, let me save some time and anticipate the response to that last paragraph: "b-b-bu-but th-that's different!!!"

No, it's not.

Again, excellent OP - though I expect you'll get much grief for it. :thumbsup:

[Patriot 76]

70. I hate democrats that speak poorly of the Kennedy's.

Thanks for letting me know where you stand.

[Odin2005]

78. I hate is when people succumb to shallow personality politics.

Personality politics is bad for democracy. politics should be about issues, not personalities.

[EFerrari]

80. You know, it is possible to have a great deal of affection for this family

of talented people who served at such great cost AND to have a grip on the issues. :)

[Odin2005]

82. They are different individuals, though.

[EFerrari]

83. Of course they are. I'm sorry that I didn't get to know Ethel Kennedy better

(mostly because at the time, women were backgrounded) because from what I'm learning, she was really something. If she'd been born twenty years later, she would have made a great member.

[gleaner]

84. I don't agree with you ...

I was fifteen when he was killed and I found him an inspiring President. For every bad thing you see, I saw many good things. I heard that he intended to step back Viet Nam after he ran in 1964. I heard he intended to be a more prominent participant in the civil rights movement after he ran in 1964. It may have been rumors or it may not. Unfortunately he never lived to prove them right or wrong. I admired Bobby Kennedy too, and I often think how different things would have been if he had not been murdered in 1968, the first year I could have voted. I don't think one brother's style eclipses the other, and I don't relish kicking dead men who can't answer back.

I do remember that JFK was no coward. Shortly after he was elected US Steel decided that they were going to raise prices. He was furious. He said for attribution, "Those sons of bitches are not going to ruin my presidency." Then he called them and soon US Steel decided not to raise prices after all. He was articulate. bright and inspirational. He could have done a lot more, but he knew he would be facing a tough election, so he walked carefully toward it. We'll never know what he actually would have done because he never had a chance. You don't know what he could or would have done either. It is easy to take pot shots at dead men. They can't stand up and contradict you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

93. You would be better off yanking Linus' blanket out of his hands and burning it.

Or tugging on Superman's cape so hard that it came off. Or drawing back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz. Or stating you had proof that Jesus Christ was actually the Son of God.

There are places you just don't go on DU, and this is one of them. No one will agree that the Kennedy family rose to prominence in part due to illegal acts. Everyone will agree though, that if this country had "royalty", the Kennedy's should be seen as such; forgetting that most "royal families" have abused their subjects and gotten rich on the back of their labor.

I wish with all my heart that I could roll back the clock and stop the bad things that have befallen the Kennedy family. I truly would love to see how history would have turned out had those things not have happened.

[DerekG]

97. "He was no...Truman."

What, do you have to use nukes to be a Great President?

[Dinger]

100. UNREC

[JanusAscending]

109. AGREED!!

Must be the Full Moon!!!! Brings out all kinds.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. Hard To Accomplish A Lot In 1000 Days

Kudos to the brave folks who fought for civil rights and for LBJ for ensuring that these rights were enforced by law but it was JFK and his martyrdom that provided the crucial momebtum.

[Ishoutandscream2]

105. My order of the three brothers who were involved in national politics

1. Teddy. Possibly the greatest senator of the 20th century.
2. Robert. Fire in the belly. Was passionate about his beliefs. If I were to be jumped in an alley by a bunch of thugs, I would want Bobby there. He had that kind of fire and loyalty.
3. And then, Jack. I'm like you, I have nothing against JFK. I wish he would have had a longer time in office to complete the tasks he set out to do.

[saltpoint]

106. I'd take any of the three and preferably ALL three over 90% of the

Senators in office right now.

I like Lyndon Johnson best when I consider him as having the discerning intelligence, the rumble-til-they-crumble gut-fighting spirit, and the sheer integrity to stand for civil rights legislation. It wasn't pretty but he got a lot done. John and Robert had a lot to do with setting the table. Lyndon showed a lot of bravery and toughness in taking up the torch. These three men did not care for each other, the Kennedys and Lyndon. But the record shows they worked for the people's interest regarding civil rights instead of allowing their differences to block progress.

[Ishoutandscream2]

107. Agreed. I just liked the two younger brothers moreso than Jack

Being a Texan, I can look back now and see the incredible amount of guts it took LBJ to do what he did. Yes, Vietnam was his Waterloo. But what he did with domestic initiatives was an incredible accomplishment, and for that, I'm proud of LBJ.

[Paladin]

111. Having Pissed On JFK's Grave, Do You Feel Better About Yourself?

I wouldn't be surprised........

[mikekohr]

112. The Single Fact That He and RFK Averted Nuclear War With Russia Over The Cuban Missile Crisis

puts JFK as among the most accomplished Presidents. Had he not we would not be here discussing this. Put Reagan, or GWB in office during that crisis. They would have escalated or attacked the missile sites, the USSR would have launched. We would have retaliated. We would be dead.

mike kohr

[scarletwoman]

115. Thank you.

[MinM]

117. Happy Birthday to McGeorge Bundy

McGeorge Bundy, along with Robert McNamara and Max Taylor, have all acknowledged that John Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam.

Mac would have been 91 today.

[asdjrocky]

119. This young man has been reading some true history.

You'll get no argument from me, while I admired and liked JFK, it was his brother that really fought the fight.