JFK? Why is he the "presidential "ideal"

RDM_83

Over the last while have heard a lot of people saying Obama is/won't be the new JFK. My question/debate is why would him being like JFK be a good thing, now I understand that being a young eloquent president was exciting and for Ireland his religion and background but surely after all this time isn't it possible to look at his actual achievements and actions rather than hold him up as some secular saint because he liked good looking woman and was charasmatic

-His election was controversial, there is numerous proven examples of electoral fraud, as well as rumours of mafia involvement (saw a good doc on tnag on this)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer

- He ordered the bay of pigs invasion to go ahead while not giving enough support to allow it to succeed (IMO similar to Bush senior and Iraq insurgents in the 90's)

-The Cuban missile crisis can be traced to his previous actions,Bay of pigs and his instition of a complete trade embargo in Feb 1962 as well as resolving to use military force in Cuba if American interests were threatened (this is quite a broad definition) then scheduling major military exercises close to cuba the next month. In short my view is that he peacefully solved a problem of his own creation (and when you consider that his other option was probably to start a possible nuclear war or a conventional war in europe it doesn't seem that dificult a choice to make)

-He increased US military intervention in Veitnam

-He ran wiretaps on numerous private citizens, a fact that lyndon johnston refered to when he said
"We should outlaw all wiretapping--public and private--wherever and whenever it occurs, except when the security of this Nation itself is at stake--and only then with the strictest governmental safeguards. And we should exercise the full reach of our constitutional powers to outlaw electronic "bugging" and "snooping"
1967 state of the union address

-His economic policies were not particulary succesfull having presided over the USA's first not war deficiet in 1962

Though many would count the Apollo program as a great success people should look at the truelly massive costs for the results, it says it all that the space technologies that influence our daily lives have nothing to do with manned space flight and everything to do with the automated (therefore arguably the Russian approach of the Luna probes was mopre forward thinking though I understand that was probably more to do with their constaints), IMO if he had pumped that money into general scientific funding there would have been far greater results.

ps I understand that from a civil liberties point of view he did a lot however I'm not saying he was the worst President what I'm asking is why people think he's the best.

Latchy

If you go onto you tube and listen to any of the major speechs jfk made you will see the difference between him and many other presidents , in that the man did his homework , knew what he was talking about and said it well .Then wonder even more how somebody as dull and iggnorent as GW Bush could be elected president of the USA .

I am a self confessed JFK fan and have being for many years.




will get back and debate this later OP

brianthebard

He was shot. That makes him beyond reproach to many. How anyone could see him as a good president I don't know, the op has outlined a number of the problems there were with his presidency. He was as bad as McCarthy in terms of anti-communism and was responsible for the Vietnam war. That in itself is reason enough to judge him harshly.

RedPlanet

I think it's because he represented something greater than the sum of his record.
Just like Muhammad Ali.

mysterious

He is not going to be the next JFK.


Who said that???


JFK is a totally different man. Different background, different upbringing. Brought up in a white neighbourhood. Barack brought up in black neighbourhood. Come from totally different generation's living in a different era. Personality, no point even going there. Different.....

The only simalarities between them.
Charisma.
They live and lived in the same country.
Both democrats.


JFK had balls, and JFK stood up to the people behind government. He wanted to expose the corruption and trechery within the secret society. I.e the real money spinner's in power. He was shot for his bravery and honesty.

Obama do that???, is like "apes flying instead of climbing trees"......... in other words its not gonna happen.

Overheal

Thats prepostorous: John F Kennedy was not black.

Latchy

Vietnam

There is documented evidence that suggests Kennedy was opposed to sending extra troops to vietnam and plans were in place to remove the military advisers /troops that were already there .He was well clued in about the country politics and history, having visited it as a young senator .It didnt suit the military industrial powers and top military brass not to have a war in vietnam , billions of dollars and massive contracts were at stake. His predecessor Johnson, was the man they wanted in power .

Bay of pigs

He wasnt long into his presidency when he was accused of being weak for not sending in the troops to help the cubans in the invasion .The fact was it was the CIA/FBI who mis informed him about the whole situation and he was not fully briefed about that until it was to late .They were also carrying out activities themselfs under the guise of the presidential approval when he had given no such approval .One of the reasons he swore to break the ' CIA/FBI into ' a thousend pieces ' .

Cuban missile crisis .

Under massive pressure from his cabinet and top military advisers ,he refused to buckle under pressure to launch an all out attack on the missile sites in cuba , insisting that any strike would be entirely as a last resort ,when all other measures of negotiation were exausted .He wasn't going to be the pres who started WW3 .Secret behind the scenes negoations saved the day .

Civil rights .

He ordered troops and police into a texas university to protect negro students who had to barricade themselfs in .He became very agitated when 24 hrs after his order,the troops still hadn't arrived .later It was his civil rights bill ,which was pushed through after his death,that allowed negros the right to vote .The reason why we have Obama in the white house now.

Organised crime

There is strong evidence also to suggest that it was though his fathers connections with the underworld that kennedy secured the necessary votes to become president .But any thoughts that as president he would repay the favors granted were kicked into touch when he gave the attorney general ,his brother bobby, full reign to go after the mafia ,making him more enemies than ever before .


His affairs

They are legendry and it was a case of who hadn't slept with the pres ,not who had .He said he had to have sex every 3 days or else he got a headache .He wasnt kidding either and J E Hoover ( who hated both kennedys) had enough evidence to bring him down on that alone .

Looking at all fthe scenarios above it is easy to see were the conspiracy theories after his death came from .He upset everybody .The Southern white racists, Mafia, Military top brass ,FBI ( Hoover ) CIA Castro .Lot's of people wished him dead

The day before his assassination in San Antonio ,he said to his wife '' stay close Jackie , were in nut country now '' .

On the morning of the assassination he said to his secret servicemen '' all it takes to kill the president of the united states is for somebody to get on top of a building with a high powered rifle , nothing anybody coud do about that ''

The man had chrisma,Intellect, and courage to stand up to his advisers and military top brass when all were loosing their heads around him.

Somthing president Johnson wasn't very good at .

He was also a great speaker and historians use his well documented speechs as the standard yardstick on public speaking .Something in which presidents after him could only aspire to .

994

He was actually a lot like GW Bush.
- The 1960 election was stolen even more blatantly than the 2000
- JFK was planted into office by his rich and influential father, a bootlegger-turned-captain of industry

But Bush made the crucial error of not being young, handsome or well-spoken.

Running Bing

-His election was controversial, there is numerous proven examples of electoral fraud, as well as rumours of mafia involvement (saw a good doc on tnag on this)

Any fraud, fictional or otherwise, was inconsequential to the results of the election. The people of America wanted JFK...they got JFK.

- He ordered the bay of pigs invasion to go ahead while not giving enough support to allow it to succeed (IMO similar to Bush senior and Iraq insurgents in the 90's)

Bay of Pigs was a disaster but a lot of flak has to go to the CIA/Military chiefs. He was only in office and he trusted the word of the CIA/Military. It was his first big mistake but he learned from it and always treated the word of military men with suspicion after that.

-The Cuban missile crisis can be traced to his previous actions,Bay of pigs and his instition of a complete trade embargo in Feb 1962 as well as resolving to use military force in Cuba if American interests were threatened (this is quite a broad definition) then scheduling major military exercises close to cuba the next month. In short my view is that he peacefully solved a problem of his own creation (and when you consider that his other option was probably to start a possible nuclear war or a conventional war in europe it doesn't seem that dificult a choice to make)

Thats completely over-simplifying the situation imo. He must have been under unimaginable pressure during the crisis and it was not just a matter of JFK having a choice being between a peaceful resolution or war.

Bay of pigs played a part in the crisis but it was more a convenient excuse for Castro and Khrushchev than a genuine driving force.

-He increased US military intervention in Veitnam

I think the big blunders in Vietnam came after JFK's time in office. Kennedys actions over Vietnam were quite rational and logical imo. The war was badly mismanaged after his death.

-His economic policies were not particulary succesfull having presided over the USA's first not war deficiet in 1962

I think Kennedy's economic policies were very sound and would've been thoroughly vindicated if he had more time to really implement his ideas and move things forward. I think he dealt very effectively with a general downturn in the US economy.

Though many would count the Apollo program as a great success people should look at the truelly massive costs for the results, it says it all that the space technologies that influence our daily lives have nothing to do with manned space flight and everything to do with the automated (therefore arguably the Russian approach of the Luna probes was mopre forward thinking though I understand that was probably more to do with their constaints), IMO if he had pumped that money into general scientific funding there would have been far greater results.

Ideologically it was huge and I think that was very important at the time. It was costly but its difficult to say if greater results would've been reaped by general scientific funding.

---

I happen to think JFK was one of the best things to ever happen to the US and I look on his time in office very favourably but was he the best presidents ever? Almost certainly no imo. He clearly made mistakes and a lot of scholars and historians would put Kennedy well down the list of "greatest presidents".

I think a large part of the reason why I look on JFK so favourably is because I genuinely believe his time of office was one of the most challenging periods for a president in the history of the US. It was an incredibly hostile time to be commander-in-chief and I think on balance he was an effective leader.

The other thing you have to remember is it is difficult to get a handle on things like Vietnam and the economy when he only served 1000 days in office. I am certain he would've served a second term and I think then we could really judge his policies on the war in Vietnam and the economy as effective or not.

I think JFK represented more for the country than somebody to make decisions on a series of issues. Sounds cheesey but he offered the country hope. At a time when the American psyche was dominated largely by fear and paranoia he really made people feel there was hope for a better future. His speeches were incredibly inspirational and his charm, wit and intelligence endeared him to people probably more than any other president in US history. Couple that with his handling of the missile crisis, success over the Berlin issue and the fact that he once again made the US respected (even loved?) in the eye's of other countries (he essentially rejuvenated America's image abroad) and I dont think it is any surprise that the general populace look on JFK as one of the best, if not the best, ever (even if the historians and scholars might not agree).

Running Bing

- The 1960 election was stolen even more blatantly than the 2000

How was it "stolen"?

- JFK was planted into office by his rich and influential father, a bootlegger-turned-captain of industry

JFK was not "planted into office". You dont get "planted into [the] office" of president of the United States of America.:rolleyes:

That's also a ridiculously superficial description of Joe Kennedy.

But Bush made the crucial error of not being young, handsome or well-spoken

If you think youth, looks and articulateness are the only things that separate Bush and Kennedy (and their time in office) your not looking at the full picture.......especially when your basing the view on a couple of thinly veiled conspiracy theories.

RDM_83

Babybing wrote: »

I think JFK represented more for the country than somebody to make decisions on a series of issues. Sounds cheesey but he offered the country hope. At a time when the American psyche was dominated largely by fear and paranoia he really made people feel there was hope for a better future. His speeches were incredibly inspirational and his charm, wit and intelligence endeared him to people probably more than any other president in US history. Couple that with his handling of the missile crisis, success over the Berlin issue and the fact that he once again made the US respected (even loved?) in the eye's of other countries (he essentially rejuvenated America's image abroad) and I dont think it is any surprise that the general populace look on JFK as one of the best, if not the best, ever (even if the historians and scholars might not agree).

Some good points but its this last bit that somes up the problem i have with commentators making the Obama-JFK comparisons, a Irish and British people shouldn't be swept up in this idea that rhetoric can change anything major. Optimism isn't oil or dollars (if it was no economic bubble would ever burst) Many English people may like the idea of Churchill but I'd be very suprised if they ever described anybody as the next Churchill in a positive way.

ps Ted Sorensen (his speech writer) was amazingly talented

I'd interested in a link to some of the evidence to JFK wanting to withdraw from Veitnam (and I think the incoming President will find that once you have troops there its very hard to remove them)

"JFK had balls, and JFK stood up to the people behind government. He wanted to expose the corruption and trechery within the secret society. I.e the real money spinner's in power. He was shot for his bravery and honesty."
mysterious

where's the evidence of this? I thought the evidence would be completely against this, when did he take a stand against the military-industrial (congressional) complex (the test ban treaty didn't slow the production of weapons in the slightest)

Serenity Now!

mysterious wrote: »

JFK had balls, and JFK stood up to the people behind government. He wanted to expose the corruption and trechery within the secret society. I.e the real money spinner's in power. He was shot for his bravery and honesty

Hmmm....corruption?
Under the Kennedy administration there were aggressive CIA regime changes in Laos, Vietnam and Iraq as well as attempted aggressive regime change in Cuba. He ordered the first troops into Vietnam following that coup and assassination (though allegedly changed his mind afterwards - not great politiking there, eh?). His Asian, Cuban and Central American policies all derived from a less-than-healthy obssession with communism.

He wasn't "honest". He was slightly more liberal than previous presidents as well as being charismatic and good looking. A lot of the changes he talked about never got even the light of day when he was alive. Much like Bush sr when he was running for president.

Some buy into the myths of the crusading democrat. He did undertake for some change before his untimely death.

Some say he would have been impeached at some stage as he was banging the girlfriend of the Chicago mob boss at the time. The family's history with the Mafia (especially in the run-up to the 1960 election) is no conspiracy. Plenty of literature out there to look up.

If he was a 120kg Lutheran from Milwaukee with a giant mole on his chin, all this revelry about his name wouldnt exist. Its a disgrace that he was shot of course. But he was no angel and no stranger to corruption either.

Bob Z

JFK was young and Charismatic. But in my opinion the reason for his popularity was because he was assassinated. And also because the there were so many conspiracy theory's about that assassination so it will always live on.

JFK made statements to the effect that he wanted the Vietnam war to end. What he meant was he wanted to win it. However after his death these statements were re-interpreted to mean he wanted to pull out of Vietnam especially when that war became so unpopular so he became even more of a hero in death

Running Bing

Some good points but its this last bit that somes up the problem i have with commentators making the Obama-JFK comparisons, a Irish and British people shouldn't be swept up in this idea that rhetoric can change anything major. Optimism isn't oil or dollars (if it was no economic bubble would ever burst) Many English people may like the idea of Churchill but I'd be very suprised if they ever described anybody as the next Churchill in a positive way.

I think America as a nation is very different to Britain as a nation though. Americans love a hero and rightly or wrongly over the years JFK has been built into an American hero. The ideal if you will. Youthful, talented, intelligent, witty, articulate and a war hero and Pulitzer prize winning author to boot.


There is also the point about JFK that he could have taken the easy way out and lived a life of leisure, living off Daddy's money but he wanted more. He battled against almost crippling debilitating illness and worked his arse of to get to where he did. I always have a lot of respect for him for that reason.


Another issue is who preceded and succeeded him. Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter....hardly an awe inspiring bunch tbh.

ps Ted Sorensen (his speech writer) was amazingly talented

No argument there. Sorensen was a class act.

I'd interested in a link to some of the evidence to JFK wanting to withdraw from Veitnam (and I think the incoming President will find that once you have troops there its very hard to remove them)

The last thing JFK wanted was a US presence in Vietnam. He did everything in his power to keep US involvement as quite as possible and as low key as possible. I think he felt it was a necessary evil. If he didnt act the communists getting a grip of south east asia could have been disasterous.

where's the evidence of this? I thought the evidence would be completely against this, when did he take a stand against the military-industrial (congressional) complex (the test ban treaty didn't slow the production of weapons in the slightest)

He stood up to the US steel industry execs when they went behind his back and renegged on an agreement to fix steel prices.

As for the military they wanted to practically destroy the world at the time......

Berlin: Lets bomb the hell out of them
Cuba: Lets send in the entire US military
Missile Crisis: Lets nuke them
SE Asia: Lets crush the commie's

JFK said no way on every front.

He definately had a lot of courage imo. In fact courage was a major quality he looked for in people (he wrote a book on the subject). I dont think he was ever afraid to stand up to anybody and I think he was one of the few politicians who put what he thought was right ahead of what he thought would get the most votes (even if he did always have one eye fixed firmly on the second term).

Again I think the problem with JFK is his short time in office. It means a lot of things are open to interpretation. Thats why two people can look at JFK and see completely different things. It really was an unfinished presidency.

Look at the other "great" presidents of the 20th century. Roosevelt, FDR and Reagan. They all served two terms.

Running Bing

Bob Z wrote: »

JFK was young and Charismatic. But in my opinion the reason for his popularity was because he was assassinated. And also because the there were so many conspiracy theory's about that assassination so it will always live on.

JFK made statements to the effect that he wanted the Vietnam war to end. What he meant was he wanted to win it. However after his death these statements were re-interpreted to mean he wanted to pull out of Vietnam especially when that war became so unpopular so he became even more of a hero in death

The question you have to ask yourself is would the assassination of another president have drawn such widespread grief amongst the nation and the wider world?

Terrible thing to say really but Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Ford or Carter. If one of them took JFK's place would the nation have been so wounded and would people still talk as passionately about them as they do JFK? Personally I dont think so.

Latchy

RDM_83 wrote: »

I'd interested in a link to some of the evidence to JFK wanting to withdraw from Veitnam (and I think the incoming President will find that once you have troops there its very hard to remove them

Walter Cronkite interviewed President Kennedy at Hyannisport on Labor Day Weekend, 1963. In this clip, JFK gives his views on Vietnam, calling it "their war". He also defines the commitment of the US saying, "We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisors, but THEY have to win it, the people of Vietnam against the Communists."

He also say's in the clip '' I dont agree with those who say we should withdraw ,that would be a great mistake ,a great mistake '' .

See here . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG7jjF6xuKM&feature=related

It doesnt suggest he would increase the troops to Vietnam either.He might like president Johnson , have tried the peaceful negotiation route until his hand was drawn ,then ( unlike Johnson ) seen the writing on the wall and withdrew the troops completely. Johnson under immense pressure from his cabinet and military brass used the Tonkin gulf incident as ploy to explain to the American public why more troops needed to be sent to vietnam .


The times were different then to now and the political map of the world has changed a lot since .But the JKF ,the man was the complete opposite of Gerogh bush snr/jnr .He was a peacemaker .


Would Kennedy have pulled out of Vietnam ? - part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&feature=related&v=PhLlOiWvvXo

Would Kennedy have pulled out of vietnam ? - part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN6r7MTTf9Y&feature=related

Bob Z

Babybing wrote: »

The question you have to ask yourself is would the assassination of another president have drawn such widespread grief amongst the nation and the wider world?

Terrible thing to say really but Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Ford or Carter. If one of them took JFK's place would the nation have been so wounded and would people still talk as passionately about them as they do JFK? Personally I dont think so.

To be honest yes i think so. Reagan wasnt a good president but he got greatly mourned. If he had been assasinated would he be seen as the guy who tried to take on the Russian Empire. Even NIxon was viewed favourbly in Death

I am glad obama got elected but look at how he perceived now. People see him as a hero and anti-war. Now so much because he is so good but because Bush was so bad. Does Obama even want to pull out of Iraq? its not 100% clear. Heaven forbid but if Obama got assinated he would be viewed the same as Kennedy. We would be getting constant soundbites of 'hope' without really knowing what this meant or what he stands fo in policy terms.

Politics is all about Image. Kennedy has been built up in TV shows and Films

Kennedy tried to Castro assassinated numerous. Now image hollywood was in Havana Kennedy would be a villain and Castro would be the hero

Running Bing

Bob Z wrote: »

To be honest yes i think so. Reagan wasnt a good president but he got greatly mourned. If he had been assasinated would he be seen as the guy who tried to take on the Russian Empire. Even NIxon was viewed favourbly in Death

Reagan was a bloody superb president. Reagan is the Kennedy of the Republican party, a hero to millions of American's. Like you say he was greatly mourned in death and rightly so imo but that doesnt say anything about Kennedy because Reagan was also held in high regard....and he still was not mourned as much or remembered as fondly as JFK.

I am glad obama got elected but look at how he perceived now. People see him as a hero and anti-war. Now so much because he is so good but because Bush was so bad. Does Obama even want to pull out of Iraq? its not 100% clear. Heaven forbid but if Obama got assinated he would be viewed the same as Kennedy. We would be getting constant soundbites of 'hope' without really knowing what this meant or what he stands fo in policy terms.

Politics is all about Image. Kennedy has been built up in TV shows and Films

Kennedy tried to Castro assassinated numerous. Now image hollywood was in Havana Kennedy would be a villain and Castro would be the hero

I agree image has a lot to do with it but that came before he was shot. Thats a separate argument to the one I was having. My point is its not just down to him being assassinated that he is fondly remembered. The Presidents I listed certainly did not have the image Kennedy did while they were in office.

Overheal

A lot of it is in the assassination. Lincoln was against the whole establishment of slavery, but will still a total racist when it came to the blacks:

Lincoln, on Race and Slavery (and The Myth of Lincoln)

I think its a bit of case of nobody wanting to speak ill of the guy that got shot, and then it just ends up in history that way - people would only highlight your acheivments not your faults and criticisms.

Truth be told, if Bush wanted to go down well in history, someone is gonna have to shoot him.

Latchy

I think Kennedys faults have being well documented over the decades , his wominsing for a start would make Clinton seem a saint but then Kennedy the man should' nt be confused with Kennedy the president .He stood out like a golden tourch compared to previous old ( older) fashioned presidents .He was young ,vibrant and not in the least bit dull.He was the George Clooeny of his day .

Overheal wrote: »

Truth be told, if Bush wanted to go down well in history, someone is gonna have to shoot him.

Somehow I dont think he would get the same sentiment or world wide mourning as Kennedy . But Bush has already made his mark on History, as not a very good president

Running Bing

Overheal wrote: »

A lot of it is in the assassination. Lincoln was against the whole establishment of slavery, but will still a total racist when it came to the blacks:

Lincoln, on Race and Slavery (and The Myth of Lincoln)

I think its a bit of case of nobody wanting to speak ill of the guy that got shot, and then it just ends up in history that way - people would only highlight your acheivments not your faults and criticisms.

Truth be told, if Bush wanted to go down well in history, someone is gonna have to shoot him.

What about the great William McGinley or James Garfield? Hardly have the same cache as a Kennedy or Lincoln?


Also you cannot honestly tell me that if Bush was assassinated in office it would've drawn the same level of mourning as Kennedy's assassination did? Im sorry but thats just rubbish.

And people are constantly talking about JFK's faults...most notably his womanising.

I dont think the theory holds up to scrutiny tbh.

Latchy

Well Kennedy's sexual exploits have always being a topic of intrest over the decades,if only for the man's insatiable sex drive which has being documented in greater detail in more recent published book's I have read .

Eye opener indeed .

Lirange

Bob Z wrote: »

J
JFK made statements to the effect that he wanted the Vietnam war to end. What he meant was he wanted to win it.

This is not accurate. He had fundamental policy differences on Vietnam with LBJ. He did in fact plan to level down troop levels and it's well documented. It definitely was a mistake to get involved but it was something that had broad support in the US initially so wouldn't have mattered who was in office. It was LBJ that decided to make Vietnam a major operation and it was he who decided to use the Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate it into a full blown conflict.

Look Kennedy is definitely overrated in some circles, his youth and demise contribute to that. But let's not go to the other extreme either. Most historians rank JFK in the top 10. I'm not sure if he deserves that, personally I admire Bobby Kennedy much more, but to equate him to GW Bush is nonsense. The backlash against JFK has become almost as fashionable as his lionisation.

Here is one 2009 survey of respected historians from a diverse array of backgrounds that gets a lot of press each time it's released. If you click on the Presidents you can see the breakdown of how each was scored on different qualities.

B2k

Its interesting someone mentioned Bobby Kennedy just there, if anyone has researched it, there's a feeling that RFK would have been the better president of the two. As someone mentioned already, while JFK was in office RFK done great work as attorney general. Although, RFK was shot before nominations and there was no gaurantee he would win the nomination even Nixon said "nothing can stop a Kennedy campaign in full flow." Read a good article recently that RFK would have been the first "black" president of America and his assination set the country back 20 years in terms of civil rights etc. Sure he was flawed but he was definatly the more intelligent of the Kennedy brothers. Like JFK, he was a great speaker but was more clean cut and had slighty different economic policies and tougher justice policies.

So anyway, my point was that RFK could have been a better president than JFK even though people forget about him easily.

the_syco

He could be the next JFK, imo. Seems plenty of folk want him dead

Lirange

the_syco wrote: »

He could be the next JFK, imo. Seems plenty of folk want him dead

By that reckoning Brian Cowen could be the next JFK.

irish_bob

Babybing wrote: »

Reagan was a bloody superb president. Reagan is the Kennedy of the Republican party, a hero to millions of American's. Like you say he was greatly mourned in death and rightly so imo but that doesnt say anything about Kennedy because Reagan was also held in high regard....and he still was not mourned as much or remembered as fondly as JFK.


I agree image has a lot to do with it but that came before he was shot. Thats a separate argument to the one I was having. My point is its not just down to him being assassinated that he is fondly remembered. The Presidents I listed certainly did not have the image Kennedy did while they were in office.

+1

regan is the idol , the one they benchmark against in the republican party
jfk is only an idol among democrats

thats not to say i dislike jfk or love regan

Black Swan

Could it be that the national grief over JFK may also have been subtly compounded by the later assassination of his brother Senator Bobby Kennedy, when he was running for president?

Pocono Joe

John F Kennedy's administration was short on achievement, and long on style, glamour, vigor, and enthusiasm.

Kennedy governed as a fiscal conservative, and helped jump-start the economy by passing a tax cut. And preferred not to use legislation for social issues. Today we would call that type of politican a REPUBLICAN. A saying I sometimes hear these days goes something like this: Yesterday's Democrats are today’s Republicans, and today’s Democrats are yesterday's Socialists.

Latchy

B2k wrote: »

So anyway, my point was that RFK could have been a better president than JFK even though people forget about him easily.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Could it be that the national grief over JFK may also have been subtly compounded by the later assassination of his brother Senator Bobby Kennedy, when he was running for president?

Shortly before the 68 elections, President Johnson decided he would not accept the nomiation to be President for a second term .LBJ's had many hang ups ,one being he had only become president by accident and Bobby Kennedy never let him forget it.RFK was a constant torn in LBJ's side all through his presidency and the brother was a constant reminder of the deceased president ( JFK). Each trated the other with utter contempt. The pressures of the vietnam war , his fading health and possibly losing out to RFK in the coming elections ( which would be unbearable to johnson) were main factors in his decision not to run for a second term .

The Kennedy mystic lived on long after JFK's death and Bobby was seen by millions of Americans as carrying the tourch and continuiing the magic . After MLK assassination ,RFK was more aware then ever that he to could become a victim .



(Just finished reading '' Mutal Contempt ' by Jeff Shesol .

Lyndon Johnson ,Robert Kennedy and the fued that defined a decade )

Recommended )

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

A saying I sometimes hear these days goes something like this: Yesterday's Democrats are today’s Republicans, and today’s Democrats are yesterday's Socialists.

I'm sure its these little similarities that God uses to fcuk with people's heads.

And why is Socialism such a dirty word anyway? I don't understand that. When you look at this whole recession by the way, who is doing well? China, the Communists Extraordinaire.

Pocono Joe

Sometimes a saying is just a saying.

I think JFK is basically loved by the Democrats becasue he WAS a Democrat, and respected today by Republicans becasue he ACTED like a Republican. Nothing more, nothing less.

Overheal

So would you say he governed from the middle? I would think thats what a good president is meant to be doing: leave the partisanship to the House and Senate where all the debating goes on. Bush was governing from somewhere but I don't think it was the middle, left or right. He was somewhere off in upsidedownface? I dont know. I havent lived through and watched enough presidencies to know.

Bob Z

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Could it be that the national grief over JFK may also have been subtly compounded by the later assassination of his brother Senator Bobby Kennedy, when he was running for president?

Yes i think so. And also because look back on that era with a certain romantic nostalgia. They see it as America 'growing up'

Pocono Joe

I think Kennedy was aware that his razor-thin presidential victory had narrowed his options, and he therefore decided to govern from the middle for the betterment of the nation.

So did Bush for the most part. The more Bush moved to the middle, the more his ratings dropped. And from were he ended up in ratings, I’d say he was pretty much in the center.

Running Bing

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sometimes a saying is just a saying.

I think JFK is basically loved by the Democrats becasue he WAS a Democrat, and respected today by Republicans becasue he ACTED like a Republican. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think that sums it up perfectly tbh.

So would you say he governed from the middle? I would think thats what a good president is meant to be doing: leave the partisanship to the House and Senate where all the debating goes on.

Amen

Bush was governing from somewhere but I don't think it was the middle, left or right. He was somewhere off in upsidedownface? I dont know. I havent lived through and watched enough presidencies to know.

Finally we can get around to analysing the Bush presidency.;)

Running Bing

I think Kennedy was aware that his razor-thin presidential victory had narrowed his options, and he therefore decided to govern from the middle for the betterment of the nation.

Dont think I would agree with that. Kennedy was a man of very strong convictions and he prided himself on his courage and doing what he felt was correct rather than what would get the most votes.

No doubt he always had one eye on the 64 election but I think the majority of his big decisions were made simply because thats what he thought was the right thing to do.

So did Bush for the most part. The more Bush moved to the middle, the more his ratings dropped. And from were he ended up in ratings, I’d say he was pretty much in the center.

You know we have all heard of Godwin's Law, "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."....there must be a similar law that states "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of the discussion veering of topic to discus George W Bush approaches one."

If there's not I hear by claim it as my own. Call it Bings Law;)

Overheal

nah the thing about Godwins law is it can apply to any topic if left long enough. George Bush is an almost strictly political image, whereas Nazi's have universal (un)appeal.

/OT

Black Swan

Bob Z wrote: »

Yes i think so. And also because look back on that era with a certain romantic nostalgia. They see it as America 'growing up'

Oh I agree! The late 60s and early 70s romantic nostalgia of the Baby Boom generation "growing up" my Da told me about, where they thought anything was possible... The Beatles, the Beach Boys, Woodstock, Moon walks, getting stoned, free love with the pill, going to anti-war protests as an alternative to partying, draft dodgers fleeing to Canada in droves, and liberating songs of the time. The GW Bush Era seems so boring in comparison.

Maybe the attempt by some to cast Obama with the mystique of JFK is the doings of the Baby Boomlet coming of age, wishing for that romantic bygone era in American history they heard about from their Baby Boom parents, or from listening to the oldies from that era?

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Yesterday's Democrats are today’s Republicans, and today’s Democrats are yesterday's Socialists.

Huh?
Given time: Socialists => Democrats => Republicans?
If many Republicans (and their sympathizers) believe this, then why do they rant so much about socialism?

Overheal

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Oh I agree! The late 60s and early 70s romantic nostalgia of the Baby Boom generation "growing up" my Da told me about, where they thought anything was possible... The Beatles, the Beach Boys, Woodstock, Moon walks, getting stoned, free love with the pill, going to anti-war protests as an alternative to partying, draft dodgers fleeing to Canada in droves, and liberating songs of the time. The GW Bush Era seems so boring in comparison.

Reading this back, I feel very depressed about how my adolescence turned out.

Latchy

Bob Z wrote: »

Yes i think so. And also because look back on that era with a certain romantic nostalgia. They see it as America 'growing up'

Yet 22/11/63 is also referred to as the day America lost it's innocence .

Bob Z

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Oh I agree! The late 60s and early 70s romantic nostalgia of the Baby Boom generation "growing up" my Da told me about, where they thought anything was possible... The Beatles, the Beach Boys, Woodstock, Moon walks, getting stoned, free love with the pill, going to anti-war protests as an alternative to partying, draft dodgers fleeing to Canada in droves, and liberating songs of the time. The GW Bush Era seems so boring in comparison.

They seemed like exciting times but its hard to know how much it was really like that and how much is just image. For example when you watch a lot of movies set in the 60s and news footage there is always antiwar protests but there was actually a lot more antiwar protests during the Invasion of Iraq

Black Swan

Bob Z wrote: »

They seemed like exciting times but its hard to know how much it was really like that and how much is just image.

Fair enough! The same can be said about the JFK mystique.

Pocono Joe

I went to Woodstock, was discriminated against for being a hippie, participated in anti-war protests, devoted quite a bit of time helping others less fortunate, traveled and lived on a commune, amongst other things associated with the era:cool:. Everything I just mentioned had both its good and bad points. It’s far easier and less painful to remember the good. But there was also a lot of pain... people just don’t like to discuss them as much.