Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

JFK was a crazy, drugged-out professional leftist

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mike r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:36 PM
Original message
JFK was a crazy, drugged-out professional leftist
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=539

"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. And I think it's safe to say that few on this site would support anyone like JFK
NOT sarcasm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Not a -1
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
101. ... then why are they here ... DU is supposed about progressive policies ... and supporting them???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, that is a nice public speech that JFK gave to the Liberal Party but behind the scenes
as the JFK tapes and comments in many books indicates he called himself a "pragmatist" and was unsparing about liberals and civil rights activists who he felt were being way too pushy. JFK didn't govern as a strong liberal but from the left of center.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Would have been far different if he had publicly disparaged the left and its ideals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Well at that time the Liberal Party nomination in NY was critical to winning the state
If you just took the Democratic line vs. Republican line in NY in 1960 I believe Nixon wins, but JFK won with the liberal party votes added in, so obviously he will give a very nice speech. Also, Obama hasn't publicly disparaged liberals a few of his aides have--not necessarily speaking for the president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. "not necessarily speaking for the president"
Huh.

You pick people to speak for you...

They say something awful...

You don't fire them...

You don't make them take it back publicly...

You've got plausible deniability...

But it only works on those in deep denial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
49. Dude gave money to Nixon's congressional campaign against Helen Douglas.
Kennedy was no paragon of liberal virtue--and in some cases the things he did were far worse than Gibbs' angry outburst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #49
57. Do you have a source for that story?
The reason I ask: You are repeating what the angry rightwing disinformationist John McAdams posts on his website:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk1.htm

FWIW: McAdams has grown famous from attacking people who believe President Kennedy fell victim to a conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #57
93. My source is the book I'm currently reading, "Jack: A Life Like No Other", by Geoffrey Perret.
On page 185: "Yet in 1950, Jack contributed generously to Richard Nixon's campaign for the Senate against a liberal Democrat, Helen Gahagan Douglas. Following Nixon's victory, he told a discussion group at the School of Government at Harvard how glad he was that Mrs. Douglas had lost."

From what I have read about Jack Kennedy's fierce anti-Communism and the fact that Douglas was disliked by many even within her own party, it's not completely out of the realm of possibility. And Perret is by no means a conservative historian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #93
97. Thank you, Arkana!
I have not read Geoffrey Perret. I look forward to reading l his work on JFK. I'd also like to know who was in that discussion group at Harvard.

Online, I read Perret reported JFK wanted to get out of Vietnam and talked of it the day before the assassination. John M. Newman and Peter Dale Scott also helped uncover that history.

Thank you for straightening me out on your source. I very much appreciate it, my Friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #97
133. Perret's good, actually--he wrote a book earlier on Truman, Johnson and Bush
and how they've drastically expanded (to a dangerous degree) the powers of the Presidency.

Don't remember what it was called, but I'm fairly sure if you Google Perret's name it'll come up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #57
118. Who pays for McAdams disinformation?
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 01:51 AM by Mimosa
McAdams is all over the internet and has been for a few years.

Some time ago a friend had persuaded me to register on the IMDB (International Movie Data base)website so I could look at how McAdams (and his sockpuppet IDs) had ruined the discussion board dedicated to Oliver Stone's movie "JFK". The McAdams people seem to be supported by some entity to spread disinformation about both Kennedy assassinations.

From posts I'd read a couple of years ago it it quite clear McAdams is coming from the far right wing. I'm suspicious of anybody here who is pushing McAdams disinformation.

More on John McAdams activity in Wikipedia:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1...

I'd like to know more about who this fellow is and who funds his work. The why I've figured out. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
124. Yeah but what did JFK's press secretary say?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Just what I was going to push. JFK wasn't the liberal ideal most here want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #9
103. JFK ended the Cold War . . . and was repeatedly betrayed by MIC ....
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 12:58 AM by defendandprotect
What are you basing your opinion on?

Certainly NOT the tapes --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
102. I've seen no evidence of that . . . and certainly NOT from the tapes ....
JFK pretty much saved us from government nuking Cuba and/or Russia --

And, I'm aware of no books -- other than what the right wing might be writing --

which have said any such thing --

Do you know anyone today LIBERAL enough to talk about "splintering the CIA into

a thousand pieces and tossing them to the wind" -- ???

Or any president -- Obama, for instance - following Keynesian Economics?

JFK is THE president who pushed for civil rights legislation ---

and called upon the country's conscience to see the need for it --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ttwiddler Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #102
120. In response
1. Kennedy did not "save us" from "government nuking Cuba and/or Russia." Given that he was the President at the time, it's silly to claim that his non-use of nuclear weapons was "saving us." My real problem with this statement is that it's nonsense.

2. Kennedy sure did make great use of that organization you claim he wanted to splinter.

3. Kennedy's centerpiece of economic legislation was a tax cut. Tax cuts are usually not regarded as Keynesian.

4. Kennedy NEVER pushed for civil rights legislation. He constantly hid from that struggle. It was his successor, who everyone loves to hate, who rammed the two key civil rights bills through Congress.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #120
160. Evidently, you're not familiar with "Nuke 'em Le Lay" . . . ???
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 04:15 PM by defendandprotect
Or the reality that JFK/Bobby were concerned about the Pentagon/MIC taking power

and the view that the Joint Chiefs were fairly crazed with war maina?

See "Operation Northwoods" --

Re CIA -- are you saying that JFK didn't FIRE DULLES?

Or didn't plan to "splinter" the CIA if re-elected?

Or that he didn't issue a NSAM holding CIA accountable to the MILITARY/Pentagon

for any covert activity they took?



Keynesian economics are generally thought to be liberal . . .

In the 1930s, Keynes spearheaded a revolution in economic thinking, overturning the older ideas of neoclassical economics that held that free markets would automatically provide full employment as long as workers were flexible in their wage demands. Keynes instead argued that aggregate demand determined the overall level of economic activity, and that inadequate aggregate demand could lead to prolonged periods of high unemployment. Following the outbreak of World War II, Keynes's ideas concerning economic policy were adopted by leading Western economies. During the 1950s and 1960s, the success of Keynesian economics was so resounding that almost all capitalist governments adopted its policy recommendations, promoting the cause of social liberalism.

PROMOTING THE CAUSE OF SOCIAL LIBERALISM --




A General Theory of Keynes - Home - Long Island University
It is impossible to overstate the influence of The General Theory. ..... Here Keynes affirmed the central role of liberal ethics in economics -- and urged ...
www.phoenix.liu.edu/~uroy/.../keynes/keynes-RS-TAP.htm - Cached - Similar


John Maynard Keynes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He was among the first reviewers to argue that Keynes's General Theory was .... Keynes was a life-long member of the Liberal party, which until the 1920s ...

Early life and education - Career - Legacy - Reception
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes - Cached - Similar



JFK stood against Segregation -- and spoke to the nation against Segregation, Inc. --

and was clearly moving on civil rights -- including women's rights --

LBJ moved the civil rights legislation -- that's all --



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ttwiddler Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #160
186. You're missing the point
Kennedy had authority over a nuclear attack; Lemay didn't. Your claim might as well read that he saved us from himself. If written that way, it would make more sense.

I do recall the Bay of Pigs, various operations around the world, the assassination of Diem (which Bobby pushed), and a variety of other programs by that organization. All of those were taken with full notice and approval of Kennedy. Further, he pushed for the use of paramilitary and "special" forces to combat the wars of national liberation (as they were then known) around the world. If he did indeed seek to make the CIA accountable to the military, which seems quite ludicrous as it means giving the military control of a civilian institution, it was to further these aims, not because of the false dove status he's somehow gained in the last 50 years.

You might want to learn about the Liberal Party of that era before you comment upon it. Churchill was also a Liberal for a time because the Conservative Party decried free trade. Liberal in that tradition is a classical liberal, not the American version. In America, we'd call them libertarians.

The General Theory was written after the New Deal had begun. Lord Keynes was a proponent of SPENDING to end the depression, NOT TAX CUTS. He went so far as to suggest that the government could simply bury bags of money around the country and let the population find them in order to boost demand. While this suggestion wasn't terribly serious, it did show, quite clearly, his belief that government spending was the remedy.

"LBJ moved the civil rights legislation -- that's all --" Wow, this is ignorant. You've managed to minimize one of the toughest congressional battles ever fought. You might as well say of the Revolution, "well, George Washington just led the army, no big deal." Even if you could claim that Kennedy had written the 1964 bill, which he didn't, what claim would you make of the Voting Rights Act? After all, it was only written by Nicholas Katzenbach at the express order of Johnson, but that's no big deal, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. And he still has my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. JFK would have supported Obama
And DU would have been in fits over JFK or FDR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
86. Thank you!
The revisionism is amazing. JFK was actually far closer to the dreaded DLC (cue ominous orchestral hit) than to the "progressive" crowd. He was a lot like Obama in that he combined a pragmatic approach with a strong sense of idealism, something that the self-righteous elements of the left can't comprehend.

Let's also remember that the left fought tooth and nail to deny JFK the nomination. Labor was mainly with Humphrey and the 1960s version of the Dean crowd (upscale, educated, etc) was with Adlai Stevenson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
104. Ted Kennedy supported Obama . . . but what would he think now ... ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
182. You are so right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. Pure Liberal.
All the guy did as president was to do all he could to keep the peace, move the nation forward, got us headed to the moon, and build a better future for ALL Americans. Nothing conservative about any of that. And only a Liberal could accomplish all of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Too bad John Kennedy was a moderate Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. Says you. JFK ordered the Secret Service to accept African American agents.


The agent's name is Abraham Bolden.

An outstanding public safety officer, he was personally asked by JFK to serve on the White House Secret Service detail. After a year, he quit White House duty and returned to the field because he felt many in the Secret Service did not take their responsibities seriously because they were protecting a Liberal president. After the assassination, he returned to Washington to report his suspicions. He was railroaded on phony charges, like Don Siegelman decades later. You probably should learn his story, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. No, not "says" him: says history. Your subsequent story is irrelevant to the real, actual JFK, and
the historical record. It is a non sequitur.

Hell, by your standard Eisenhower was a raging liberal because he sent the 101st Airborne to integrate Little Rock high school.

It would behoove you to read some books about the subject of your posts before you commented on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. You don't know much, yourself. Without looking it up: What was JFK's policy in Congo?
Oh, why bother. Here's the story:



JFK CRIED FOR CONGO



JFK receives the news of Lumumba's murder

The above caption, by Jacques Lowe, personal photographer to JFK, reads:

"On February 13 1961, United Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson came on the phone. I was alone with the President; his hand went to his head in utter despair, "On, no," I heard him groan. The Ambassador was informing the President of the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, an African leader considered a trouble-maker and a leftist by many Americans. But Kennedy's attitude towards black Africa was that many who were considered leftists were in fact nationalists and patriots, anti-West because of years of colonialization, and lured to the siren call of Communism against their will. He felt that Africa presented an opportunity for the West, and, speaking as an American, unhindered by a colonial heritage, he had made friends in Africa and would succeed in gaining the trust of a great many African leaders. The call therefore left him heartbroken, for he knew that the murder would be a prelude to chaos in the mineral-rich and important African country, it was a poignant moment."

(end quoting from 1983 book "Kennedy A Time Remembered" by Jacques Lowe)

As news stories describe the massacre of thousands in the Congo (April 2003) I remember Orwell and JFK, two of my favourite people. In 1984 Orwell told us that once Big Brother took control of the world (One World Government) it was divided into three Super-States and the Disputed Territories, over which the Super-States waged continuous war. The people of the Disputed Territories (including equatorial Africa) were "expended like so much coal or oil". Their nations were gutted for their "valuable minerals and important vegetable products".

Like so much else of what Orwell told us, he was accurate about the fate of Africa. Its nations have never had a chance to survive on their own without interference. However, had President Kennedy been allowed to live and enact his policies for Africa, that continent could be equal today to Europe and America.

CONTINUED...

http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkcongo.shtml



Lyndon B. Johnson,for your information, reversed that policy. Here's a book on the subject. I'm sure it's in your local library, not. From your post, I know it's not in yours.

Which brings me back to Abraham Bolden: The guy represented civil rights in every way and JFK supported him in every way. Bolden today demands justice regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, the last true Liberal President of the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. I've forgotten more about the Kennedy administration than you'll ever know. Quick, what was JFK's
policy on Agent Orange? Post within thirty seconds or I'll know you've used Google!!!

:eyes:

Go read some real history: I've got a complete bibliography if you'd like me to PM you with.

But, like you said, why bother? You're content with your cartoon history of President Kennedy, not the real man and his times.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. You should put it in your Journal, along with the rest of your refutation of JFK's Liberal policies.
I'd like to read it, really.

So, what do you know about JFK and Vietnam? There, he also took the Liberal approach, which is, working on a path that would lead to peace.



Exit Strategy

In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam


James K. Galbraith

Forty years have passed since November 22, 1963, yet painful mysteries remain. What, at the moment of his death, was John F. Kennedys policy toward Vietnam?

Its one of the big questions, alternately evaded and disputed over four decades of historical writing. It bears on Kennedys reputation, of course, though not in an unambiguous way.

And today, larger issues are at stake as the United States faces another indefinite military commitment that might have been avoided and that, perhaps, also cannot be won. The story of Vietnam in 1963 illustrates for us the struggle with policy failure. More deeply, appreciating those distant events tests our capacity as a country to look the reality of our own history in the eye.

One may usefully introduce the issue by recalling the furor over Robert McNamaras 1995 memoir In Retrospect. Reaction then focused mainly on McNamaras assumption of personal responsibility for the war, notably his declaration that his own actions as the Secretary of Defense responsible for it were terribly, terribly wrong. Reviewers paid little attention to the books contribution to history. In an editorial on April 12, 1995, the New York Times delivered a harsh judgment: Perhaps the only value of In Retrospect is to remind us never to forget that these were men who in the full hubristic glow of their power would not listen to logical warning or ethical appeal. And in the New York Times Book Review four days later, Max Frankel wrote that

David Halberstam, who applied that ironic phrase to his rendering of the tale 23 years ago, told it better in many ways than Mr. McNamara does now. So too, did the Pentagon Papers, that huge trove of documents assembled at Mr. McNamaras behest when he first recognized a debt to history.

In view of these criticisms, readers who actually pick up McNamaras book may experience a shock when they scan the table of contents and sees this summary of Chapter 3, titled The Fateful Fall of 1963: August 24November 22, 1963:

A pivotal period of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, punctuated by three important events: the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnams president Ngo Dinh Diem; President Kennedys decision on October 2 to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces; and his assassination fifty days later. (Emphasis added.)

CONTINUED...

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html



Reading how well-read you say you are, it's a good bet you've heard of NSAM 263. You also must know how, a week after JFK was dead, LBJ reversed that Liberal policy, too in NSAM 273.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. More wordy gibberish in lieu of an actual argument. Do you want that bibliography, or not?
:shrug:

If you do, fine: I'll PM it to you.

If you don't, continuing to post huge graphics and verbiage which, in their sum, are peripheral at best and non sequiturs at worst is simply wasting my time.

Which is it? If the latter, please go waste someone else's time. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. You haven't posted a single source, author or even link. So, I have your word on it? LOL!
You haven't posted, so far, a single link, source or author to back a single thing you've written. Please send me your bibliography. Really, I look forward to reading it.

Regarding JFK and Liberalism: You do know he was working for universal health care, starting with the elderly? It was part of the Democratic Party platform for 1960.

Here's another oversize picture from an oversize thread from way back when. It shows Pruneface Ronnie working to stop universal healthcare back in December, 1961. Gee. Who was President-elect in December, 1961? It was someone trying to get us universal healthcare. That's a pretty liberal policy that seems to have less support these days from leading Democrats I find odd.



How Reagan Worked to Stop Universal Health Coverage in 1961

In December 1961, the AMA pulled out all the stops to prevent President John F. Kennedy from proposing universal health coverage. For their effort, they recruited a TV-personality.

Write those letters now. Call your friends, and tell them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day . . . we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

Funny how many people never knew that a has-been B-movie actor took part in the organized opposition to Medicare in the early 1960s. Here's the story, thanks to Mr. Scott E. Starr:



The Campaign Against Medicare

Monday, March 22, 2010
By Scott E. Starr

EXCERPT...

In order to maintain the illusion of spontaneity, the AMA did not announce the existence of Operation Coffeecup or publicize the Reagan recording. The record was to be used, campaign organizers cautioned, only in the groups meeting under the controlled conditions of the informal coffees. Under no circumstances, recipients of the record were warned, were they to permit commercial broadcast of the recording.

Operation Coffeecup was kept deliberately low-key and internal to the AMA, its Womans Auxiliary, and the trusted friends and neighbors of the Auxiliary women. Reagans efforts against Medicare were revealed, however, in a scoop by Drew Pearson in his Washington Merry-Go-Round column of June 17th. Pearson titled his item on Reagan, Star vs. JFK, and he told his readers:
    Ronald Reagan of Hollywood has pitted his mellifluous voice against President Kennedy in the battle for medical aid for the elderly. As a result it looks as if the old folks would lose out. He has caused such a deluge of mail to swamp Congress that Congressmen want to postpone action on the medical bill until 1962. What they dont know, of course, is that Ron Reagan is behind the mail; also that the American Medical Association is paying for it.

    Reagan is the handsome TV star for General Electric . . . Just how this background qualifies him as an expert on medical care for the elderly remains a mystery. Nevertheless, thanks to a deal with the AMA, and the acquiescence of General Electric, Ronald may be able to outinfluence the President of the United States with Congress.24
Reagans recorded remarks are quite extensive, and reveal a determined and in-depth attack on the principles of Medicare (and Social Security), going well beyond opposition to King-Anderson or any other particular piece of legislation.
    My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on the several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. . . .

    Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. . . .

    But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.25

And what was this frightful threat that Reagan perceived as imminent?
    . . . Congressman Forand introduced the Forand Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now, this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security. . . .
It should be obvious that Reagans description of the Forand bill is a description of any Medicare-type program, not just a specific piece of legislation.26 The idea that people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance, just is the idea of Medicare.

CONTINUED...

http://geotheology.blogspot.com /



President Kennedy may not be a Liberal in your eyes, big deal. While he was a wealthy man, JFK used his time and talents to make life better for ALL Americans. That's more than Liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. LOL! JFK wasn't a "liberal" in his OWN EYES. Hilarious stuff - you don't know the most basic facts
about the political career, ideology, or beliefs of a man you claim to revere.

I'll send you that bibliography - I urge you to take the next fifteen years or so, and read through it. Every volume, from legitimate historians, not kooks & quacks wrapped up in the Conspiracy-Theory racket. Then get back to me. :thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Not one of the sources I've cited in this post are in the ''Conspiracy-Theory racket.''
How about a link or a source to back up your claims? You are yet to post even a single one. Then, you put words in my mouth and I'm supposed to get back to you. What an interesting perspective you have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #42
59. CT-driven nonsense is your entire schtick when it comes to JFK. How about instead of badgering me
for "sources" you simply hie thee to the nearest library and check out some actual scholarly, legitimate and mainstream works on the life of President Kennedy?

Have you read any of the rest of the replies in this thread, detailing all the ways in which JFK was not a liberal? How he himself stated he was not one, and had a good deal of contempt for them?

Why don't you use your amazing Google prowess and run those quotes down, and verify them for yourself?

The fact is, JFK was a centrist, not an idealistic liberal. Instead of asking others to do your scholarship for you, why don't you pry yourself away from your keyboard for a couple of years, and invest the time to read the numerous volumes on the life & times of JFK. Perhaps then your cartoonish image of President Kennedy's ideology and place in history will be replaced with something more closely aligned with the historical truth.

How about it? :shrug:

I won't be holding my breath - time for "Octafish" to post another reply of irrelevant material and claim his case "proved." :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. I'm still waiting for your PM with your bibliography.
I'm really interested in learning what it is that gave you your perspective on JFK.

I also notice that you have yet to post a single link, source or author to support your false contention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #62
67. Unlike many professional posters, I am gainfully employed. I will compile a Biblio for your perusal
this evening, and PM it to you, though you and I both know it will be a waste of time.

You're not invested in learning historical truth: you're invested in a cartoon image of a man you admire, almost worship. That man - the devoutly liberal JFK - never existed: you have made him up in your own image.

Anyway, on to the Biblio, and why we both know it will be a waste of time: you will get the list, and I reckon I'll get back a lengthy PM declaring half the books part of the "cover-up" tied to the events of November 22, 1963. The other half you will simply ignore. If you happen to stumble across one you once glanced at, you will cherry-pick quotes from that work to put the best possible spin on your beliefs, while ignoring those inconvenient facts that vitiate it.

You see, you're not interested in learning the true historical record of President Kennedy: you're heavily invested in this false image you have of President Kennedy, an image that gives you a rock to base your conspiracy-laden view of history on. Anything that threatens that view you react to with hostility.

As I said, waste of time. But I will PM it to you - and they will each and every one be books right out of my personal library.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. No need to slur me.
Show me "hostility" in any thing I've posted or show me where I've posted wrong, take your pick. I don't care which. You haven't, because you can't.

As I've stated repeatedly: I look forward to reading your bibliography.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. You haven't been "slurred": you're just hostile because the facts are not in your corner, and you
are heavily invested in a world view that involves historical inaccuracies.

You are not interested in that Bibliography, but, rather in playing "Last Word" games with me on this thread. Internet warriors often believe that if they get the precious "Last Word," they've "won."

Your posts increasingly bristle with hostility, especially with the silly "got a link?" trope.

Nearly everything you've posted has been "wrong" in the sense that you are extrapolating a view of history from facts that is a distortion of those very facts, and cherry-picking isolated events and quotes to make your case appear valid.

It is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Got a link or source or author for ANY of what you've posted on this thread?
If so, please let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. You have been told repeatedly that I will compile and forward via PM a Bibliography for your perusal
Now you're just having a spasm of Last Word Fever.

But by all means, continue. I find it amusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. You said that yesterday. And you said you'd send it yesterday.
Here it is today and I'm still waiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. LOL! "Here it is today and I'm still waiting"
More wounded feelings, textbook! This is textbook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. By the bye, has it ever occurred to you that while I'm busy replying to you, I could be working on
something else? *hint, hint*.

Of course it has: but you're not interested in that, which is why you continue to reply. You do not want that Bibliography: you want the false image you've constructed in your mind of President Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. Of course, it starts to become apparent even to onlookers that you are replying to delay that
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 06:52 PM by apocalypsehow
request being fulfilled, and as this starts to occur to you the necessity to "double-down" with an entire new approach to the debate you are losing becomes paramount. I suspect that's what we'll see next.

Edit: misplaced word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. I note also that this is a textbook case of a series replies on the losing side of a internet debate
It starts with "show me," descends to anger, "Got. A. Link?"/"your false contention"/etc., etc., and then finally reverts to falsely wounded feelings, "no need to slur me." :cry:

Textbook! I have a proposal before a committee to teach a class on the phenomenon of internet "debate"/flame wars, and am going to print this thread out as a textbook case. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Admit it. You've got nothing.
Nothing. No links. No points. No sources. Just error. Or, more accurately, "Falsehood."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. Oh yes I do - that's why you're sputtering and raging. Calm yourself: it'll be okay.
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 06:46 PM by apocalypsehow
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #76
129. If you weren't spreading disinformation nobody would waste their time.
Yes, you lost before you ever began. I wonder why you post on D.U..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #129
132. (see above bluster-fuck)
Now, why Octafish bothers is beyond me. :shrug:
:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. For Truth's sake, my Friend.
Should someone stumble upon mistaken memories, disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, falsehoods, or outright lies, it's a good thing to have the antidote ready.



A brave liberal, close colleague of President Kennedy, brought it up in 1975:

Frank Church and the Abyss of Warrantless Wiretapping.

Church worried that if the powers of the National Security Agency were turned on the American people, We wouldn't have a chance to opppose the government.

So today, from my perspective as a Kennedy Democrat and as a citizen of the United States of America, I work to keep interest in the truth alive, as there is no statute of limitations on murder or treason.

Thanks, Greyhound, for being on the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #135
137. I really do appreciate that you take the time to show these for what they are.
The corrosive effect they have is getting close to the 'why bother' stage.
:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #137
140. +1
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #135
170. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, friend.
Cheers to you and your arsenal of intelligence and facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-15-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #76
194. Please do. Please also have the Communication Dept run a content analysis of our posts.
Their data might surprise you. And please send me the name of your "textbook" along with the rest of your bibliography you promised. I am still interested in where you get your ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlabamaLibrul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. It does make him a hell of a progressive, yeah. And he did a very liberal thing for the times. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. No, he didn't. He governed slightly Left-of-center domestically, and Right-of-center on foreign
policy.

Haven't you been reading some of these statement I and others have been quoting JFK on? What is it with JFK worship and the total lack of actual facts? He governed as a moderate Democrat, not a "hell of a progressive" or a "very liberal" for the times.

Jesus Christ, I wish people would read more and mythologize less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
69. I heard him interviewed by Thom Hartmann last year
It is criminal what they did to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
106. That's quite some story -- I've read the book -- thanks for the reminder!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Very too bad that moderate equates to a raving liberal by today's standards.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. And the country thinks the Democratic Party is too liberal as it is today.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/139877/near-record-say-democ...

Since February 2008, the percentage calling the Democratic Party "too liberal" has increased by 12 points among independents and 8 points among Republicans, with little change among Democrats.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. It would be interesting to see the data behind those numbers.
For example, how have the numbers in the parties changed since 2008? Are there more Republicans and Independents now than there were then, or more Democrats? What percentages were polled? From the data at the bottom of the article it says they randomly surveyed landline phones, so already there is a conservative bias.

Whether they matched Dems/Inds/Reps to actual percentages in the population will have to be in the pdf, downloaded but I will have to look at later. That correlation is required if these numbers are to carry the weight implied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #28
108. Especially since 76%+ of the nation wanted a universal/government run health care plan...
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 01:06 AM by defendandprotect
Single payer -- Medicare for all --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
107. If this was anywhere near true the right wing wouldn't have to control the press...
and the internet -- but they do --

Nor would they need hackable computers --

but they do --

eh -- wiretapping or eavesdropping -- but they do!



:rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. +1000 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
31. Are you calling JFK a liar?
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

- Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #31
41. Nope, here's what JFK said about it...
JFK himself encouraged this in an interview with the Sarurday Evening Post in 1953 where he declared, "I'd be very happy to tell them I'm not a liberal. I never joined the Americans for Democratic Action or the American Veterans Committee. I'm not comfortable with those people." (10)

(10) Matthews, 100, 120; Herbert S. Parmet, Jack: The Struggles of John F. Kennedy (New York, 1980), 171.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk1.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. Your quote: 1953. My quote: 1960.
Shall we assume that JFK was lying in 1960, or that he had evolved? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Try learning a bit of history. The 1960 quote was a speech given to the New York
Liberal Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Gee, REALLY? Pity I didn't note that in my quote attribution.
Oh, wait...perhaps I did! Gosh, it was only two posts up in the subthread.
- Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960)


:banghead:

Pro-tip: If you're going to employ personal attacks, try learning how to not make yourself look foolish in the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. I'm not the one who insists they know more about JFK than any of his biographers.
And I'm old enough to have heard those speeches given by him. He was a moderate Democratic President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Ageism AND putting words in my mouth? Why not go for a trifecta?
I'm not the one who insists they know more about JFK than any of his biographers.

Since you're obviously implying I am the one, please support your claim. :hi:

You're welcome to call JFK whatever you like: moderate, liberal, Sasquatch, whatever. But when the man calls himself a liberal, I'll take his word for it rather than yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. I was reading your journal entries. You do have such a way with words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. And THERE's the trifecta, with a personal attack!
Read my journal all you like. Stalk me, insult me, and harass me all you want. But you won't browbeat me into apologizing one whit for calling out bullshit when I see it.
:hurts:

So you can dance, dive, duck, and dodge my question that started this subthread all you like, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground: JFK called himself a liberal in 1960.

You either take him at his word, or you think he was lying, or ... well, what, exactly? :shrug:

Perhaps you should worry a little less about winning points via personal attacks on an anonymous message board and a little more about the fact that you don't appear to understand how dates work.

1960 > 1953, no matter what names you call me. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Then alert me. I suggested that because your quote was in a speech, given to a specific
group, it might have been written to impress that group, while what Kennedy said in interviews might be a bit more true. His numerous biographers (some listed in the footnotes of the link I provided) have written thousands of pages about his life and most have mentioned his 'distain' for liberals. like the ADA. (See some the posts below for additional comments).

Either way, his actions while President, put him squarely in the middle. Progressive on social/civil issues and hawkish on foreign policy and pro-capitalist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Let it ride, my Friend.


A lawyer I know says:

"When the law is on your opponent's side, argue the facts.
When the facts are on your opponent's side, argue the law."

Here's what many people don't get -- or maybe even like -- about JFK -- the fact the guy's policies were the most progressive in 50 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Thanks, Octafish.
Wise words, and much appreciated. :hug:

I try to remember the Maestro da Vinci's words in these situations:
Patience serves as a protection against wrongs as clothes do against cold. For if you put on more clothes as the cold increases, it will have no power to hurt you. So in like manner you must grow in patience when you meet with great wrongs, and they will then be powerless to vex your mind.


Sadly, I try far more often than I succeed. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. You can see attempts to rewrite history on this thread. F'r instance: Eleanor Roosevelt...
She and Kennedy didn't see eye-to-eye all the time, but that didn't stop them from wanting what was best for the country. In her journal,on Humphrey's withdrawal from the 1960 race for the nomination, she calls LBJ and Symington the "candidates of the professional politicians" and JFK the "liberal" candidate. Can't get much clearer than that.

PS: Thank you for the wonderful quote on patience, Ignis. I'll try to keep it on my desk and in my heart.

PPS: Some people can't handle the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #61
90. Thanks for that second link.
I hadn't read her journal on that subject. Very interesting stuff!

(The third link appears to be broken, though.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Sorry about that. Link fixed...
...and improved. The original was to an article entitled "The Posthumous Assassination of JFK," Part I and Part II. My old Part II went fnirf.

It's part of the work archived at CTKA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #91
164. Thanks again, and please keep in touch.
Since I'm now having posts deleted that simply criticize the divisive, belittling choice of words used by certain posters, I don't expect I'll be allowed to continue frequenting this tavern much longer.

But your posts have been an inspiration over the years, and I'd hate to lose that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. Except the facts are not on your side: history shows JFK was not a liberal, and, indeed had contempt
for them.

He was a centrist. Perhaps instead of posting voluminous CT theories on a website all day long you should invest the time in your local library to read on the real life and times of President Kennedy? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. You say that over and over and yet you don't post even a single link to back you up.
Why is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #63
95. Nothing to back him up!
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 11:58 PM by Mimosa
Octafish, I've studied quite a bit on Kennedy, his policies and the era since the late 1970s. I've read quite a few of your posts here. You are clearly an excerpt and a scholar of that era.

Kennedy was unashamedly a classic liberal who sought peace. There are some interesting facts about it in JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James Douglass.

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/...

I'm sure you've read but I hope others will.

There has been a campaign to denigrate Jack Kennedy, to make it sound like he was little more than a hot-headed horny playboy. The unsupported anecdotes have proliferated even more during the past 20 years. The purpose may be to make it seem to future generations that his death wasn't such a horrible tragedt and didn't matter crucially in the larger scheme of things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #95
131. Douglass' work is vitally important.
His "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" chronicles exactly how President Kennedy stood up to the War Party. We can't say for certain who was responsible, but his assassination certainly advanced their cause -- from Vietnam through Congo through Chile through El Salvador through Nicaragua through Iraq through Afghanistan and everywhere else innocent people die in the name of empire.

PS: Thank you for the kind words, my Friend. My infinite appreciation to you and yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #56
111. Exactly --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. ^^^ Still waiting for you to provide a quote where I said that.
Oh, I'm sorry, where I "insisted" that. Strong words!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #53
64. You've littered this thread with enough distortions of fact, logical fallacies, and the like as it
is. There was no "personal attack" on you - you got caught trying to twist one minor speech JFK gave to the Liberal Party of New York into the false historical claim that he was a full blown ideological liberal.

He wasn't.

Are you aware that during his administration he privately referred to liberals as "the honkers"? That he despised Eleanor Roosevelt, deliberately packed Adlai Stevenson off to the UN as an expression of the contempt he had for him, and insisted that his cabinet have a strong contingent of conservative Republicans in it? That he signed the largest tax in modern American history up until 1981, and launched the United States on the largest peacetime military buildup ever?

He was no conservative, but he wasn't a liberal, either. He was a centrist, a moderate Democrat.

Educate yourself, then get back to us. Thanks. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #64
94. Who's this "we" shit?
You haven't supplied any source material for your contentions. Hence you lost the argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #94
98. LOL! Hilarious stuff - I appreciate the attempt at humor. Didn't see your sarcasm tag, though.
You might add that, the next time you venture into comedy on a post. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #94
136. I don't know who Ignored is, or why it replied to my post, but ...
I make it a point to only use Ignore on those who are repeat abusers of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy, who continue to do so after asked to stop, and who do not appear to suffer any ill effects for their repeated rule-breaking behavior.

Hope that helps save you some frustration. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #41
110. I don't think you're permitted to link to "mcadams" here ... wow!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #31
109. Obama was once hoped to be another JFK . . . not any longer -- that's over ....
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 01:08 AM by defendandprotect
So, another way to make Obama look better evidently is to attack JFK's "liberal" qualifications!

JFK is simply the guy who ended the Cold War!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #109
139. Frankly, I expected Obama to govern a bit more like JFK:
Hawkish on foreign policy, moderate on economics, but with a keen eye towards using the bully pulpit to make real progress on domestic issues, especially civil rights.

Maybe in the second term? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #139
148. Exactly -- a few articles right now are pointing to how FAR from JFK/FDR Obama is ....
I'd like to see a less corporate/DLC/Wall Street second term --

Democrats didn't work their butts off in '06 and '08 to turn party over to

corporate control -- did they?

Four years of re-financing Bush's wars?

Let's look to something more promising for the Democratic Party -- Grayson/Whitehouse?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
name not needed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
38. We'd be damn lucky if we still had moderate Democrats like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
105. Looks like some are trying to make JFK look bad to make Obama look better?
Not going to work -- and there are a lot of articles out there now on that

very subject -- the hope that Obama would be something like a JFK or an FDR -

and how far from anything like either he actually turned out to be!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. LOL! President Kennedy had contempt for what he called "the honkers," which was his pet name for
liberals. Now, I think JFK did some great things, but he was a moderate liberal at best.

For example, President Kennedy pushed for the largest tax cut in American history until the Reagan tax cut of 1981 - and got it. In fact, Reagan's economic people used the Kennedy tax cut as a template for their own twenty years later.

President Kennedy initiated one of the largest peacetime military buildups in American history - he ran on the "missile gap" which he claimed the Eisenhower administration had allowed to occur vis-a-vi the Soviet Union.

When President Kennedy came to office, there were less that a thousand American troops in Vietnam. The day he died, there were almost 20,000. Guess who sent them there?

On and on and on I could go, but my larger point is that President Kennedy was more like Obama in his day than Dennis Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
great white snark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Exactly.
Excellent analysis apocolypsehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Thanks. What creeps me out when the discussion turns to JFK in some circles is the morbid
deification of the man. He was a President cut down in his prime, only a thousand days in office. He was a moderate Democrat who hewed slightly Left-of-center domestically, but moderately Right-of-Center in his foreign policy. He was slow on Civil Rights, though he was coming around in 1963. We'll just never know how far he would have progressed.

All fine and good: but some people now elevate him to the iconic level of a demi-god when it comes to liberal politics. They maintain that had he lived, the entire world would've been transformed into a progressive paradise. They make unhistorical, indeed false, claims to his ideological lineage that place the man on the same political wavelength with Che Guevara or other iconic leftists. It's simply not true.

He was a good president, and a moderate Democrat. And he governed that way, not as some crusading far-left idealist. I think he would've agreed with Gibbs on his assessment that has caused all this uproar. Note, I said I think - I don't know. And that's the problem with so many who remake JFK in their own image as some total liberal: they are imaging a man that never was, and pretending they know where he would stand on any given issue today.

Thanks again for you kind words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. as were fdr, eisenhower, truman, nixon, & johnson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. Bobby became liberal, Teddy was a liberal, JFK was a moderate
who governed from the middle and was cautious on many issues that liberals cared about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
17. So he thought Obama and Bush were the same? He wanted to eliminate the Pentagon? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. He did want to eliminate the "Federal" Reserve.
And have money actually issued by the US treasury, not a private banking cabal.

Here's a REAL $5 bill issued in 1963




There have been no such things issued since JFK was murdered :evilfrown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #19
112. Amazing -- thanks for that reminder!!
One of the reasons for the coup on JFK -- IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #112
114. There was no "coup on JFK": every legitimate piece of factual evidence points Oswald as the killer.
Please try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #114
126. You and G.H.W. Bush are in perfect accord
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 11:02 AM by Mimosa
President Bush 41 at President Gerald Ford's funeral:



"After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry Fords word was always good."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/washington/02cnd-ford...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #126
142. Poppy seemed to LAUGH at the precise moment he read 'deluded gunman.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
18. "Im not a liberal at all... Im not comfortable with those people. - JFK
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 03:13 PM by wyldwolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Odd, isn't it? JFK *himself* didn't think he was a liberal, but a whole lot of people around today
think he didn't know what he was talking about when he described his own views in his own words...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. If memory serves, Eleanor Roosevelt and the ADA opposed JFK's candidacy
... because Kennedy did not vote to censure McCarthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. I believe you're right, and so did Harry Truman. Truman disliked him because JFK supported Nixon on
the Hiss case, and JFK's brother Bobby openly voted for the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket in 1956 because he disdained Adlai Stevenson so much. Among other reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
70. Got a link for any of that? No? Then you're spreading disinformation. Here's Eleanor on JFK...
Here, in her own words, Eleanor Roosevelt calls JFK the "Liberal" candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. FTR: In her personal journal, she called Symington and LBJ candidates of the "professional politicians" in 1960.

From what I know, the Kennedys were Liberals. Seeing how you refuse to state where you get your information, I won't be led to think otherwise by you.

Something we all should be considering: A man considered representative of the political class succeeded the murdered liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. I'm "spreading" historical fact. You are quoting Eleanor Roosevelt on JFK, not JFK on Eleanor
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 06:31 PM by apocalypsehow
Roosevelt, which was the issue under discussion above. The reply you're responding to does not concern her, but JFK had nothing but contempt for her. This is so typical of the distortions one runs into when one encounters a person having their world view challenged with actual facts.

Do they have public libraries where you live? If so, I urge you to find one, and ask the librarian to steer you toward the "American History" stacks. Kennedy is spelled with a "K". :thumbsup:

Edit: typo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #71
87. Who do you quote? Nobody.
Not one link, source or author -- in any of your posts on this thread. Zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #87
99. Facts! Facts! We got pipin hot Facts here! Come-n-git your pipin hot facts!
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 12:45 AM by apocalypsehow
(Mods: I'm only posting this reply to the replies where it was specifically requested in this thread, not spamming.)

JFK the anti-New Dealer:

"Mr. Roosevelt has contributed to the end of capitalism in our own country, although he would probably argue the point at some length. He has done this not through the laws which he sponsored or were passed during his presidency, but rather through the emphasis he put on rights rather than responsibilites." -John Fitzgerald Kennedy

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk1.htm

Eleanor Roosevelt's dislike for JFK, a dislike that was mutual:

"Eleanor Roosevelt, the beloved symbol of the liberals openly berated JFK in 1956 at the Democratic Convention for not having taken a stand against McCarthy, and repeated her mistrust of JFK in an interview for Look magazine in 1958. The lingering image of JFK and the McCarthy connections was another reason why JFK was challenged from the left in 1960."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk2.htm

More on Roosevelt & JFK's mutual contempt:

"She had left the 1960 Democratic Convention in tears when John Kennedy won the nomination. He was, to her, just Joe Kennedy's overreaching son, an arrogant young man who would not wait his turn...she had refused to sit on the inaugural platform with Kennedy and his family, wrapping herself in a mink coat and an Army blanket in the crowd below the stand." - Richard Reeves, "President Kennedy: Profile of Power"

http://www.amazon.com/President-Kennedy-Profile-Richard...

JFK's contempt for Adlai Stevenson:

"The party liberals, and Stevenson, felt that he deserved to be Secretary of State. JFK never considered the idea specifically because of the bitterness from 1956. JFK only offered UN Ambassador, a post that Stevenson resented as "beneath his dignity." So determined was JFK not to let a liberal run the State Department that he even rejected the liberals second and third choices, Chester Bowles and G. Mennen Williams."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk3.htm

JFK's irritation with & suspicion of the Civil Rights Movement:

"JFK's less than wholehearted feelings of affection for the movement would surface again two years later when both he and RFK would agree with J. Edgar Hoover that King needed to be wiretapped because at least one of his advisors had suspected communist ties,"

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk4.htm

JFK the unapologetic Cold Warrior:

"In a series of oral history interviews for the JFK Library, RFK said that "it was worthwhile for psychological, political reasons" to stay in Vietnam.
"The President felt that he had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam....If you lost Vietnam, I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall." (32)
John Bartlow Martin point-blank asked RFK "if the President was convinced that the United States had to stay in Vietnam." The one-word response was "Yes."


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk5.htm

JFK administration, an overview (money quote):

"Contrary to much Camelot romanticism, Kennedy never considered any policy other than military victory. Just three weeks before his assassination, in the wake of the overthrow of the Diem regime, he remained hopeful about the prospects for an intensification of the war, telling the press that he thought there was a new situation in Vietnam, which would lead to, we hope, an increased effort in the war (emphasis added). He added that the U.S. policy should be to intensify the struggle so that we can bring Americans out of there - after U.S. forces had subjugated the country, a goal he never renounced."

http://legalienate.blogspot.com/2009/05/false-saviors-j...

JFK trending Right in 1960:

"As senator, Kennedy had zigzagged through the long obstacle course of civil rights legislation, siding in most cases, as a Ted Sorensen memo to Bobby proudly explained in December 1959, with our friends in the South. He meant white friends. - Richard D. Mahoney, "Sons and Brothers: the Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy"

http://www.amazon.com/Sons-Brothers-Days-Bobby-Kennedy/...

JFK's Foreign Policy - lots of Reagan, not much Ganhdi:

"In each of these chapters, JFKs Cold Warrior mentality is evident in the people he trusted for advice... It seems striking to this reader to find that JFKs policies differed little from Nixon or Reagan and yet his decisions do not appear to have shortened the Cold War at allin fact they probably contributed to its longevity. Few will be impressed with JFKs role in the arrest and imprisonment of Nelson Mandela or with the 163 individual covert operations he personally approved for the CIA to conduct in Latin America which, among other things, brought about the downfall of two democratically elected heads of state." (all emphases added)

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2010/0406/book/b...

JFK the Bystander:

"JFK, martyred liberal icon, turns out to have been wholly indifferent to the question of civil rights for black Americans. Kennedy, who built a political career on the sinking of PT-109, once told a fellow survivor, "My story about the collision is getting better all the time. Now I've got a Jew and a ****** (N-word) in the story and with me being a Catholic, that's great."

Reviewed by Kirkus: quoted from "The Bystander," by Nick Bryant

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Bystander/Nick-Bry...

Well now, there yah are: that ought to be more than enough reading material to occupy someone who is in dire need of a little more information about the life & times of John Fitzgerald Kennedy other than what Oliver Stones movie provided.

All the books linked and cited above are available for purchase, but if you can manage to pry yourself away from your keyboard for even a miniscule amount of time I'm certain you will be able to get them on loan all for free at your local library.

Itll also give you a chance to get out & about, do the Sunshine & fresh air thing, this beautiful summer season.

A win-win if I ever saw one!

Good luck on your educational endeavors! :hi:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #99
100. Addendum.

I am composing this reply before I post the one above to pair with it as an addendum I feel is important.

With just a few hours on Google and a brief romp through my personal library, I was able to compose the impressive roll-call of definitive evidence seen above that President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, whatever else he was and did, was not a liberal by even the standards of 1963, let alone 2010.

He had what we would call liberal tendencies and instincts in some matters: he governed domestically on the slight left-of-center throughout his presidency, right up until the day of his tragic murder at the hands of a sad, pitiful loser named Lee Harvey Oswald.

But even here, the progressive of 2010 must pause: when I state he governed domestically on the slight left-of-center, I mean by the left-of-center standards of 1961, 62, & 63. That center has shifted significantly since those days, and in 2010 many of Kennedys views and policies in that regard would be considered either middle of the road, or even slightly on the conservative side of the ledger. Some would be considered outright Reactionary.

This is not to say JFK wouldve been a right-winger in 2010, as the wing-nut blogosphere and conservative talk radio always likes to claim: not a bit of it.

Instead it is likely that had JFK lived he would have moved further to the Left as time went by, just as his younger brothers did in the turbulent years that followed his tragic passing.

It is unlikely he would ever have become as liberal as his brother Ted, but he would almost certainly been to the Left of even the most moderate conservative, and firmly in the progressive mainstream.

We will never know, but thats my best guess and opinion, and it, unlike so much else weve seen in this thread, is an informed opinion.

I predict the irrefutable facts I have presented will stir further anger on those invested in a false narrative regarding JFK not just because I insist on presenting them, but because they exist, as facts, at all. Anger because they are part of the actual ledger of recorded history in the first place, as opposed to the make-believe narratives which comfort some of those particularly enamored and bestirred by the life & times of the 35th president of the United States.

And they are irrefutable: backed up with those precious links that have been so clamored for, it only took me a few hours, the internet, and a bit of thumbing through my own personal library to run down ten proof-texts and bullet points showing that President Kennedy was not the idealistic, full-tilt liberal that some today would like to pretend he was. Had I more time to dedicate to it - a full day; a week; a month - the list & links would have run in the dozens, the hundreds, perhaps more.

This topic has long fascinated me, the deification of JFK the man by some on the progressive side of the ledger to an unreasonable, un-factual degree; Ronald Reagan has a similar fan club of fanatical worshippers on the conservative Right who treat him in a similar fashion as a magical demigod who could do no wrong.

Those who claim the label progressive should know better than to indulge in such fanciful hagiography, IMHO, but lets put that aside.

To continue, when people get deeply invested in a worldview that rotates around a profound historical figure, whether it be Jesus Christ or John F. Kennedy (or Ronald Reagan), they begin to construct narratives that explain away that historical figures failings and exaggerate their accomplishments during that limited time on this earth we all have.

They start to remake the actual person who lived into an image that corresponds with their elevated estimate of them: they begin to make myths, and tell sacred stories about their great deeds, and mighty triumphs. Their defeats and failures are usually chalked up to the nefarious workings of enemies, traitors, the self-serving, the greedy, and other assorted agents of evil.

Thats how the New Testament got written.

And when that narrative is called into question, challenged, debunked, it raises the angriest kind of hackles from those so invested: its almost as if you are calling into question their core identity; and, in some instances, you are.

When the facts themselves, as facts, are unpalatable to the person(s) invested in not accepting them, ugliness often follows.

Hence the anger - the irrational, lashing-out anger, coupled with scornful incredulity - directed at the person who does not flinch from presenting those facts, and who insists they be respected even when inconvenient & troublesome, regardless of the circumstances.

That is the hallmark of a progressive way of thinking; the benchmark of a liberal way of reasoning and coming to grips with the world around us.

One I highly recommend.

Good evening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #100
127. Great! Tell you what: LET'S PUT IT TO A VOTE.
Let DUers decide:

On the one hand, you have my posts which state President John F. Kennedy was a Liberal, Progressive Democrat in the tradition of the New Deal:

1. Advanced Civil Rights by ordering the integration of the Secret Service through Abraham Bolden.

2. Changed foreign policy in Congo and the rest of the world, so that the mineral resources of the Third World would benefit the people of those countries.

3. Worked for Universal Health Care, starting with Senior Citizens.

4. Ordered the end of United States military involvement in Vietnam

5. Battled Wall Street on behalf of U.S. small businesses, union workers and families.

6. Was categorized as the "Liberal Candidate" by Eleanor Roosevelt in 1960.

Point #5 must've got knocked out when part of the thread was deleted, so I referenced an earlier post. To make up for that inconvenience, a Bonus JFK the Liberal post not referenced above:

7. JFK Worked to keep the peace, even when CIA Director Allen Dulles and Joint Chiefs Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer counseled a surprise, all-out nuclear sneak attack on the USSR in "late 1963."

On the other hand, supporting the contention that Kennedy was no liberal, we have your post of last night, in which you extensively reference John McAdams, a right-wing ultraconservative, known disinformationist specializing in smearing JFK assassination researchers.

So, let us ask DU: Based on the information provided above (in this and any other posting by apocalypsehow and Octafish), was JFK a liberal or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #127
128. Of course Kennedy was a liberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #127
141. I'll take the man at his word:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #127
150. wait! Can we cherrypick the accomplishments of any president...
... only the 'good' ones... and make him into a 'progressive?'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #150
153. 1,036 days are all JFK had.
There's no cherry-picking involved. President Kennedy kept the peace, continued to build on the New Deal, and got us started toward the moon. Only a true liberal could do all that in less than three years in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #153
154. umm...
Much of Kennedy's domestic policies were far from what was thought of as "liberal" then and now. His tax cuts, for example, that he said would stimulate private investments and "reduce the burden on private incomes and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system."

Why didn't you include that in his 'liberal' accomplishments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #154
162. Thanks for reminding me. It was Eisenhower and Nixon who ordered CIA to enlist Mafia to kill Castro.
We all should remember this one, seeing how it's never mentioned on the tee vee and seldomly in the classroom:
It wasn't President Kennedy, it was the conservatives in positions of power who wanted Castro dead.

Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, in 1960 "serving" under President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his very active VP Richard Nixon, wanted Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro dead. Being a true gentleman who never gets his own hands dirty, Dulles ordered his the agency to bring in outside help -- "cut outs" -- for the job. So, through their middleman, Howard Hughes employee Robert Maheu, CIA approached "Uncle Johnny," "Mr. Gold" and "Joe."



The CIA Enlisted the Mafia to Kill Fidel Castro in 1960



How the CIA Enlisted the Chicago Mob to Put a Hit on Castro

Ever wonder about the sanity of America's leaders? Take a close look at perhaps the most bizarre plot in U.S. intelligence history


By Bryan Smith
Chicago Magazine
November 2007
(page 4 of 6)

EXCERPT...

By September 1960, the project was proceeding apace. Roselli would report directly to Maheu. The first step was a meeting in New York. There, at the Plaza Hotel, Maheu introduced Roselli to O'Connell. The agent wanted to cover up the participation of the CIA, so he pretended to be a man named Jim Olds who represented a group of wealthy industrialists eager to get rid of Castro so they could get back in business.

"We may know some people," Roselli said. Several weeks later, they all met at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami. For years, the luxurious facility had served as the unofficial headquarters for Mafioso leaders seeking a base close to their gambling interests in Cuba. Now, it would be the staging area for the assassination plots.

At a meeting in one of the suites, Roselli introduced Maheu to two men: Sam Gold and a man Roselli referred to as Joe, who could serve as a courier to Cuba. By this time, Roselli was on to O'Connell. "I'm not kidding," Roselli told the agent one day. "I know who you work for. But I'm not going to ask you to confirm it."

Roselli may have figured out that he was dealing with the CIA, but neither Maheu nor O'Connell realized the rank of mobsters with whom they were dealing. That changed when Maheu picked up a copy of the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade, which carried an article laying out the FBI's ten most wanted criminals. Leading the list was Sam Giancana, a.k.a. "Mooney," a.k.a. "Momo," a.k.a. "Sam the Cigar," a Chicago godfather who was one of the most feared dons in the countryand the man who called himself Sam Gold. "Joe" was also on the list. His real name, however, was Santos Trafficantethe outfit's Florida and Cuba chieftain.

Maheu alerted O'Connell. "My God, look what we're involved with," Maheu said. O'Connell told his superiors. Questioned later before the 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (later nicknamed the Church Committee after its chairman, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho), O'Connell was asked whether there had ever been any discussion about asking two men on the FBI's most wanted list to carry out a hit on a foreign leader.
    "Not with me there wasn't," O'Connell answered.

    "And obviously no one said stopand you went ahead."

    "Yes."

    "Did it bother you at all?"

    "No," O'Connell answered, "it didn't."

CONTINUED...

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-200 ...



No matter what Corporate McPravda spew, it's important to know who ordered Castro dead. It was the conservatives Dulles, Nixon and Eisenhower.

Regarding JFK and tax policy: It is true he recommended legislation that would change the top rate from 91-percent to 65-percent. Where's it at now? 39-percent? And capital gains are at 15-percent? JFK would've kept that at 50-percent, if memory serves. He never lived to sign the legislation into law. Perhaps you can furnish some sources or even a link to help us learn more about the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #162
166. what does that have to do with JFK cozying up to big business?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #166
167. You miss the irony. You give one example of JFK taking the side of the wealthy...
...and I gave eight examples of how he supported We the People as a whole.

PS: Notice I called it "irony" instead of "hypocrisy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #167
169. you don't think a major tax cut for corporations was enough?
The summer of '63 saw Kennedy enact a program of $11.1 billion in tax cuts for individuals and corporations. How many examples would it take? If I gave two, you'd ask for three?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #169
177. Even Chomsky would see that's an 8:1 Liberal to Conservative Ratio.
When it comes to the biggest matter of all, war and peace, Chomsky regarded JFK as no different than LBJ:



Chomsky on JFK and Vietnam

By Michael Morrissey
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/morrisseychomskyonjfkand...
This was published in The Third Decade 1993, 9.6, 8-10.

EXCERPT...

We do not know what Kennedy may have secretly wanted or what he would have done if he had lived. Whether he really believed the war was going well, as the record indicates, or privately knew it was not, as John Newman contends (in JFK and Vietnam, NY: Warner Books, 1992), is also unknowable. What we do know, from the record, Chomsky notwithstanding, is that Johnson reversed the withdrawal policy sometime between December 1963 and March 1964.

The point is crucial. If one manages to say, as Chomsky and others (Michael Albert in Z, Alexander Cockburn in The Nation) do, that in truth there was no change in policy, that in fact there never was a withdrawal policy but only a withdrawal policy conditional on victory (until after Tet), and that therefore Johnson and Nixon simply continued what Kennedy started, then the question of the relation of the policy change (since there wasn't one) to the assassination does not arise.

If, however, one states the facts correctly, the question is unavoidable. Exactly when Johnson reversed the policy, and whether he did so because conditions changed, or because perceptions of conditions changed, or for whatever reason, is beside the point. Why do Chomsky et al. avoid the straightforward formulation which is nothing but a summary of the PP account? PP: JFK thought we were winning, so he planned to withdraw; Johnson decided that we weren't, so he killed the plan.

The reason is clear. Once you admit that there was a radical policy change in the months following the assassination, whether that change was a reaction to a (presumed) change in conditions or not, you must ask if the change was related to the assassination, unless you are a fool. Then, like it or not, you are into conspiracy theory--which is anathema to the leftist intellectual tradition that Chomsky represents.

Thus Chomsky, uncharacteristically, is telling us the same thing the government, the mass media, and Establishment historians have been telling us for almost thirty years--that the assassination had no political significance. The withdrawal plan was never a secret, but the overwhelming majority of historians have simply ignored those forty pages in the Gravel PP (also carefully circumscribed in the New York Times edition of the PP), treating the Kennedy-Johnson Vietnam policy as a seamless continuum, exactly as Chomsky does.

CONTINUED...

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/morrisseychomskyonjfkand...



Thought I'd reinforce that bit about the difference between liberal -- a person who believes enlightened people can work together and conservative -- a person who thinks people's self-interest governs behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #127
152. Historical truth does not work like that: facts can't be disputed by putting them "to a vote."
You have been provided, as requested, factual material, books to reference, all sourced with links. You have refused to avail yourself of the opportunity to refute those facts, and for good reason: they are irrefutable.

Instead, you've engaged in what was predictable from the beginning: attacking a source instead of the facts hosted by that source; larded links with misleading titles when the content on the other end of those links does not match that title, or is much more ambiguous than the title indicates; continuing to dodge, duck, and evade answering to the facts provided to you above.

That, in effect, means the discussion is over, since you refuse to honestly and in good faith engage your counterpart. It is, actually, a concession on your part that you have forfeited the debate in my favor.

Concession accepted; discussion concluded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #152
157. Nothing's been conceded. You never did send me the bibliography you promised.
As for your sources above, they really do speak for themselves. For instance, John McAdams is a right-winger with an agenda. Have you read Mellen, Melanson or Douglass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #152
171. Like in a jury?
They put "historical truth" up for a vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #18
113. There no credibility to a quote from "macadams" website ...
he's a fraud --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #113
121. um.. don't know who that is. But the quote is from many sources.
Why try to deceive the readers with a reply like that?? Oh wait, I know why.

The original quote was from a Saturday Evening Post article and quoted in numerous reports and biographies.

Jack: A Life Like Not Other

http://books.google.com/books?id=UcqcG1M6QSIC&pg=PA243&...

John F. Kennedy: A Biography

http://books.google.com/books?id=fxzd__gA_I4C&pg=PA394&...

Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism

http://books.google.com/books?id=OVb-NTug8Z8C&pg=PA30&d...

The bystander: John F. Kennedy and the struggle for Black equality

http://books.google.com/books?id=B1pfmne8EFoC&pg=PA31&d...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #121
155. JFK "criticized" the Post article ....and you seem to be under the impression
that liberals don't criticize other liberals ... !

Re the "Camelot" article --

it belies what you are suggesting . . .

"pragmatic and moderate LIBERAL" --

"intention to extend the legacy of the NEW DEAL -- a LIBERAL w/o illusions"

"practical rather than sentimental LIBERAL" --


As for JFK and civil rights, he laid the foundation for raising the consciousness of

the nation re Segregation, Inc. -- and opposed it -- and put the government in the

position of opposing it. And it was upon that consciousness raising and the struggle

led by Martin Luther King, Jr. that the Civil Rights legislation was finally passed.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #155
158. So? Politicians always criticize media pieces they don't like. Did he deny the quote? No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
27. The JFK who was a Joe McCarthy supporter?
The JFK who used a nonexistent 'missile gap' as a campaign issue? That JFK? Not as much of a leftist as you would think. Right of centre on many issues (much more than most at DU would be comfortable with, I suspect), and a hard-nosed pragmatist and practitioner of hardball realpolitik. One suspects that a JFK in the White House would not be doing a lot of things in a noticebly different manner to Obama, and would be eliciting just as many howls of frustration from ideological purists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
115. More talking points from right wing "macadams" website . .. ??

John Kennedy and the Cold War
It was JFK, promising more money for defense spending and American ... As President, JFK, in order to credibly claim he had taken action against the "missile gap," ordered an ...
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk5.htm - Cached




On the contrary, JFK was briefed by Allen Dulles/CIA on the missile capabilities --

whatever position he took, it was based on that briefing and what he believed of it --

After JFK reached the White House, he realized of course it was untrue --

and JFK pretty much ended the Cold War --



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #115
122. see reply #160. "defendandprotect" is trying to distract the readers here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #122
146. wyldwolf . . . "macadams" is a notorious right wing website . . .
based on misinformation and disinformation --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. in this case, though, the quote in question was from the Saturday Evening Post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. Poster I replied to was discussing JFK debate/missile gap question ....
that's what I replied to -- and the "spin" the poster was offering was directly

from "macadams" --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. you replied to me with the same charge in post 113
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #151
156. Because the quote out of context is traceable to the "macadams" site ... it's their spin....
and the NY Post article was criticized by JFK --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #156
159. no it is isn't. It's traceable to a half dozen bios on JFK that quote the Sat. Evening Post
I'd never heard of "macadams" until you mentioned it. I had read several JFK bios.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #159
161. And . . . JFK "criticized" the Post article . . . how many times does that have to be repeated?
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 04:18 PM by defendandprotect
OTHERS here are telling the same tales -- and referencing "macadams" --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #161
165. so... what? How many times do I have to say that? JFK did not deny the quote
And politicians always criticize unflattering media pieces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #165
173. Your own sources: "pragmatic and moderate LIBERAL....a LIBERAL w/o illusions"
how desperate are you to try to convince anyone here that JFK wasn't a liberal?

Now "criticism" means concurrence? Up is down?

Let me repeat my full post for you . . .

try reading it this time --




JFK "criticized" the Post article ....and you seem to be under the impression
that liberals don't criticize other liberals ... !

Re the "Camelot" article --

it belies what you are suggesting . . .

"pragmatic and moderate LIBERAL" --

"intention to extend the legacy of the NEW DEAL -- a LIBERAL w/o illusions"

"practical rather than sentimental LIBERAL" --


As for JFK and civil rights, he laid the foundation for raising the consciousness of

the nation re Segregation, Inc. -- and opposed it -- and put the government in the

position of opposing it. And it was upon that consciousness raising and the struggle

led by Martin Luther King, Jr. that the Civil Rights legislation was finally passed.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #173
175. um, yeah. The political world calls Bill Clinton and Rahm Emanuel "liberals."
Which they are. They're just not "progressives" or leftists or the kind of liberal today's left want to make JFK into.

Of course JFK criticized the article. As I keep saying, politicians criticize unflattering pieces daily. But where was his DENIAL???

My contention is JFK was a moderate and his record before and during his presidency demonstrates it. He would be right at home with the Clintons and Bidens and Emanuel. moderate to conservative on economic issues, conservative on military issues, and moderate to liberal on social issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #175
176. New Deal isn't a LIBERAL concept any longer? JFK supported New Deal ...
Edited on Sat Aug-14-10 09:57 AM by defendandprotect
And, yes, political positions have been corrupted over last decades --

JFK coup was "prologue" for our futures --

Clinton and Emmanuel are not "liberals" -- they are by any description conservatives

within the Democratic party. Clinton and Gore co-founded the DLC -- Hillary Clinton is

part of DLC leadership!

No one has to make JFK into a liberal -- he was a liberal -- and, of course, you know that --

because the purpose of your posts is to try to attack that reality.

Protecting the New Deal and its programs, working for human rights for women -- civil rights

for all -- working against Segregation, Inc -- and standing up to corporations is liberal.

See JFK's stand against US Steel --


Bill Clinton betrayed New Deal programs in overturning 60 years of Welfare Guarantees --

with, btw, a nod from Al Gore!

And helped push trade agreements --


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #176
187. the left sure hated it in the 1930s.
Clinton and Emmanuel are not "liberals" -- they are by any description conservatives within the Democratic party.

Any description? Only those from the far left of the party.

Clinton and Gore co-founded the DLC

No, they did not. :)

-- Hillary Clinton is part of DLC leadership!

Yes, she is. :)

No one has to make JFK into a liberal

The left today sure try to portray him as one of their own.

-- he was a liberal -- and, of course, you know that --

As has been demonstrated extensively in this thread - with sources and links - JFK was a moderate Democrat who was not comfortable with the left/liberals of the party.

because the purpose of your posts is to try to attack that reality.

Fringe thinkers have their own reality that is enforced when evidence arises to the contrary - as you've demonstrated.

Protecting the New Deal and its programs, working for human rights for women -- civil rights

for all -- working against Segregation, Inc -- and standing up to corporations is liberal.


Every Democrat since FDR has done that. :shrug:

Bill Clinton betrayed New Deal programs in overturning 60 years of Welfare Guarantees --

Interesting you'd mention welfare reform - an idea championed first by JFK and then by Bobby Kennedy. "The Last Patrician: Bobby Kennedy and the End of the American Aristocracy" by Michael Knox Beran explored this in depth. Beran writes, "(Kennedy) was critical of some of the fundamental assumptions of the great society liberalism of the time... he declared - before anyone else in his party was willing - that the heritage of the New Deal was fulfilled and that the methods and techniques of the welfare states weren't working."

And helped push trade agreements --

You obviously don't realize that free trade agreements were the hallmark of Democrats from Wilson on and that protectionism was the Republican way.

According to the Encyclopedia of the New American Nation, Wilson used free trade policies as a political tool to keep the peace with Europe.

FDR advocated more open trade policies with the passage of Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act in 1934.

Harry Truman signed GATT.

JFK promoted free trade. In his speech before signing the Trade Expansion Act of 1963, Kennedy compared the bill to the Marshal Plan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-15-10 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #187
191. Clinton and Gore are listed as "co-founders" of the corporate-DLC ....
Edited on Sun Aug-15-10 12:16 AM by defendandprotect
Why would anyone vote for the corporate members of the party trying to move it to

the right? That would include Obama -- as a "New Democrat" -- and Hillary -- ????

Again, liberals will attack other liberals -- as JFK did -- not unusual.


Fringe thinkers have their own reality that is enforced when evidence arises to the contrary - as you've demonstrated.

Make a note for yourself -- "personal attacks aren't debate" --

JFK was in government at a time when "REFORM" meant I M P R O V E --

It is only with the ownership of government and our elected officials in corporate hands now

that "Reform" has come to mean "DEFORM" -- !!


You obviously don't realize that free trade agreements were the hallmark of Democrats from Wilson on and that protectionism was the Republican way.

I do realize that up isn't down -- and that you are being disingenuous --

Tariffs protected workers -- and no Democrat was providing off shore loopholes for corporate

tax evasion -- nor subsidzing corporate "harvesting of slave labor" all over the world!


And, believe me, had I known that Obama declared himself as a "New Democrat" I would never

have voted for him -- and will not vote for him again --


We need a liberal/progressive Dem candidate in 2012 -- the sooner the better!

Someone more like FDR and JFK -- and we need a reinstituting of the NEW DEAL --

and replacement of Glass-Steagall --

In fact, we could use a couple of dozen FDR's and JFK's !!


Reregulate capitalism --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #191
195. ...?
Edited on Mon Aug-16-10 01:13 PM by wyldwolf
Clinton and Gore are listed as "co-founders" of the corporate-DLC

Listed where?

You're entire reply is a denial of Democratic party history to conform it to your current views.

Since Wilson's day - pro-free trade, pro-liberal internationalism. As has been demonstrated in this thread over and over with links and sources (vs. none from you to the contrary) - Kennedy was not a "progressive" - he was moderate - in other words, he wouldn't be the DailyKOS preferred candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
35. No, he was a middle-of-the-road Democrat of his time.
Which would only make him a crazy, drugged-out professional leftist today, not then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcollins Donating Member (506 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
44. K&R! +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
47. I would include myself also a sex loving women loving fool and "a crazy, drugged-out pro leftist"
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 02:12 PM by GreenTea
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
65. DU, 1963 Edition
"But he's too incrementalist on civil rights! He should have Barnett and Wallace removed from office and jailed!"

"He's worse than Eisenhower! He rattles the sabre at the Russians in Berlin!"

"My god, can't he see that the Cubans are building an ideal society? Those missiles are purely defensive!"

"If I wanted advisors in Laos, I would have voted for Nixon!"

"We need a real Democrat like Henry Wallace!"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #65
74. LOL! Exactly! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
68. He was a hypocrite who terrorized Cuba and started the Vietnam War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #68
85. OFFS
JFK had Bobby sneak into Cuba under cover of darkness and build those missile sites. Meanwhile, Teddy and a crack crew of sailor ninjas sailed out into the Atlantic aboard the Honey Fitz and stealthily boarded the Soviet freighters and planted suspicious-looking containers on the deck.

The poor Cubans and their Russian pals were framed...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. Strawman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #68
89. ...Who was still liberal for his time, amidst Cold War hysteria.
I think you're allowing his hawkishness in foreign policy overshadow any consideration of JFK's domestic successes.

And as for his being a hypocrite, I think the word you were looking for was "politician." :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #89
123. interesting how some civil rights leaders disagree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #123
130. Oh, that wouldn't be the first time someone did so.
But I hold to my position that JFK was liberal for his time, and that it's historical revisionism to hold a Cold War / McCarthyism era President to modern standards.

I never said he was perfect. Most politicians are far from that. ;) But he used the power of his office to make some drastic domestic changes that a lesser man would have fobbed off with the tired "states' rights" argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #130
134. Any Democrat in office would have attempted the domestic programs JFK did
They'd only been in the DNC platform for a generation by then.

Even much of Kennedy's domestic policies were far from what was thought of as "liberal" then and now. His tax cuts, for example, that he said would stimulate private investments and "reduce the burden on private incomes and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #68
96. American troops went into Vietnam under Eisenhower
Kennedy was ready to draw down the 'advisers' before he was murdered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #68
116. That was the CIA who terrorized Cuba and those events were
begun during Eisenhowever administration --

US FINANCED the French war against Vietnam after WWII --

And then CIA pushed for America to take over the war -- despite the UN agreement!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #68
117. Actually it was NIXON who worked on original plans for "Bay of Pigs" ...
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 01:30 AM by defendandprotect
known in the beginning as "Operation 40" -- !!

This was while Eisenhower was in the hospital with a heart attack ---

This was preplanning for "The Bay of Pigs" invasion --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #117
125. JFK could have stopped it, but he didn't. He and Bobby supported it enthusiastically.
At least according to Chomsky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #125
144. Again, it was a right wing fiasco, from Nixon to CIA/Dulles . .. .
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 03:27 PM by defendandprotect
And it was on the basis of JFK's FIRST experiences with Bay of Pigs -- Dulles -- CIA --

that JFK took some very decisive actions to insure nothing like that would happen

again --

JFK FIRED DULLES --

ISSUED ORDERS THAT CIA ACTIONS HAD TO BE UNDER CONTROL OF MILITARY --

And, had he lived JFK planned to "smash the CIA into little pieces and throw them to the wind!" --

Imagine how much better off we'd be today had that happened!!

JFK was not the first president betrayed by the MIC/Pentagon/CIA -- Joint Chiefs --

and he won't be the last as long as the Military Industrial Intelligence Complex stands --



Re Chomsky -- who has awakened us on many issues -- like many others he seems also to be

under threat -- I think his book verifying the myth of 9/11 is one example of that!

His alleged disinterest in the coup on JFK and our people's government as a "prologue" is

also astonishing!






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #144
168. Dulles lied to Kennedy.
The Bay of Pigs Invasion could not succeed without air, ground and naval support. Dulles signed-off personally with Kennedy, telling him the Cuban people would rise up against Castro. What's worse, Dulles did so knowing the invasion had been compromised and Castro's army would be waiting.

Curiously, Dulles was overseas on D-Day. His Number One at CIA, Gen. Charles B. Cabell, was surprised he couldn't pressure Kennedy into ordering in the Air Force, Navy, Marines and Army. In the years since, the right has done all it could to pin the failure on President Kennedy. The Cuban exiles in Miami are still furious to this day.

Truth be told, he kept the situation from blowing up into World War III.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #168
174. Agree -- and later, Dulles heads up the Warren Commission-- !!
It was also a ridiculous, unprotected location -- !!

What I loved about JFK was he knew actually knew the meaning of the old saying . . .

"Fool me once... "

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
79. So was Nixon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
92. War hawk leftist?
Uhm, wow. Has DU lost its damn mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #92
138. Sounds a bit like Feinstein or Clinton, doesn't it?
I would call both of those women powerful advocates for liberal progress on domestic issues, despite their hawkishness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #138
143. Dunno about Feinstein, but H. Clinton is a hawkish sort.
Not only has "the center" changed, but the folks calling the shots on "the left" have also changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
119. I believe John F. Kennedy was one of our greatest presidents.
I love that man.

When I grew up everyone I knew had a picture of him in their home, just like in a previous generation everyone had a picture of FDR in their home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #119
145. They were not about to let another FDR rise in America . . . !!!
Agree with you -- inspiring --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sta au Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #119
178. I'm not too sure about that
Without him being assasinated and without the extreme circumstances I don't think he'd be forgettable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #119
184. RFK on the Cuban Missile Crisis...
...at the height of tensions, one of our U-2 spy planes was shot down over Cuba. Here are the memories from the president's brother, the Attorney General and unnofficial, "back-door" contact with the Soviets:



The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962

Robert F. Kennedy
Chapter 37

EXCERPT...

In the midst of these deliberations, another message came, to change the whole course of events and alter history. Major Rudolf Anderson, Jr., from South Carolina, one of the two Air Force pilots who had carried out the original U-2 reconnaissance that uncovered the presence of missiles in Cuba, had since flown several other photo-reconnaissance missions and was flying one that Saturday morning, October 27. Our meeting was interrupted by the report that his plane had been hit by a SAM missile, that it had crashed in Cuba, and that he had been killed.

There was sympathy for Major Anderson and his family. There was the knowledge that we had to take military action to protect our pilots. There was the realization that the Soviet Union and Cuba apparently were preparing to do battle. And there was the feeling that the noose was tightening on all of us, on Americans, on mankind, and that the bridges to escape were crumbling.

The President ordered the Ex Comm to meet again at 9:00 P.M. in the White House. While the letter was being typed and prepared for transmission, he and I sat in his office. He talked about Major Anderson and how it is always the brave and the best who die. The politicians and officials sit home pontificating about great principles and issues, make the decisions, and dine with their wives and families, while the brave and the young die. He talked about the miscalculations that lead to war. War is rarely intentional. The Russians don't wish to fight any more than we do. They do not want to war with us nor we with them. And yet if events continue as they have in the last several days, that struggle -- which no one wishes, which will accomplish nothing -- will engulf and destroy all mankind.

He wanted to make sure that he had done everything in his power, everything conceivable, to prevent such a catastrophe. Every opportunity was to be given to the Russians to find a peaceful settlement which would not diminish their national security or be a public humiliation. It was not only for Americans that he was concerned, or primarily the older generation of any land. The thought that disturbed him the most, and that made the prospect of war much more fearful than it would otherwise have been, was the specter of :he death of the children of this country and all the world -- the young people who had no role, who had no say, who knew nothing even of the confrontation, but whose lives would be snuffed out like everyone else's. They would never have a chance to make a decision, to vote in an election, to run for office, to lead a revolution, to determine their own destinies.

Our generation had. But the great tragedy was that, if we erred, we erred not only for ourselves, our futures, our hopes, and our country, but for the lives, futures, hopes, and countries of those who had never been given an opportunity to play a role, to vote aye or nay, to make themselves felt.

CONTINUED...

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/...



For the conservative's perspective on the Cuban Missile Crisis: It's possible none of us would be here today had Richard Nixon been president in 1962.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
163. JFK Did Very Little on Civil Rights Let Alone GLBT Equality
He believed in a very incremental approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
172. No JFK was a revisionist liberal who was more of an internationalist than a movement liberal.
I say that because he considered the New Deal a matter of settled policy but didn't seek to expand it. JFK mainly wanted to be known for squaring off with the USSR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #172
179. Really wrong. JFK worked to keep the peace. Got America rolling toward the moon.
Talked about it, above, in this thread: President Kennedy did all he could in the time he had to make the nation a better place for ALL Americans.

On the other hand, you may not know that certain people since his day have done all they can to blacken his name. For instance:



The Posthumous Assassination of JFK

Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers


By James DiEugenio

Current events, most notably a past issue of Vanity Fair, and the upcoming release of Sy Hershs new book, extend an issue that I have dealt with in a talk I have done several times around the country in the last two years. It is entitled The Two Assassinations of John Kennedy. I call it that because there has been an ongoing campaign of character assassination ever since Kennedy was killed.

In the talk to date, Ive dealt primarily with the attacks on Kennedy from the left by Noam Chomsky and his henchman Alexander Cockburn which occurred at the time of the release of Oliver Stones JFK. But historically speaking, the attacks on the Kennedys, both Jack and Robert, have not come predominantly from the left. The attacks from the right have been much more numerous. And the attacks from that direction were always harsher and more personal in tone. As we shall see, that personal tone knows no limits. Through papers like the New York Times and Washington Post, the attacks extend into the Kennedys sex lives, a barrier that had not been crossed in post-war mainstream media to that time. To understand their longevity and vituperativeness, it is necessary to sketch in how they all began. In that way, the reader will be able to see that Hershs book, the Vanity Fair piece on Judith Exner, and an upcoming work by John Davis on Mary Meyer, are part of a continuum.

The Right and the Kennedys

There can be no doubt that the right hated the Kennedys and Martin Luther King. There is also little doubt that some who hated JFK had a role in covering up his death. One could use Secret Service agent Elmer Moore as an example. As revealed in Probe (Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 20-21), Moore told one Jim Gochenaur how he was in charge of the Dallas doctors testimony in the JFK case. One of his assignments as liaison for the Warren Commission seems to have been talking Dr. Malcolm Perry out of his original statement that the throat wound was one of entry, which would have indicated an assassin in front of Kennedy. But another thing Gochenaur related in his Church Committee interview was the tirade that Moore went into the longer he talked to him: how Kennedy was a pinko who was selling us out to the communists. This went on for hours. Gochenaur was actually frightened by the time Moore drove him home.

But there is another more insidious strain of the rightwing in America. These are the conservatives who sometimes disguise themselves as Democrats, as liberals, as internationalists. This group is typified by men like Averill Harriman, Henry Stimson, John Foster Dulles and the like. The common rubric used to catalog them is the Eastern Establishment. The Kennedy brothers were constantly at odds with them. In 1962, Bobby clashed with Dean Acheson during the missile crisis. Acheson wanted a surprise attack; Bobby rejected it saying his brother would not go down in history as another Tojo. In 1961, JFK disobeyed their advice at the Bay of Pigs and refused to add air support to the invasion. He was punished for this in Fortune magazine with an article by Time-Life employee Charles Murphy that blamed Kennedy for the failure of the plan. Kennedy stripped Murphy of his Air Force reserve status but Murphy wrote to Ed Lansdale that didnt matter; his loyalty was to Allen Dulles anyway. In 1963, Kennedy crossed the Rubicon and actually printed money out of the Treasury, bypassing that crowning jewel of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Board. And as Donald Gibson has written, a member of this group, Jock Whitney, was the first to put out the cover story about that Krazy Kid Oswald on 11/22/63 (Probe Vol. 4 No.1).

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/pr997-jfk.html



As far as the Cold War goes, JFK didn't want to lose. He feared nuclear war ending humanity and ordered the Pentagon to come up with alternative to the Standard Operating Plan of massive nuclear retaliation, meaning options to ending life on earth. So, he modernized the Pentagon and prepared it for future conflict, from ICBMs to special forces. He wasn't worried about the longrun: He knew free people would beat the enslaved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #179
189. The moon thing was really of no real strategic importance. In terms of the civil rights movement,
advancing the liberal agenda of his party, and working to end the cold war, JFK didn't do much to advance anything and in some cases he actually caused more damage than did good. The appointment of a segregationist federal judge in the south comes to mind. He was also willing to keep troops in Vietnam until he won re-election in 64. He allowed the Ngo brothers to be killed and created a state of political disorder in Vietnam. He couldn't get his agenda passed through congress which is why he focused so much on foreign policy. The mission to the moon was just a propaganda tool to make Americans feel like they could catch up to the USSR in space eventhough they got there first and honestly the money they spent on the moon missions could have been put to better use on Earth fighting poverty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-15-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #189
193. Correct about compromise. Wrong about Diem and Vietnam.
In the U.S. Senate, to get along, one goes along. JFK nominated a loser in that case. He also gave us excellent Supreme Court justices, Byron White and Arthur Goldberg.

What steams me is the disinformation, snuck into the historical record about what happened to South Vietnamese President Diem. President Kennedy ordered his evacuation from Vietnam, not his assassination. Somebody at the airport told Diem not to get on the plane to safety. That changed the outcome for his country in a big way:



Who changed the coup into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest?

From "The Secret History of the CIA" by Joseph Trento


Who changed the coup into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest accompanying them? To this day, nothing has been found in government archives tying the killings to either John or Robert Kennedy. So how did the tools and talents developed by Bill Harvey for ZR/RIFLE and Operation MONGOOSE get exported to Vietnam? Kennedy immediately ordered (William R.) Corson to find out what had happened and who was responsible. The answer he came up with: On instructions from Averell Harriman. The orders that ended in the deaths of Diem and his brother originated with Harriman and were carried out by Henry Cabot Lodges own military assistant.

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy. By 1963, according to Corson, Harriman was running Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, Kenny ODonnell (JFKs appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.

At the heart of the murders was the sudden and strange recall of Sagon Station Chief Jocko Richardson and his replacement by a no-name team barely known to history. The key member was a Special Operations Army officer, John Michael Dunn, who took his orders, not from the normal CIA hierarchy but from Harriman and Forrestal.

According to Corson, John Michael Dunn was known to be in touch with the coup plotters, although Dunns role has never been made public. Corson believes that Richardson was removed so that Dunn, assigned to Ambassador Lodtge for special operations, could act without hindrance.

SOURCE:

The Secret History of the CIA. Joseph Trento. 2001, Prima Publishing. pp. 334-335.



Details about JFK's thoughts: Tapes show Kennedy was conflicted over Saigon coup.

Then, there's the business of E Howard Hunt (once an employee of Averell Harriman) planting false cables in his White House safe to make it look like JFK ordered the assassination.

FTR: Harriman was the longtime business partner of Prescott Bush and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker. That's why Vietnam and Iraq Wars Started by Same People, in terms of families and class.

Regarding the Apollo Program: It was the centerpiece of his future for the nation and planet. Instead of the constant preparation for war, humanity would instead explore the New Frontier. Devoting resources to building a new future, rather than an arsenal for a war that may never occur. You are using one of the advancements it made possible at this moment -- the integrated circuit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
180. JFK was no leftist, nor a good president IMHO...
but he got assassinated, so all that gets swept under the rug. JFK was a product of the rich class and was a giant asshole who knew how to play machine politics of the 60s. He reminds me of John Edwards more than anything else, but lived in an age when the media remained hush hush. He was a giant fake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #180
181. You seem misinformed.
Try reading JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.



JFK and the Unspeakable

by James W. Douglass

Reviewed by James DiEugenio

EXCERPT...

One of the book's most notable achievements is the 3-D picture of the Castro-Kennedy back channel of 1963. Douglass' work on this episode is detailed, complete, and illuminating in more ways than one. From a multiplicity of books, periodicals, and interviews, the author produces not opinions or spin on what happened. And not after the fact, wishy-washy post-mortems. But actual first-hand knowledge of the negotiations by the people involved in them.

It started in January of 1963. Attorney John Donovan had been negotiating the release of the Bay of Pigs prisoners when Castro's physician and aide Rene Vallejo broached the subject of normalizing relations with the USA (p. 56). Right here, Douglass subtly tells us something important. For Vallejo would not have broached such a subject without Castro's permission. In approaching these talks, Dean Rusk and the State Department wanted to establish preconditions. Namely that Cuba would have to break its Sino/Soviet ties. Kennedy overruled this qualification with the following: "We don't want to present Castro with a condition that he obviously cannot fulfill." NSC assistant Gordon Chase explained Kennedy's intercession, "The President himself is very interested in this one." (pgs. 57-58)

Because the State Department was cut in at the start, the CIA got wind of the opening. Douglass makes the case that David Phillips and the Cuban exiles reacted by having the militant group Alpha 66 begin to raid Russian ships sailing toward Cuba. Antonio Veciana later stated that Phillips had arranged the raids because, "Kennedy would have to be forced to make a decision and the only way was to put him up against the wall." (p. 57) The initial raid was followed by another a week later.

Phillips did indeed force Kennedy into making a decision. At the end of March, the Justice Department began to stop Cuban exiles from performing these raids off of American territory. This resulted in crackdowns and arrests in Florida and Louisiana. And it was this crackdown that provoked a bitter falling out between the leaders of the CIA created Cuban Revolutionary Council and President Kennedy. Dr. Jose Miro Cardona stated that the "struggle for Cuba was in the process of being liquidated" for "every refugee has received his last allotment this month, forcing them to relocate." (p. 59) The CRC had been a special project of both Phillips and Howard Hunt. As the Associated Press further reported in April, "The dispute between the Cuban exile leaders and the Kennedy administration was symbolized here today by black crepe hung from the doors of exiles' homes." (Ibid)

Clearly, Kennedy was changing both speeds and direction. At this time, Donovan visited Castro and raised the point of Kennedy clamping down on the exile groups. Castro replied to this with the provocative statement that his "ideal government was not to be Soviet oriented." (p. 60) When newscaster Lisa Howard visited Castro in late April, she asked how a rapprochement between the USA and Cuba could be achieved. Castro replied that the "Steps were already being taken" and Kennedy's limitations on the exile raids was the first one. (p. 61)

As Douglass observes, every Castro overture for normalization up to that point had been noted by the CIA. And CIA Director John McCone urged "that no active steps be taken on the rapprochement matter at this time." (p. 61) Deftly, the author points out that-- almost simultaneous with this--Oswald inexplicably moves from Dallas to New Orleans to begin his high profile pro-Castro activities. And later that summer, CIA case officers will secretly meet with Rolando Cubela to begin another attempt on Castro's life.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html



The truth is important to know: JFK was a great President who fought the most powerful forces in America to keep the peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #180
183. I certainly do not agree on your assessment of President Kennedy.
Edited on Sat Aug-14-10 01:26 PM by wisteria
He was human and he had his faults, but I always considered him to genuine,and a compassionate man who had some good ideas on how to take America forward. He was never like John Edwards-I have never considered President Kennedy to be sleazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #183
188. That's because magazines didn't publish his affairs...
if they had, history would not have been as kind. And he would very much have looked "sleazy". He was part of the good ol boys system who effected moderate change. However genuine he was, he was not liberal, he was a pragmatist. Same as Bill Clinton really, except he does look sleazy. Really, the affairs themselves aren't a big deal, except that they are simply a symptom of powerful men who like to abuse their power for their own gain, no matter how petty, and that is sleazy. It is hard to respect a person who does that. History has shown Kennedy to be this wonderful moral figure, when he was just another sleazeball that abused his power. History has also shown him to be this wonderful progressive figure, when really he was moderate at best and very willing to compromise liberal ideals.

The propaganda of past presidents is pretty powerful, especially back then, especially for an assassinated president. If he hadn't been assassinated, he probably would be remembered much like LBJ is today. JFK did have some things going for him that really helped his popularity. He was young, he had good looks, he looked good talking on TV, and he was willing to be a celebrity. So, basically, the shallowest, most irrelevant aspects are a big part of the reason why he was and is still remembered so fondly. A lot of people may not want to admit that, but it's true. Much like John Edward's rise. Maybe John and Bill should've been shacking up with another celebrity instead of nobodys. I'm sure they'd be remembered much more fondly if they had, and I'm not being sarcastic. That is the society we live in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ncteechur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
185. can we please stop making ridiculous comparisons to politicians operating in completely different
Edited on Sat Aug-14-10 03:04 PM by ncteechur
eras and conditions.

FDR
JFK
LBJ
HST

The only thing they have completely in common is that they were all democrats.

Given todays conditions, there is no evidence to suggest that any one of them would have done anything differently that what President Obama has done during this term of his presidency. (different meaning more left)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
190. This thread is still going on :)
sweet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-15-10 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
192. No, he wasn't. He may have been a Liberal, but he was also
quite pragmatic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 24th 2014, 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC