Posted on 10/24/2013 9:26:12 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
John F. Kennedy is lionized by liberals. He inspired LBJ to push for landmark civil rights laws. His “New Frontier” promised new spending on education and medical care for the elderly. His champions insist he would have done great liberal things had he not been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald.
But what if we judge him by the lengthy record of his actual political career, in historical perspective? What if this hero of liberals was, in fact, the opposite of a liberal?
As Ira Stoll convincingly argues, by the standards of both his time and our own, John F. Kennedy was a conservative. His two great causes were anticommunism and economic growth. His tax cuts, which spurred one of the greatest economic booms in our history, were fiercely opposed by his more liberal advisers. He fought against unions. He pushed for free trade and a strong dollar. And above all, he pushed for a military buildup and an aggressive anticommunism around the world. Indeed, JFK had more in common with Ronald Reagan than with LBJ.
Not every Republican is a true heir to Kennedy, but hardly any Democrats deserve that mantle. JFK, Conservative is sure to appeal to conservative readers — and will force liberals to reconsider one of their icons.
(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...
He was a patriot who summoned patriotism from the heart of a sated country. It is a matter of pride to me that so many men and women who were inspired by his bracing vision and moved by his call to "ask not ..." serve now in the White House doing the business of government.
Which is not to say I supported John Kennedy when he ran for president, because I didn't. I was for the other fellow. But you know, it's true: when the battle's over and the ground is cooled, well, it's then that you seethe opposing general's valor.
I have addressed that a couple of times and the answer should be obvious to anyone who votes or watches politics.
No politician is going to attack the dead and martyred JFK, do you really want to see your favored republican candidate try to tell the truth about John Kennedy and explain that to the public on the talk shows of the front pages of the left’s media machine?
A hand written letter to Nixon in 1960 when he was asking for a chance to help defeat him, tells us what Reagan really thought about JFK.
Seeing so much democratic support here on a conservative site, I can understand how America got into the situation we find ourselves in.
The (incorrect) assumption is that JFK and other politicians of yesteryear would hold their same positions if they were on the scene today. I take issue with that. Politicians have always been, with rare exception, persons without any core beliefs, taking positions that they believe will further their careers. Some are better than others at hiding it. John Kerry is among the worst, Bill Clinton among the best.
Had JFK come along in the 2000’s, he would have been liberal, just like Ted “the Swimmer” Kennedy.
Just look at the RFK of 1960 and the one of 1968 (before he got shot).
So I’ll say it again. Not once have I “put down” Reagan.
I have only presented FACTS contained in the book that review that I posted. And I’ll say it again, if you think the writer is lying, why don’t you write him and tell him he’s wrong. Personally I am really tired of you thinking you’re all-knowing one and no one can post anything that you don’t agree with. It’s obvious you don’t even bother reading the links that are provided for you. Your mind is made up and you want nothing inferring with your perception of reality. Makes no difference who it might be. The writer that wrote the book is a CONSERVATIVE author who has worked for a couple of CONSERVATIVE newspapers. While do you think he took the time out to write the book? You think he just wanted to piss off people that despise Kennedy? What would be his motive for this. He presents a carefully researched book. Why can’t you see that. Your hatred of the Kennedy clam is abnormal. I have no use all for any Kennedy. But JFK did some good things in his short time in office. he did cut taxes, whether you want to admit it or not, and he got Krushchev to blink during the Cuban Missile Crisis. No one knows what kind of presidency he would had if he had lived. It’s pure speculation. And when you say all the damage he did to the presidency; hell he looked like George Washington compared to the draft-dodging, American-hating, woman-chasing Bill Clinton, who destroyed out military capabilities and brought nothing but shame and dishonor to the office. We had to put up with that creep for eight long years.
“No politician is going to attack the dead and martyred JFK, do you really want to see your favored republican candidate try to tell the truth about John Kennedy and explain that to the public on the talk shows of the front pages of the left’s media machine?”
Replace JFK’s name above with Reagan. No man alive knew Ronald Reagan’s politics better than Pat Buchanan and the few times that arch-conservative Buchanan has criticized anything that Reagan ever did (like giving amnesty to millions), he has blasted by those republicans that think Reagan was the perfect republican.
LOL, democrat politicians can and do criticize Reagan, and he was not martyred by the left wing media and is constantly attacked, even in the movies made of him and history books and political campaigns, and print media and TV shows.
JFK was truly martyred by the American left and no politician dare attack him, by the way, Buchanan is not a politician, he is a third party column writer. A lot of the things you throw into your posts don’t really fit.
As far as you throwing around the word “hate” because someone disagrees with your liberal politics is silly, as a conservative I am definitively no fan of the Kennedys, but if you read the threads at freerepublic you will find that almost all of we conservatives share the view that the Kennedys are an American nightmare.
This is freerepublic, not DU, disliking the Kennedy clan is not “abnormal”, it is normal, being a Kennedy fan boy is “abnormal”.
JFK’s election destroyed America, we did not, and never can recover from it, it goes far beyond his liberalism and unionizing government, and Vietnam, the 1960s, and homelessness and so on, the realization of his immigration goals means that we can never recover America. “Demographics is destiny”.
“because someone disagrees with your liberal politics is silly”.
No doubt in my mind that you are a troll and have been for a long time. I would suspect a democrat who just likes to try and get under other poster’s skin. Once again, you answer nothing I said, only the generic put downs.
If there’s a way you or any one else can go back and read every posting I have ever put on FR and come back and say I am a liberal I will soak my pants in gasoline and jump straight into hell.
The common practices of the ansels of the world when they can’t refute WITH EVIDENCE what that person is posting is petty, childish name-calling. When someone calls me a liberal I take that as an insult to my honor.
Pat Buchanan ran for president and was on Ronald Reagan’s staff. Anyone that would not call him a politician or former politician, and would not consider Pat Buchanan as one of the foremost conservatives of the last 50 years, does not know the definition of conservative. He was Reagan’s White House Communications Director two years. He was a speech writer for both Nixon and Reagan. I am really getting tired of your petty garbage. No need for you to continue your attacks on my character because I dare post something that you do not agree with. Guess what? I could care less what you agree with or not, I deal in the truth, and like I said you can’t deal with the true so you resort back to what LIBERALS love to do, you attack the messenger and try and denigrate the character of the person that gets under your skin. A tried and true tactic of every liberal I’ve known in my life. Cat’s out of the bag with you and I’m not the only one that can see it.
Amazing.
You are running a thread promoting hero worship of the democrat party’s favorite president, the left’s great hero, absolutely raging at the idea that the 1960s democrats and their flagship leader JFK were a disaster for America and you accuse the conservative of being the democrat.
This is the weirdest thread of all, and you still can’t explain why you worship the 1960 democratic party leader, but since you have avoided all of my mentions of JFK’s immigration goals that destroyed America, I do think that we are seeing into what is driving you, that and some of your more bizarre personal attacks are giving insight into this democrat fan thread of yours.
The democrat worship is coming from you, me and Reagan and the republican party were against the man, and America paid the price for his election.
Here’s a couple more to drive you nuts. And for a change, how about reading the articles and tell me why they are a pack of lies and all the “conservative” stuff about JFK is all made up by the writers. LOL.
http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/john-kennedy-would-be-a-conservative-today/
LOL, it doesn’t drive anyone nuts, this is your promotion of the democrat party and their 1960s presidential politics.
You are running a thread promoting hero worship of the democrat party’s favorite president, the left’s great hero, absolutely raging at the idea that the 1960s democrats and their flagship leader JFK were a disaster for America and you accuse the conservative of being the democrat.
This is your democrat party promotion thread.
Here’s what the man (Nixon), who for some strange reason you thought was a “conservative” really thought about his fellow Californian.
Tapes: Nixon Called Reagan ‘Strange’ (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1037814/posts)
By JONATHAN D. SALANT, Associated Press Writer
COLLEGE PARK, Md. - President Nixon didn’t think much of fellow Californian and Republican icon Ronald Reagan, calling him “strange” and not “pleasant to be around,” newly released White House tapes show.
Talking politics with White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman at Camp David in August 1972, Nixon switched the conversation to two Republican governors, Reagan of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York. Both men unsuccessfully sought the 1968 Republican presidential nomination that Nixon received.
“Reagan is not one that wears well,” Nixon said.
“I know,” Haldeman agreed.
“On a personal basis, Rockefeller is a pretty nice guy,” Nixon said. “Reagan on a personal basis, is terrible. He just isn’t pleasant to be around.”
“No, he isn’t,” Haldeman said.
“Maybe he’s different with others,” Nixon said.
“No,” Haldeman said.
“No, he’s just an uncomfortable man to be around,” Nixon said, “strange.”
And here’s a little bit of what Reagan REALLY thought of Nixon.
“Ronald Reagan would run and govern as much against the legacy of Nixon as he would the legacy of the Great Society; and it was a number of Nixon’s administrative creations that would cause Reagan the most difficulty during in White House years.” (The Age of Reagan, pp.230-231, Vol. 1)
So once again you ignore the posting and start in with your incoherent rambling. Try again, because you never read the link the first time. A favorite tactic of yours, anything that disapproves your point that Kennedy was just a far-out left-winger who wanted to destroy country. Read the damn link for a change and tell us all how the CONSERVATIVE writer of the article is all wrong.
Don’t lie, Reagan knew that in the 1960 election, Nixon was the conservative, Kennedy was the liberal, in fact the man with the economics degree described JFK as “Marxist”.
I agree with Reagan that Eisenhower’s vice President was to the right of JFK, the man who’s election destroyed America, and who so inspired you as a young man, as you were taught to worship him, almost as a religious figure, that 50 years later you are a tough fighter for the democrats and the 1960s democrat party on this thread.
I lived a life of going into people’s homes, I know that JFK is an Icon, that his picture hangs in millions of homes, even here he has a worshiper, an entire thread dedicated to democrat hero worship.
I was 23 and living in Texas when he was killed and there was no question that he was disturbing a lot of the power structure which led to the fantasy Camelot which certainly was not what the power establishment had thought when he was in office.
The turnabout was so blatant that I was convinced that he had to die because he knew how corrupt this country was becoming,where the bodies were buried and who they were and intended to do something about it.
The second person who I genuinely admired and voted for was Reagan,when the same establishment folks planned to off him early in his tenure,I knew that we were in big trouble and there would be a time when the middle could not hold,I am afraid we are there.
BTW you are so on the money about Nixon who was as liberal as Ford,Clinton,Bush and Obama.
In their biography of the Kennedy’s written in 1984, David Horowitz and Peter Collier said that JFK was a conservative. The former 60s leftist, turned conservative, David Horowitz founded FrontPage Magazine. Joseph Krat, the speechwriter for 1960 Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, said in 1984 to Horowitz and Collier that he always saw JFK as a conservative.
The historian Herbert Parmet in his excellent biography in two wolumes said :
“Just as it has often been suggested that only Nelson Rockfeller’s heritage made him a Republican, and that his true place and certainly his more likely means of fulfilling political ambitions would have been as a Democrat, so may it be said that Jack Kennedy was a Democrat by culture and geography only.” (Herbert Parmet, JFK, p.352, 1983)
Many people don’t know it, but like his brother JFK, Robert Kennedy politics were mostly conservative. Bobby Kennedy criticized the Great Society. In 1968, Reagan commented sharply about him : “I get the feeling I’ve been writing some of his speeches. When he gets before chamber of commerce he talks like Barry Goldwater”. (Galdwin Hill, “Reagan derides Kennedy Stands”, New York Times, 21 May 1968, p. 28). Speaking about the NY Times, this journal ran a feature entitled KENNEDY : MEET THE CONSERVATIVE. Many forgot that leftists of Hollywood supported the liberal Republican Kenneth Keatings against RFK for the NY Senate in the 1964 campaign. Liberals never liked RFK. Bobby reciprocated, telling Anthony Lewis in 1965 that “What my father said about business men applies to liberals... they’re sons of bitches”. Even the NAACP joined the anti-Kennedy bandwagon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.