Posted on 11/16/2013 9:48:54 PM PST by fella
And the Cuban Missile Crisis, on some subsequent readings of history, was not a triumph of bold statesmanship as it was hailed at the time, but a piece of foolhardy grandstanding that unnecessarily humiliated the Soviets and precipitated the arms race that defined the Cold War.
Even on civil rights – the subject of one of Kennedy's greatest speeches in June 1963, when he vowed that "Every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as he would wish to have his children treated." – the reality never matched the myth.
Kennedy made good on his campaign promises on equal rights but only, we now know, after being forced to intervene by growing violence in the South. Until that point, along with his brother Robert, the attorney-general, it was pragmatism not principle that had governed decision-making.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
LBJ’s notorious drinking, smoking, and atrocious diet didn’t do him a bit of good, either.
Three packs a day for many years. And just LOVED Cutty Sark.
If Nixon had taken office as the proper victor in 1961, it would’ve altered the dynamics for the GOP for the decade. Since Goldwater would not have challenged Nixon as an incumbent in 1964, there would’ve been no massive GOP losses that year (conversely, there also would’ve been no Southern breakthrough at that time, either). 1966, as a 6-year election, would’ve probably been bad for the GOP (similar, but hopefully not as bad as 1958 was), but Reagan might’ve lost challenging Pat Brown that year (and had he lost, would’ve never been a Presidential contender).
Indeed, the 1968 standard-bearer for the GOP would’ve been Vice-President Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Had JFK still been in the Senate, he would’ve been the nominee in 1968 and probably would’ve beaten Lodge (as he had in 1952) as Conservatives would’ve been very unhappy (even having Goldwater as the VP running mate to try to assuage them).
The big question by then would’ve been if Nixon had gone all out to have gotten an early and decisive win in Vietnam and reclaiming Cuba (and executing Castro and Guevera for crimes against humanity). It certainly would’ve been a helluva dynamic alteration going into the ‘70s.
But, hey, at least he got a lot of exercise from his secretaries.
fieldmarshaldj wrote:
“The Berlin Wall was very much up and running in my birth year, sir.”
I couldn’t tell that, by the age of all those pretty girls that you have with your ID. I did NOT see a Betty Page, Sophia Loren, Jayne Mansfield in your collection, only 30 year olds, or so. I, also, did not see a single Kitten Natividad on The Dating Game picture, either.
He might never have gotten deeply involved there.
Eisenhower had stayed clear of direct military involvement in Vietnam (refusing to bomb to help the French at Dienbienphu). His administration installed Diem, but Ike never intended going to war there. In fact, when Kennedy got elected and got briefed by an outgoing Ike, Ike didn't mention Vietnam, talking about Laos when it came to SE Asia.
It was Kennedy who began the direct military escalation in Vietnam (with the US advisers flying combat missions in Vietnamese-marked planes), and it was Kennedy who overthrew Diem and left the place in chaos. If you wanted out of Vietnam, as liberals now claim JFK did, you don't knock off Diem.
anse112 wrote:
“You have a lot to learn about JFK, he was an enemy of America.
A thoroughly corrupt, vain, incompetent, pretty boy, liberal that wanted to change immigration to replace the American voters.
Nothing is real when it comes to him, even his “heroism” that his dad fixed.”
Um, let me get back to ya, after I figure out that Obama was truly a resident in the State of Connecticut.
""Reagan won in a landslide; his nearly 1 million vote plurality surprised even his staunchest supporters. He dramatically unseated Brown with 58% to 42%.""
Lodge was a weak candidate at any time and had been last driven from elective victory in 1953, he was never going to be the nominee, and who knows what JFK's health would have been in 1968, or if he would even had been alive.
The page is incomplete, and I’m still in my 30s. I also tend to prefer more petite figures.
With getting that far off topic, I can see how you be get so confused about JFK.
Remember now, I’m going by what the dynamics would’ve been under a 1961-69 Nixon Administration. We don’t know how popular or unpopular Brown would’ve been by 1966 (or if he might’ve been beaten by another Republican in 1962, such as Assemblyman Joe Shell, since Nixon would not have been the nominee). Had the Conservative Shell won, Reagan wouldn’t have had the Governorship to pursue until at least 1970 (unless he would’ve opted to run for Senator in 1964 instead of his friend George Murphy).
That is a big part of the point, Navy Commander and vice president for General Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, would not have gotten us into a Vietnam war.
We can play fantasy games forever, but Pat Brown was doing poorly and had already promised not to run again before trying for his doomed third term.
He only won his own primary by 52% and lost to Reagan in a massive, Christine O’Donnell/Rick Santorum type landslide, Kennedy losing in 1960 wouldn’t have changed that.
Reagan owned the Governorship of California in 1966.
Again, you’re talking about the reality as it unfolded, that’s not what I’m debating. I’m postulating what the national climate would’ve been with Nixon as President from 1961-69 and how that would’ve impacted GOP candidates. Had Conservative standard-bearer Joe Shell run in 1962 and beaten Brown, Reagan would not be part of the equation for 1966 (if at all). A Governor Shell would’ve been thrust into a potential Presidential candidacy.
Enjoy yourself and your incredibly detailed fantasy speculations.
buy a book
Revisionist ? about what - not being a RAT today ? my opinion doesn’t revise anything.
cutting taxes ? fact
his inaugural address ? my opinion doesn’t revise anything.
I have thousands of books, thank you, Truman did not start the Vietnam war, nor did Eisenhower. In fact my book reading is what made me recall reading of American interest and active monitoring in Vietnam, before 1945, which is why in post 24, posting form memory, I said “”At the time, after decades of playing it low key and staying out of war in Vietnam””.
JFK got us “into” Vietnam.
Revisionist as in feeding the propaganda machine, your contribution being to tell conservatives that he was conservative, and could not be a democrat today.
As in trying to rehabilitate a disastrous lefty hero to a conservative audience.
As your continued efforts to rewrite history shows.
I was not familar with her before. Bobby had some too?
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.