Replies

Hitchens is absolutely correct on all counts here (although I disagree with his positions on many other subjects). The JFK myth is just that- a carefully constructed narrative, almost none of which is true. Had he not been assassinated (and I am also sure that we will never know the real story of that event), he would most likely have been defeatd in 1964 by- you guessed it- Richard Nixon. Half of this country DESPISED Kennedy and all his works- a fact which was conveniently forgotten after his death.

By the way, he would have led us down the same path in Vietnam that Johnson did- but,, being more reckless and far less astute than even that moron LBJ, he would most likely have turned it into World War III.

You forgot to point out how his screw-up on the naval craft his father bought for him, which cost three men their lives, was spun into a "based on a true story" novel chronicaling his "heroism." BTW, Joe Kenneddy picked a PT boat because they were statistically one of the safeest combat deployments a member of the armed forces could have in WW II.

By the way, he would have led us down the same path in Vietnam that Johnson did- but,, being more reckless and far less astute than even that moron LBJ, he would most likely have turned it into World War III.

Lawrence Freedman, in "Kennedy's Wars", makes the same case but in a far less partisan way.

I remain unconvinced.

Your assertion that he would have made more of a mess than LBJ did in VietName is correct. I do like the way Hitchens refers to the Kennedy idol worshippers - as mythologists.

Let us face facts here - without the mythology of his brother Teddy the Driving Diver would not be repeatedly reelected. He derives his power from the fog of a Camelot that never existed. He has none of the erstwhile charm that either brother had, yet I believe people vote for him for two reasons; the first is a misplaced honor for the slain brother and the second is for what kind of pork he can give them.

I believe Hitchens is correct in his assessment of the Kenndy foreign policy - for proof of this look no further than the current Senator Kennedy's ideas on foreign policy.

...he would most likely have been defeatd in 1964 by- you guessed it- Richard Nixon...

On Sept 5, 1960 my Mom took the three oldest of her six kids down to Sunrise Hwy in Rockville Centre, our hometown on Long Island. We were to carry Nixon placards as the Democratic Party candidate for President, John Kennedy, rode through town on a campaign swing. As it turned out, we stood on the center divider of the highway as Kennedy's motorcade came through, and his car passed us from less than 10 feet away going about 5 MPH. I got a very good look at him.

The sun was just setting and Kennedy was bathed in the glow of a glorious sunset. He looked, quite literally, like a god. He smiled a thousand watt smile at the 10 year old boy holding a Nixon for President sign, without the slightest sign of irritation on his face for my apostasy. I was stunned for a second after he passed, and then I turned to my Mom and said, "Nobody's gonna beat that guy, Mom." My Mom, a staunch, very dedicated, very conservative Republican, looked kind of stunned herself. "You might be right," she said.

The glamour and charisma of Jack and Jackie Kennedy cannot be denied, and by 1963, with their images more and more in the public mind, the excitement they brought to the presidency was well established. The American people, or very many of them at least, were thrilled to have such a beautiful and stylish family in the White House. That thrill definitely would have translated into many millions of votes that Kennedy otherwise might not have gotten.

Say what you will about his ability and character. I agree completely that he was not much of a President and that the Kennedy family has been a pox on the nation. But I cannot agree that Nixon or anybody else would have beaten JFK in 1964. Only an assassin's bullet could have kept him from being a two term President.