“McCarthy was an Irish Catholic. Until not long before his Senate runs, he was still a Democrat as most Irish Catholics were. The Wisconsin Democrat party had generally been the weak party. The state was dominated by the Socialist La Follettes who used the Republican Party as a vehicle for their agenda. In the 1930s, the La Follettes split entirely from the Republicans to form the WI Progressive Party. It was during that period that a young McCarthy was a Democrat. With the rise of the WI Republicans again by the late ‘30s and early ‘40s over the Progressives, McCarthy then switched to the GOP. The Democrats had reason to worry that if one of their most valuable bloc voters, Catholics, left the party for the GOP, this could have disastrous consequences nationally.
When McCarthy, on his second try for the Senate in 1946, managed to upend Sen. Robert La Follette, Jr. after he returned to the GOP in the Senate primary, it was nothing short of a revolution in WI. Junior La Follette didn’t take losing very well and ended up committing suicide not long after. McCarthy was a dangerous figure to the Democrats on a number of fronts: he was very popular to the working class Catholics, and secondly when he began to take on the cause of the Soviet infiltration of the government and their sympathizers. He was also using his newfound celebrity to take down left-wing Democrats in the Senate, many of whom were supported by anti-American interests. He was also not well-regarded by the elitist establishment wing of the GOP, which had grown more and more comfortable with Socialism in the post-1932 era.”
Again, Barack Obama ran as a black man during the 2008 and 2012 elections, and despite doing everything he can while in office to completely screw over his representative block in favor of far left donors, he still managed to win re-election in the latter. I’m pretty sure JFK would have pulled something similar if he were truly opportunistic, like how Obama opportunistically backstabbed his so-called fellow blacks, or how the Congressional Black Caucus repeatedly backstabbed their fellow blacks in favor of far left positions, and continue to be voted back in again and again.
And for the record, McCarthy during the McCarthyist period, in fact, during all two terms of his time in the Senate, was actually a Republican, which is the most important point, especially among Democrats (take Nixon for example: It didn’t matter to them that he capitulated to their demands and implemented leftist policies such as Title 4 or created the EPA, they still wanted his blood for exposing Alger Hiss as a Communist to be condemned, made sure he ended up being pressured to resign under Watergate. And bear in mind, Nixon, Kennedy, AND McCarthy were allies regarding anti-Communism.). That if anything would have been even MORE reason to turn against him in favor of the Democrats and thus be opportunistic. Yet they didn’t, they aided and defended him right to the very end. Contrast that with, say, Harry Truman, who refused to listen to Whittaker Chambers and his exposing Alger Hiss as a Soviet agent and also fired MacArthur for his trek into China, or heck, most of the Democrats who turned against McCarthy in a heartbeat, and even several Republicans/Conservatives such as Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Am I saying he’s ideally Conservative? No, not really, JFK is guilty of several left-wing stuff, but he at least did promote some Conservative stuff, which STILL makes him more Conservative than, say, Clinton or Obama.
“And yet it was raw opportunism that motivated the Kennedys in linking themselves to Joe McCarthy. As I said, in the early ‘50s, McCarthy was a hero to Irish Catholic Democrats, especially in Massachusetts. At that time, Jack Kennedy was a Congressman trying to distinguish himself. His paternal grandfather, John Fitzgerald, had also been a Congressman and ran against the grandfather of Lodge, Henry Cabot, Sr. in 1916 for Senator. Politics in Massachusetts had been largely divided between the Protestant Republican Brahmins and Irish Catholic Democrats. When the then-heavily Whig Massachusetts in the 1850s saw the collapse of that party, many members briefly utilized the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party for the interim before the Republican Party was officially organized. Because of this, it bitterly divided the two religious groups. The Protestants feared the incoming Catholics would eventually outpopulate and outvote them in time, which eventually happened. The 1916 race was a warning of things to come. The corrupt, but affable Honey Fitz vs. the stalwart Conservative Lodge Sr. The most serious warning came in 1928 when reliably Republican Massachusetts repudiated Herbert Hoover for NY Irish Catholic Al Smith for President (as did neighboring Rhode Island, which also was heavily GOP, but with a burgeoning Catholic population).
Curiously, Rhode Island Republicans could see the writing on the wall and ran a Quebec-born French Canadian Catholic for Senator in 1928 against an incumbent Democrat, Felix Hebert (same name as a future long-time Democrat Congressman from Louisiana, though no relation). Even as Hoover lost RI, Hebert took the Senate seat and went to DC. Massachusetts, tightly controlled by the GOP Brahmins, largely failed to begin to make inroads into the Catholic population, which remained overwhelmingly Democrat. Flash forward to 1952 and Kennedy is making his run against Cabot, Jr... It would’ve been unimaginable for JFK to go against Joe McCarthy in Massachusetts, even if national Democrats despised him. In this case, religion was thicker than party. Cabot, Jr. was not seen as a particular ally of McCarthy, he was regarded more as the rabble of the Democrat opposition in his state. But former Ambassador Joseph Kennedy realized that it would be McCarthy that would turn the race. His son would ride on McCarthy’s popularity in the state to victory, despite his being a Republican. They cultivated Joe in every way possible (Bobby, of course, went to work for him). Had he repudiated McCarthy, JFK would not have won in 1952, it’s that simple. Although ultimately McCarthy gave a tepid endorsement (solely due to party) to Lodge, there was already the appearance that a JFK win would not be seen as a “bad” thing. Lodge’s problem, too, was that he had jettisoned the old Conservative politics of his grandfather and was a trendy young liberal. Between that and the religious politics of the state, it allowed for the toppling of the Republican majority, and Massachusetts would rapidly move to the Democrat party control (and ultimately, leftward).
I’ll add, too, that when the attacks against McCarthy by the usual suspects began to take its toll on his popularity and when it came time for the “censure” vote against him in 1954, JFK made sure he was conveniently out of the Senate so that he wouldn’t have to vote. Opportunism and cowardice. If he voted against censure, he would’ve been severely damaged as a future Democrat Presidential candidate nationally. If he voted for it, he would’ve been voting against the wishes of his Irish Catholic base, who viewed the attacks on McCarthy because of his religion.”
That never stopped the likes of, say, Harry Truman from firing General MacArthur regarding his trek into China during the Korean War, or his demonizing Whittaker Chambers while he tried to expose that Alger Hiss as a spy, and that was despite his cultivating a pretty big reputation during that time of being a hardline anti-Communist (a reputation, BTW, that’s being pushed in our history books as we speak). If he could do it, JFK most certainly could vote against him openly and not even worry about the Catholic base turning against him. Heck, Obama managed to backstab his own black base multiple times and STILL got reelected despite that, same goes for the so-called Congressional Black Caucus, where despite leaving them even poorer than before they STILL get reelected. And don’t get me started on several other big-name Democrats who went out of their way to ensure McCarthy was demonized, not to mention the likes of Ed Murrow, a CBS newscaster. And again, raw opportunism would have them explicitly siding with the Democrats, stabbing their Irish Catholic base in the back, simply to toe the party line, just as Obama did with his black base, or how the Congressional Black Caucus repeatedly backstabbed the guys they claimed to represent, all for pushing left-wing views.
“But celebrities are still not elected officials. If their power and influence were at stake as elected officials, I guarantee they would’ve changed their tune or be kicked out of office. In the scope of things, Nicholson, Sheen and Terry were not particularly influential political figures. Again, if you think JFK would’ve been a pro-lifer had he lived into the ‘70s and ‘80s (or ‘90s), I think you’re fooling yourself. He was always going to eventually go with the prevailing party opinion. You might have a point had Teddy defended life issues, but that got in the way with appealing to the radical feminist lobby. It would’ve been no different with JFK.”
They may not be elected officials, that much is true, but make no mistake, those actors are politicians, trying to sway public policies, even being members of political organizations such as “Not My War” and ANSWER and other stuff. Can’t get any more political than that. And besides, you clearly haven’t seen how leftist Hollywood celebrities shun anyone who even steps slightly out of line (for goodness sakes, the wife of Ted Nugent actually got shunned by Hollywood just because she happened to be the wife of Ted Nugent, and only revealed this absentmindedly while taking a cell phone call. If they can do that, I’m pretty sure they’d risk their standing by even speaking in favor of being pro-life. In fact, one director, Lionel Chetwynd, was actually barred from making films in Hollywood due to his conservative politics.). In fact, they make Jacobins seem tolerant, that’s how intolerant of any slight dissent they are. Heck, Cher actually pushed for abortion in spite of the fact that she herself was nearly an abortion victim, something which not even Jack Nicholson, himself no stranger to left-wing politics, would never support under any circumstance and made very clear he’d even go against his party if necessary when it came to that issue.
He didn't just run as the "Black Man", but as the alternative to a damaged and divisive Hillary. He won the general election in both instances because neither Republican running were attempting to win, indeed, they were outright ringers who sought to prevent Conservative opposition to Zero.
"I’m pretty sure JFK would have pulled something similar if he were truly opportunistic, like how Obama opportunistically backstabbed his so-called fellow blacks, or how the Congressional Black Caucus repeatedly backstabbed their fellow blacks in favor of far left positions, and continue to be voted back in again and again."
JFK was notoriously opportunistic and cunning. Look at the fraud that was perpetrated in then-Democrat West Virginia in the primaries in a state that was pretty stridently anti-Catholic. Then-Sen. Hubert Humphrey should've won there in 1960 and fraud and payoffs stripped him of a key win. Look, too, that Mr. Civil Rights told his celebrity pal Sammy Davis, Jr. not to marry White actress May Britt lest it hurt him at the polls. And yet so many Black households have a portrait of JFK hanging in a place of prominence next to MLK. These are just two more examples. I just don't know what you're trying to squeeze out of JFK to look statesmanlike or "Conservative." He was an opportunist of the highest order who used fraud and deceit to rise to power, and the damage he ultimately inflicted (and his family) in office and then turning him into a great martyr, has caused this nation most grievously.
"And for the record, McCarthy during the McCarthyist period, in fact, during all two terms of his time in the Senate, was actually a Republican, which is the most important point, especially among Democrats (take Nixon for example: It didn’t matter to them that he capitulated to their demands and implemented leftist policies such as Title 4 or created the EPA, they still wanted his blood for exposing Alger Hiss as a Communist to be condemned, made sure he ended up being pressured to resign under Watergate. And bear in mind, Nixon, Kennedy, AND McCarthy were allies regarding anti-Communism.). That if anything would have been even MORE reason to turn against him in favor of the Democrats and thus be opportunistic. Yet they didn’t, they aided and defended him right to the very end. Contrast that with, say, Harry Truman, who refused to listen to Whittaker Chambers and his exposing Alger Hiss as a Soviet agent and also fired MacArthur for his trek into China, or heck, most of the Democrats who turned against McCarthy in a heartbeat, and even several Republicans/Conservatives such as Dwight D. Eisenhower."
Nixon merely tried to co-opt some left-wing causes, which was a huge mistake. His time to have served as President should've been from 1961-1969. I absolutely believe a President Nixon during that period would've drastically changed the country for the better. Fidel would've been removed, Khruschev could not have gotten the upper hand on Nixon, and the approach in Vietnam would've been different and likely resolved much more quickly. Nixon also probably wouldn't have embarked on a crazy massive government scheme like Great Society. BTW, as for Eisenhower, I think he was a disaster for the Republicans. He was at heart a left-winger and raised by a Socialist father. He didn't take the Soviet infiltration of our government and institutions seriously and allowed the Democrats to grab 2/3rds of the Congress in 1958 and didn't lift a finger to help Nixon. It took over 2 decades to regain the Senate and 4 for the House thanks to Eisenhower and enabled JFK and LBJ to pursue massive government schemes.
"Am I saying he’s ideally Conservative? No, not really, JFK is guilty of several left-wing stuff, but he at least did promote some Conservative stuff, which STILL makes him more Conservative than, say, Clinton or Obama." But he never was ideally Conservative or Conservative, which is the whole point here. He was grossly incompetent and in over his head. He was aided by a corrupt leftist big media establishment to cover up his messes.
"That never stopped the likes of, say, Harry Truman from firing General MacArthur regarding his trek into China during the Korean War, or his demonizing Whittaker Chambers while he tried to expose that Alger Hiss as a spy, and that was despite his cultivating a pretty big reputation during that time of being a hardline anti-Communist (a reputation, BTW, that’s being pushed in our history books as we speak)."
Truman was never a serious anti-Communist. His failures to deal with Korea and China in a decisive and unapologetic manner left us with all the Asian fiascoes for decades to come, right up to today. Truman and MacArthur could've deposed Mao for Chiang, which would've been an instant ally for the U.S., no Kim family horror in the Koreas, no base to provide help for a Communist North Vietnam. The Soviets would've been hemmed in. We should've had a President Patton elected in 1948. He'd have eliminated all those threats and dealt very firmly with the Soviets. I doubt he also would've sat back and allowed a Soviet infiltration of our institutions, either.
"If he could do it, JFK most certainly could vote against him openly and not even worry about the Catholic base turning against him."
He wasn't going to take the risk. He was trying to have it both ways.
"Heck, Obama managed to backstab his own black base multiple times and STILL got reelected despite that, same goes for the so-called Congressional Black Caucus, where despite leaving them even poorer than before they STILL get reelected."
Sadly, since the 1960s, reviewing the political/social pathology of the Black community in what they can tolerate from left-wing politicians could fill books. Not all groups were as masochistic against their own interests. Trump is the first Republican President in the post-1960 period actively working to break them free of that horrific voting habit.
"And don’t get me started on several other big-name Democrats who went out of their way to ensure McCarthy was demonized, not to mention the likes of Ed Murrow, a CBS newscaster."
They all were doing so. These left-wingers were more worried about threats to their livelihoods and being exposed as Soviet sympathizers, so they had to go all out to destroy McCarthy and those of like-mind. These were never newscasters or journalists, they were leftist propagandists. Just as dangerous then as now, with the exception that they were seen as more trustworthy then because few outlets could expose these individuals.
"And again, raw opportunism would have them explicitly siding with the Democrats, stabbing their Irish Catholic base in the back, simply to toe the party line, just as Obama did with his black base, or how the Congressional Black Caucus repeatedly backstabbed the guys they claimed to represent, all for pushing left-wing views."
...as I said above...
"They may not be elected officials, that much is true, but make no mistake, those actors are politicians, trying to sway public policies, even being members of political organizations such as “Not My War” and ANSWER and other stuff."
I never said they weren't "politicians" of a different sort, but that they're not elected officials. Some would have to behave in a different manner if they were elected. Outside of extreme-left areas, these folks would have a hard time getting elected in mainstream areas.
"Can’t get any more political than that. And besides, you clearly haven’t seen how leftist Hollywood celebrities shun anyone who even steps slightly out of line (for goodness sakes, the wife of Ted Nugent actually got shunned by Hollywood just because she happened to be the wife of Ted Nugent, and only revealed this absentmindedly while taking a cell phone call. If they can do that, I’m pretty sure they’d risk their standing by even speaking in favor of being pro-life."
Of course I know, and all too well. They've practiced the "McCarthyism" they've accused of the right since the 1950s. They've all but purged any sane center-right people and forced the rest into remaining quiet, lest they lose their livelihoods. The Blacklist is very real for right-thinking people.
"In fact, one director, Lionel Chetwynd, was actually barred from making films in Hollywood due to his conservative politics.). In fact, they make Jacobins seem tolerant, that’s how intolerant of any slight dissent they are. Heck, Cher actually pushed for abortion in spite of the fact that she herself was nearly an abortion victim, something which not even Jack Nicholson, himself no stranger to left-wing politics, would never support under any circumstance and made very clear he’d even go against his party if necessary when it came to that issue."
Unfortunately, most people don't know who Chetwynd is. A lot of Americans, especially mainstream ones, no longer pay any mind to the leftist causes celebrities endorse. They don't have the pull they once did. They've also generally managed to piss off half their fan base as a result. All that polarization is on them. They made that. They keep pushing it, and they're going to find themselves even more unpopular than ever. When celebutard Taylor Swift decided to open her mouth and weigh in on Tennessee politics, for which she knows nothing about, sounding off like some Stalinist nutter, it permanently damaged her standing with many of her fans and actually inflicted damage to the Democrat candidate she was supporting for Senator, and he dropped 10% in the polls right after. Hollyweird celeb endorsements now are the kiss of death in flyover country.