Posted on 08/25/2018 7:16:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
“JFK had a legendary love life. Did one of his affairs connect him with the mob?” (CNN, promoting its Kennedy family hagiography, March 31, 2018.)
“Legendary” –whether morally-neutral or complimentary or both-- is not exactly the terminology CNN is employing with regard to President Trump’s “love life.”
Consensual and discreet adulterous affairs distant (both time-wise and geographically) from the White House do not qualify a “love life” as “legendary” with CNN.
But apparently, feeding amyl-nitrate poppers to a starstruck 19 year-old, taking her virginity in the very White House bed and directing her to fellate a 50-year old friend while watching does.
Or has CNN forgotten about Mimi Alford? A reminder:
“When a reveler (at a celebrity party) passed around a tray of sex drug amyl nitrate, writes Mimi Alford, the president (JFK) asked her if she wanted to try it. “I said no,’ Alford recalls, ‘but he just went ahead and popped the capsule and held it under my nose. I ran crying from the room".
A few months earlier an aghast Nikita Khrushchev was reading repeated pleadings and cajolings from Fidel Castro to quit pussyfooting around and launch a nuclear strike against the U.S. Just as the shaken Khrushchev frantically ordered his officers in Cuba to keep Fidel Castro and Che Guevara FAR AWAY from the launch buttons! and get the missiles OUT!”—at this very time JFK was romping in the White house bed with the 19 year-old Mimi Alford!
Mere months earlier dozens of Cuban exiles (many of them college kids about Mimi Alford’s age) were infiltrating Cuba and bringing out eye-witness reports of what remains the biggest military threat to the U.S. since 1812. In the process dozens were also dying by firing squad and torture at the hands of Castro and Che Guevara’s KGB- tutored secret police.
For all the good the Cubans did:
“Nothing but refugee rumors,” sneered JFK’s National Security advisor, McGeorge Bundy on ABC’s Issues and Answers on October 14, 1962. “Nothing in Cuba presents a threat to the United States,” continued the Ivy League luminary, barely masking his scorn for these hot-headed and deceitful Cubans and their sensational reports of missiles. “There’s no likelihood that the Soviets or Cubans would try and install an offensive capability in Cuba,” he scoffed.
And for all the thanks the Cubans got:
“There's fifty-odd-thousand Cuban refugees in this country," sneered President Kennedy himself the following day, "all living for the day when we go to war with Cuba. They're the ones putting out this kind of stuff."
Exactly 48 hours later U-2 photos sat on the President’s desk revealing those “refugee rumors,” complete with nuclear warheads, and pointed directly at Bundy, JFK and their entire staff of sagacious Ivy League wizards.
"We ended up getting exactly what we'd wanted all along,” snickered Khrushchev in his memoirs regarding Kennedy’s “resolution” of the resulting “crisis.”: “Security for Fidel Castro's regime and American missiles removed from Turkey. Until today, the U.S. has complied with her promise to not interfere with Castro and to not allow anyone else to interfere with Castro [italics mine].
After the Missile Crisis "resolution," the U.S. Coast Guard and even the British navy (when some intrepid exile freedom fighters moved their operation to the Bahamas and Kennedy notified his chum, British PM Harold Mc Millan of their intrepidness) shielded Castro from exile attacks. In the Florida Keys and Bahamas they were arresting and disarming the very exiles the CIA had been training and arming the month before.
In his diaries Khrushchev snickers further: "it would have been ridiculous for us to go to war over Cuba–for a country 8,000 miles away. For us, war was unthinkable." So much for the threat that so rattled the Knights of Camelot and inspired such cinematic and literary epics of drama and derring-do by their court scribes and court cinematographers (i.e. the MSM and Hollywood.)
Eighteen months after the botched Bay of Pigs invasion, two months after his deal with Khrushchev (and shortly after the amyl-nitrate party) a guilt-stricken JFK ransomed the surviving Bay of Pigs freedom-fighters back from Castro's dungeons. Living under a daily firing-squad sentence for almost two years these Cuban freedom-fighters –aware it would probably save their lives--had refused to sign the confession damning the “U.S. Imperialists” (the very nation, which for all they knew at the time, that had betrayed them on that beachhead.) “We will die with dignity!” responded their second-in-command Erneido Oliva to his furious KGB-trained interrogators, again and again and again.
To Castroites such an attitutde not only enrages, but baffles.
On Dec. 29, 1962, these Cuban freedom fighters, many on crutches others in wheelchairs gathered with their destitute and traumatized families in Miami’s Orange Bowl to hear President Kennedy address them. “I am here today not to be honored—but to pay honor,” intoned the U.S. president. “I know of no men in modern history who showed more courage under more difficult conditions than those before me today.”
The president continued in this vein and upon completing his tribute the Cuban freedom-fighters handed him their sacred battle flag, a gesture which surprised and seemed to deeply move the U.S. president.
“I promise to deliver this Brigade banner to you in a free Havana!" he beamed at the freedom-fighters and their loved-ones.
The stadium erupted: “CUBA LIBRE!” yelled the delirious crowd while hugging and cheering and sobbing. “CUBA-LIBRE!” yelled men (and boys) who’d snickered in the face of KGB torturers weeks earlier, but now wept openly. The hour of liberation seemed nigh, and with the full backing of “The Leader of the Free World.”
But AH!--two months earlier this same Leader of the Free World had made a different pledge to Khrushchev, ensuring anything but a Cuba Libre; promising, in fact, that Havana would remain Communist, as enforced by U.S. arms.
And the following fifty years showed which pledge the U.S. honored. The pledge to the Butcher of Budapest to preserve Castroite Stalinism has proven sacrosanct--while the pledge of liberty to the men who risked their lives to warn the U.S. of the greatest threat in her history was trashed.
Mimi Alford, on the other hand, claims the president was always perfectly honest with her.
William F. Buckley led the charge against the Birchers, supposedly because their founder REALLY hated Ike and Buckley just didn’t like their style.
>>There is no even handed justice.<<
Even-handed justice, symbolized by Lady Justice with her blindfold and her weigh scale, has always been a fiction and always will be. “Justice” is whatever he who holds the power says it is. Read Machiavelli for the true story.
>>LBJ besides Obama, was probably the worse and most dangerous president, America has ever had.<<
Have you overlooked the Peanut?
Well, given that Dan White was of the same party as Milk, Moscone and Feinstein, this was really an internecine party spat.
Sinatra had gone all out to make his Las Vegas home suitable for the President and his entourage. It was “understood” that JFK would be coming out to enjoy his hospitality and friendship. Instead, JFK backstabbed him and portrayed Frank and any relationship with him as looking like some mafia-style affiliation. He not only refused to stay or visit with Frank after all the trouble he went through (nevermind the extra mile he went through during the campaign), JFK opted to stay with Bing Crosby and his family (Bing was a Republican) instead.
It was a personal sleight that Frank never forgave.
>>The democrat party today may not survive but whatever happens to it, it is highly likely the leadership of that corrupt evil franchise will be decapitated. They exhibit the absolute worst in human character. JFK was the polar opposite of that evil.<<
Not sure I would agree with every point of you’ve made, but your post is well-written and very informative.
With respect to Civil Rights legislation, I’d have probably gone line by line to see if any of it violated the personal rights of others in an attempt to try to rectify past discrimination. You can’t remedy it by making it OK to then shift an unfair advantage to others.
Some of it went too far in that regard (why Goldwater opposed the ‘64 version). My approach would’ve been more along the lines of color-blind laws. I’ve never approved of laws that force private citizens or business to HAVE to comply with service in violation of their own beliefs, that’s involuntary servitude. Conversely, if you’re a White restaurant owner in a Black neighborhood and refuse them service, you’re pretty much deserving to go out of business. Convincing businesses via peaceful protest (as was done at the time) to change policies was the right way to go.
Alas, if the Reconstruction Laws had been kept in place or enforced, it would not have been necessary for what went on in the 1950s and ‘60s. And, of course, full and free exercise of voting rights as well.
To the overwhelming majority of Blacks, Zero’s nomination was seen as something that for the longest time could never happen — the nomination of a Black person to the highest office (of course, had he chosen to, Colin Powell could’ve had it in 1996 for the asking from the GOP - but his excuse was that he thought he’d have been assassinated). Even if they didn’t agree with him and his policies, it was seen as a seminal event in the history of the country. Sadly, all the sturm und drang was for someone who was utterly unqualified for the office (natural born citizen or not). It was the flip side to MLK’s argument about the content of their character - this was someone who rose up on skin color and superficiality. No one could even point to any substantive accomplishments during his time in the state legislature or U.S. Senate (curiously, of course, to show how much the Dems were late to the party with Black folks, he was the first Black male Dem Senator in 2004 — only 134 years after the Republicans sent Hiram Revels to the body from MS).
In a country where character, integrity and accomplishment matters, he’d have never been remotely seen for any office higher than perhaps Alderman from Chicago (and not due to race - he simply was that unaccomplished, ineffective and incompetent). Even in 2004, Ambassador Alan Keyes was far more qualified for the Senate seat, but because he was a Conservative Republican, he was considered a non-entity by the media and other leftist pundits, despite already having run for President. If the GOP side had received such fawning coverage as Democrats do, Keyes would’ve been elevated to the Presidency.
The “parties switched sides” is one of the most egregious lies and talking points put forth by the left. Simply not one iota of truth to it. Now while you may have some policies here and there where there may be differences over the decades, to say they simply swapped policies is as categorically false as they come. I no more agreed with the policies of the 1930s/40s Democrat Party (when the trolls claim was REALLY GOP) then I do with today’s.
Al Smith, to his credit, soured on FDR and his “New Deal” and moved to the right. Although how much was jealousy (Smith was really the one deserving of a rematch in 1932) and how much was genuine disgust at seeing full-on Socialism implemented is worthy of closer scrutiny. A President Smith might’ve ended up doing the exact same thing from 1933-onwards.
The best President we could’ve hoped for is if Cactus Jack Garner had been sworn in due to FDR’s assassination in Miami (instead of or including Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak). Garner, I believe, would’ve pursued the more proper austere path with the government. Holding the line, as many Governors did (even Democrat ones), cutting government, spending and taxes, could’ve seen a recovery by 1936. It was the mismanagement during the Depression, both here and abroad, that paved the way for demagogues to ascend to power (FDR, Hitler, et al).
The only decent appointee of JFK’s to the Cabinet or SCOTUS was Byron White. I’ll bet had he known White would be center-right, he’d have put another person on the court.
They use the term "conservative" because they were the party of the racist Dixie-Crats.
You replied to this before I did. :-P As I said, does deserve a closer bit of scrutiny. As an aside, if only because it came with a nice frame, I have an autographed photo of Gov. Smith on my bedroom wall.
It’s funny how the Dems are frequently pushing new laws and/or amendments, yet the Constitution and existing laws on personal rights and freedoms are already blatantly and flagrantly ignored and violated (the 10th and the 13th).
I certainly agree with them on Article V. I wouldn’t trust a national constitutional convention for a second.
Pragmatism won until Obama's people forced and coerced a universal pre-stage health control. And 'Republican' McCain turned his thumb down on its repeal.
But ... by the time of Obama, Americans could see that both Democrats and Republicans had used the Social Security Trust Fund as a slush fund for pet causes. So it was, that they viewed an extension of government control to healthcare with suspicion.
But back in JFK's day, this view was not foreseeable because Social Security was solid simply because there were more pay-ins than there were pay-outs. There was a ratio of 14:1, today it less than 2:1. Social Security is virtually bankrupt. That is a product of GREED on both sides of the aisle.
Take Candidate Donald Trump's favoring transgender restrooms. He received a firestorm of flak for condoning that issue. The very next day he stated that it was a states rights issue which it indeed is. People are not perfect. Certainly, JFK wasn't.
JFK did not receive a firestorm of flak for his government healthcare advocacy because Americans were not aware it was impractical and so costly. The reason it did not go further is that labor unions were against it. The labor unions back in that day were patriotic and conservative for the most part. There were leftwing fringes but the shift to the extreme leftwing of the spectrum happened after JFK. During his day, the labor unions were populated by WWII veterans who were diehard democrats and patriots to their core. If you knew the history of the Republicans and their cozy arrangement with Wall St. banks back then, you too might be anti-GOP. The GOP was viewed as controlled by Rockefellers who were hated by rank and file labor union members.
The reason that labor unions were so against government healthcare is that a big perk from the WWII days for union members were the healthcare benefits. When wages were frozen in the war effort, the unions countered by winning health benefits for their members.
Know history. Know its context. Ask yourself if you would have thought different if you had lived then.
Many posters and readers on this thread, if they were transported back in time to when JFK was Senator or President, would not know the true dangers of government-run healthcare. It was a different time and context then.
Remember Reagan was a Democrat who backed FDR policies. He woke up and switched in 1964 after JFK had been assassinated. When Reagan saw the real aim and evil of progressives in his own union, Reagan made the switch. JFK was before that switch.
Reagan and JFK were both Democrats at the same time. My God, these men were not all-knowing, they could not predict the future, they could not see all dangers and threats of all policy proposals. They relied on others to scope things out. Those others were of the FDR era. And FDR was never considered a monster. He was wrong-headed but not everything in his terms were bad.
Today we have 20-20 hindsight. We can thumb our noses and look down at those in history. But they didn't have the 20-20 we have. So I will not condemn them. I can tell you with 100% certainty this, JFK was not a communist, he was a patriot and a conservative in the context of his time. Whereas Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist today who has more than a century of history to know just how wrongheaded he is, yet he continues to push his garbage ideology on people.
In history, after Reagan made the switch to the GOP, he talked of government subsidized healthcare. In his most famous speech "A Time for Choosing", he made these statements:
Most readers of Olsen’s book will be surprised to learn that Reagan embraced universal coverage. In “A Time for Choosing” — Reagan’s celebrated conservative manifesto delivered at Goldwater’s 1964 Republican National Convention — Reagan declared, “No one in this country should be denied medical care for lack of funds.” In a speech to the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce — in Goldwater’s backyard — Reagan said, “Any person in the United States who requires medical attention and cannot provide for himself should have it provided for him.”
While Reagan opposed “compulsory health insurance through a government bureau for people who don’t need it or who have . . . even a few million dollars tucked away,” he championed the Kerr-Mills Act of 1960, a law introduced by two Democrats that gave federal money to states with which to provide medical care for the elderly in need. Reagan said that he was “in favor of this bill — and if the money isn’t enough, I think we should put up more.”
When JFK was advocating government healthcare, Reagan was sharing in its aim. But there was a big difference. Reagan lived far longer than JFK and was thus able to adjust his views over time. Reagan was more practical and pragmatic, he was less idealistic than JFK but both men had America's best interests in mind.
Did JFK's misguided push for government healthcare warrant his assassination? He was dead wrong on government-run healthcare. If he were alive today and President, I would bet he would have given a thumbs down and caused formation of a commission to study ways that healthcare could be delivered to those struggling. But that's me. That's how I view JFK 'adjusting over time' if he had had the opportunity.
I am not advocating at all that JFK was a Saint or that every thought of his was beamed down divinely from above.
Here is where I am coming from:
#1082
Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: a0205a No.952914 📁 Apr 8 2018 13:15:14 (EST) POTUS & JFK JR. Relationship. Plane crash 1999. HRC Senate 2000. The “Start.” Enjoy the show. Q
The background chatter behind the 1999 JFK Jr. plane crash was it was no accident and that its occurrence is what turned Donald Trump against the mafia-like control of the Clinton crime syndicate. Another FR poster has stated and I agree that the Clinton Foundation was a CIA front, and I agree with many that the CIA was behind the JFK assassination with a role by George Herbert Walker Bush.
Consider that 38-year old NY University law grad JFK Jr. known to be devoted to public service had the Senate seat of retiring Senator Daniel Moynihan for the asking. JFK Jr. was 65% favorable and according to close friends was seriously considering a run despite Hillary announcing her run. Could JFK Jr. have been part of the Clinton body count? You damn betcha! And the chatter is that this is what turned Donald Trump around, 1999 and he was eventually approached by Military Patriots to agree to plan a run for the Presidency, and Donald was known back then to talk publicly that he might be interested. All of this stemming from the death of JFK Jr. whose popularity was so prevalent in New York, that he could have walked into the US Senate for the asking.
And what did we see following the above Q post? We saw dozens of conspiracy theories planted throughout social media and ultimately the MSM that Q said JFK Jr. faked his own death and was the real Q. That is ludicrous and Q never posted any such thing. But the knuckleheads that planted and repeated this garbage revealed their hand. They claimed that 'Q Cultists' were behind this garbage. This media effort was aimed at turning the public against Q and Q followers by smearing them with this insane conspiracy theory that they themselves concocted. And they did this after the Q posts referencing JFK and JFK Jr. And Q never posted ONE WORD about JFK Jr. faking his death. That was all due to liars, frauds, and imposters.
And just who were the knuckleheads that promoted this 'JFK Jr. is Q' garbage? My suspicion is they are of the same ilk of liars as Peter Strzok who was a CIA kid. They are minions of Mockingbird media. In my view, I would not be surprised if their funding was laundered after originating from CIA bank accounts and I have knowledge of CIA accounts worldwide. I have encountered people on the international stage that are beyond despicable, the type of people that would lie to their own mothers, steal the gold wedding rings of their grandmothers. In fake media, it's what the rogue criminals of the CIA do, they plant outrageous stories to make people or groups look bad. It boils down to state propaganda as part of a psychological war on public sentiment.
CIA'S USE OF JOURNALISTS
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/ciasuseofjournal00unit.pdf
Now, why would I, a level-headed conservative, who was never prone to conspiracy theories, think the CIA was behind the assassination of JFK? I never gave it much time to study all the cottage industry that had sprung up around the JFK Assassination but there were a few items of recent that came in the news that made up my mind. First, I was and am pissed off for life at the Bush family after having supported them earlier in my life. I am part of millions who are pissed off for life because they told the SEC to stand down on the criminal events of the banksters who blew up the mortgage markets and stole trillions while countless Americans lost all they had, families broken up, heartbreaks, divorce. hard work gone up in smoke caused and ignited by effing criminals in Wall St. Hedge Funds and Fed Member Banks. There is a story there that could easily fill 50 pages, all backed by irrefutable references and official transcripts, but that's for later. So the Bush family is on my permanent forever sh*t list.
POTUS declassified some JFK documents and it was revealed Lee Harvey Oswald was associated with the CIA. That was never before known to the general public. Anyone suggesting such a relation would be branded as a 'conspiracy theorist'.
POTUS has held back on further declassifying JFK documents. Many including me believe he is waiting for the elder Bush to die because the documents will implicate Bush in the conspiracy to assassinate.
There's more but it's enough to know that Q is resonating with those that are wise and are enabled via today's 'connectivity' to see the fairy tales of the JFK assassination originated from liars who are likely CIA or CIA trained and funded. This is plausible and is headed in this direction for confirmation.
Where I am coming from is that we should not give these media shills the time of day. They want to conjure up images of JFK inappropriately allowing himself to be led around by his pee-pee, why now? My position is IT IS NOW AT THIS TIME NOT RELEVANT! WHAT IS RELEVANT IS WE STAY FOCUSED ON THE DEEP STATE AND AWOKE TO THEIR DECEPTION!
There is a well-known phenom on the battlefield known as THE FOG OF WAR. This is a situation where it is difficult to know and see where the enemy is and the danger is having your own side fire at you or you fire back.
Be careful, do not lose your focus! The focus is on taking down the DEEP STATE who are hellbent on taking down the best President in more than a generation. And if you want precision on a definition of Deep State, look it up. It's easy to find.
Here is another Q post that indirectly supports that JFK was assassinated by a criminal conspiracy:
#703
Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 237dde No.324395 📁 Feb 10 2018 03:33:29 (EST) “Rest in peace Mr. President (JFK), through your wisdom and strength, since your tragic death, Patriots have planned, installed, and by the grace of God, activated, the beam of LIGHT. We will forever remember your sacrifice. May you look down from above and continue to guide us as we ring the bell of FREEDOM and destroy those who wish to sacrifice our children, our way of life, and our world. We, the PEOPLE.” Prayer said every single day in the OO. JFK - Secret Socities. Where we go one, we go all. Q
Now if Q is a legitimate insider, then there you have it. Said every day in the OO = Oval Office. President Trump is avenging the deaths of JFK and JFK Jr. And as POTUS with the assistance of Military Intelligence gets closer to avenging them, there will be MORE AND MORE SCREAMS AND RANTS OF WHAT A MONSTER JFK WAS!
I am PUTTING ASIDE any salacious discussion of JFK and I am focusing on the Deep State actors that have already attempted more than a dozen assassinations on POTUS and who will attempt to start a war or arrange for a shocking False Flag that will take the focus off them. Their aim is to divide us and distract us.
bagster, are you in fair agreement to the above?
True, Smith later became very vehemently anti-New Deal, though you're right that its hard to say whether he sincerely came to see the harm of big government socialism or whether he was bitter at FDR for stealing his thunder in the Democrat Party and wanted to "strike back" and damage him politically.
Knowing what we know now, if I could get in a time machine and go back to 1928, I would have backed Smith over Hoover. But, going by the cards we were dealt and not knowing what would happen, any conservative would have naturally be drawn more to Hoover than Smith in 1928. Hoover ran as the "more conservative" pro-buisness, pro-free markets candidate and criticized Smith for favoring European-style social policy ideas for the country. Too bad Hoover folded like a cheap suit while in office.
>> The only decent appointee of JFK’s to the Cabinet or SCOTUS was Byron White. I’ll bet had he known White would be center-right, he’d have put another person on the court. <<
Good point, the "JFK was more conservative than today's Republicans" kool-aid drinkers (most of whom have left this thread because they can't defend their arguments) would have us believe that there were "tons" of "conservative policies" advocated by JFK, but the ONLY two they can continually argue is that he cut taxes once and gave lip-service about how communism is bad all the time. I'm surprised they haven't tried to add the "JFK appointed conservative SCOTUS judge Byron White" to their propaganda list, and just ignore the fact that JFK fully INTENDED to appoint a "progressive", liberal judge who would be a puppet for labor unions and uphold lots of new government regulations. Had JFK lived to the 1970s, he would have reacted to White's vote on the Roe v. Wade decision the same way Eisenhower reacted to Earl Warren in the 60s: "appointing him was the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made".
In any case, if we gave JFK "credit" for appointing a "conservative" (or at least right-of-center) judge, it would be cancelled out by appointing an awful left-wing judge, though Goldberg only lasted five years and isn't remembered much today, his decisions certainly helped move the playing field to the left significantly.
>> William F. Buckley led the charge against the Birchers, supposedly because their founder REALLY hated Ike and Buckley just didn’t like their style. << <<
Interesting. Weird that Buckley hated the Birchers, I would say that the Buckley era National Review and the 1960s-1970s Birchers probably agreed on 90% of the issues.
I heard the John Birch Society called fringe and extremist because they were "anti-semetic" and called ANYONE who disagreed with them a communist. Since most "far right" groups today are very pro-Israel and constantly fawn over Jews, I suppose that would make the Birchers more like the Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul type wing of the GOP. But that idealogy is traditionally very anti-war and screams "neo-con" at everyone else and accuses them of being puppets for the war machine, whereas I believe the John Birch society was very PRO "strong military policy" and was accused by their detractors as wanting to start World War III.
>> They use the term "conservative" because they were the party of the racist Dixie-Crats. <<
Ah, but its also a myth that most of the Dixiecrats were "conservative". A handful of them were (mainly because the deep south was one a one-party system at the time, so if you were conservative and wanted to get elected, you HAD to become a Democrat), but tons of Dixiecrats were very left-wing economically and loved the federal gravy train and New Deal programs. Both the mainstream media and modern day neo-confederates want to erase that unpleasent fact from history.
Disagree entirely. You make it sound like Reagan went from being a FDR-loving New Dealer to a rock-ribbed Goldwater conservative overnight, and woke up in shock one day after JFK was dead and LBJ's "Great Society" was in place, had a "come to Jesus" moment, and decided to speak out against it.
In reality, Reagan's views shifted gradually. Reagan began to move rightward in the 1950s when he was a spokesman for General Electric. As Reagan's views became increasingly conservative, he found "his" party's nominees held positions he could not stomach, so Reagan crossed over to support the other party's nominee and was a "Democrat for Eisenhower" twice, and then a "Democrat for Nixon" in 1960, before he finally gave up on the RATs for good and switched parties in 1962 -- while JFK was STILL president, HAD'T been assassinated yet, and while the Dems were supposedly STILL "patriotic and conservative", according to the history revisionists on this board. (in reality, the RATs were heavily left-wing and socialist in 1962, and had been since around 1900 or so)
Reagan and Kennedy were both Democrats in the early 60s, but going in completely different directions. The old guard Massachusetts Democrat political machine was becoming increasingly liberal and morphing into the godless marxist entity it is today, while Reagan was becoming uniformly conservative and disagreed with Kennedy on virtually every issue back then.
Socialized medicine WAS a big issue on the table in 1960, it WAS controversial back then, and the Bernie-Sanders like talking points Kennedy used at the time WERE considered very polarizing. To shield himself from criticism, Kennedy used the standard "if you don't agree with me, you just want old people to get sick and suffer and die", which has been a standard RAT talking point for decades, both before AND after the Kennedy era (Truman used it way back in the 40s as well)
Reagan was just at the start of his political career while Kennedy was at his peak, but Reagan was one of the most outspoken conservatives on the OPPOSING side of socialized medicine, and recorded his famous "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine" rebuttal way back in 1961, the very time Kennedy was in his first year in office and trying to get his socialist plans off the ground. Reagan nailed it perfectly -- the RATs couldn't get away with calling it socialism at the time, but COULD sell it to the public as liberalism. It was a direct response to what the Dems were pushing AT THE TIME Kennedy was in power, not AFTER Kennedy was killed and they supposed "changed" and "became" liberal.
Unfortunately, the Reagan/Kennedy overlap in politics only lasted about 3 years. What I would give to see Reagan debate Kennedy face to face in 1962. He would have torn Kennedy a new one and exposed his socialist agenda for America, and all the Kennedy fanboys on this board would stand there with mouths agasp as "conservative, patriotic" Kennedy spewed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez type talking points, and Reagan shot it all down.
John F. Kennedy Speaks Out FOR Socialized Medicine, 1961
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ILqHSH4X_w&t=42s
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine, 1961
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDnxxsjVr20
Here’s an interesting exert I dug up. It’s text from Ronald Reagan’s letter to Richard Nixon in 1960, when Reagan was still a Democrat but crossing over to support the Republican nominee that year:
Starting with the opening speech and continuing through all the speeches until Kennedy’s acceptance speech, I thought the Democrats could pick up some campaign money by selling the collection of addresses as ‘Talks suitable for any patriotic occasion with platitudes and generalities guaranteed.’ I do not include Kennedy’s acceptance speech because beneath the generalities I heard a frightening call to arms. Unfortunately, he is a powerful speaker with an appeal to the emotions. He leaves little doubt that his idea of the ‘challenging new world’ is one in which the Federal Government will grow bigger and do more and of course spend more. I know there must be some short-sighted people in the Republican Party who will advise that the Republicans should try to ‘out liberal’ him. In my opinion this would be fatal.
You were kind enough to invite me to comment on the ‘talk’ I had given and which you had read. That is why I’m speaking on this subject in more than 38 states to audiences of Democrats and Republicans. Invariably the reaction is a standing ovation - not for me but for the views expressed. I am convinced that America is economically conservative and for that reason I think someone should force the Democrats to publish the ‘retail price’ for this great new war of ‘public service’ they promise. I don’t pose as an infallible pundit but I have a strong feeling that the 20 million nonvoters in this country just might be conservatives who have cynically concluded the two parties offer no choice between them where fiscal stability is concerned. No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote; but a Republican bucking the giveaway trend might re-create some voters who have been staying home.
One last thought - shouldn’t someone tag Mr. Kennedy’s bold new imaginative program with its proper age? Under the tousled boyish haircut is still old Karl Marx - first launched a century ago. There is nothing new in the idea of a Government being Big Brother to us all. Hitler called his ‘State Socialism’ and way before him it was ‘benevolent monarchy.’
I apologize for taking so much of your time but I have such a yearning to hear someone come before us and talk specifics instead of generalities. I’m sure the American people do not want the government paid services at ‘any price’ and if we collectively can’t afford this and that, they’d like to know it before they buy and not after it is entrenched behind another immovable government bureau.
You will be very much in my prayers in the days ahead.
Sincerely, RONNIE REAGAN
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/27/us/on-the-record-text-of-1960-reagan-letter.html
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.