Posted on 04/18/2020 3:52:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Filth, scum and degenerates.
Yes, yes.
Boy, those 1978 midterms were sure not great, plus only 15 in the House and 2 in the Senate? Very, lame. Few could have been optimistic on 1980 based on that.
The GOP was still in a weak position in 1978 (still post-Watergate) and didn’t have any strong leaders in D.C. that could go out and drastically help pad the numbers in Congress.
Because the GOP had done (relatively) well in the 1972 Senate elections, there wasn’t a whole lot of targets for 1978. They still did fairly well in 1978 knocking off 4 weak freshmen (an indicator for 1980 that the 1974 class would be in trouble) and a 5th retired of his own accord.
In Colorado, GOP Rep. Bill Armstrong routed Sen. Floyd Haskell by a 59-40% margin (of course, we failed to take out Gary Hart in 1980, but because the weakest of the 3 nominees was put up, a woman, and she still almost beat Hart).
In Iowa, Ex-Lt. Gov. Roger Jepsen took out Sen. Dick Clark, 51-48% (unfortunately, Jepsen would be a key seat lost in 1984 to the execrable Tom Harkin).
In Maine, Rep. Bill Cohen took out 1972 fluke upset winner over Margaret Chase Smith, Sen. Bill Hathaway, by a massive 57-34% margin.
Minnesota was the “big haul” (much like Tennessee in 1994), where the Governorship and both Senate seats all flipped to Republican. David Durenberger took Humphrey’s seat by a wide 61-35% margin over centrist Dem pro-lifer Bob Short. Rudy Boschwitz similarly blitzed Sen. Wendy Anderson (who made a huge error in appointing himself to Walter Mondale’s seat as Governor), 57-40%.
In Mississippi, then-Rep. Thad Cochran won the Senate seat for the first time since Reconstruction when James Eastland retired. But what worked in his favor is that the Dems split the vote, as he won with just 45%. White Dems nominated Maurice Dantin (who got 32%) and Black Dems nominated Charles Evers (a future Republican), and he got 23%. This racial and party split worked to the advantage of the GOP in the state with the federal races.
In New Hampshire, little-known Gordon Humphrey achieved probably the biggest GOP upset of the cycle, taking out 3-term Dem. Sen. Tom McIntyre by 51-49%, whom the GOP had tried desperately to defeat in 1962, 1966 and 1972.
In South Dakota, freshman Democrat Sen. Jim Abourezk opted out of running again rather than face bitter rival (and world-class flake) Rep. Larry Pressler. Pressler won 67-33% against desultory opposition. Abourezk, even in the private sector, would remain a huge thorn in Pressler’s side and took personal credit 18 years later in 1996 for helping Pressler lose to Rep. Tim Johnson.
The GOP losses were Massachusetts Senator Ed Brooke, who was weak going into the election, with both an ugly divorce and almost losing to Avi Nelson in the primary because of his very left-wing record. The left was somewhat torn on supporting him, they did want to support “a Black guy”, but he was still a Republican. Then Rep. Paul Tax-on-Gas may have tried running slightly to his right (may have). Conservatives in MA were voting for DINO Ed King for Governor, and then might’ve pushed Tsongas over the top, and he did win by a wide 10% margin (55-45%). Avi Nelson would’ve probably been a stronger candidate, though MA being what it is, Tsongas still probably would’ve won.
Michigan was a heartbreaker. Sen. Bob Griffin really wanted to retire after 2 terms and a partial (although he’d been in D.C. for 22 years since he was just 33), but vacillated, missed scores of votes in 1977 and changed his mind just as Rep. Phil Ruppe was gearing up to run (and Ruppe dropped out entirely, including reelection to his House seat and later made a run in 1982 against Sen. Don Riegle). Carl Levin exploited his absences and GOP dissatisfaction with Griffin (the huge problem was that Griffin was so convinced in 1976 that Ford would win, I think he expected that would open up more opportunities for him, and he was obviously depressed by the results and didn’t show up enough to work).
In hindsight, Griffin should’ve retired outright and let Ruppe run instead. He might’ve been able to hold the seat as Levin wouldn’t have been able to run against an “absent” and “flaky” Senator. Levin won 52-48%. Not since 1972 have we won that seat (Gary Peters now occupies it - hopefully John James will take it back after 42 years).
Nebraska’s Carl Curtis retired and left the GOP with a weak candidate who was obliterated by Gov. Jim Exon, 68-32%. Curtis probably should’ve run again, though Exon still probably would’ve prevailed. It was unfortunate that with Zorinsky’s win 2 years earlier, a heavy GOP state like NE would have 2 Dem Senators.
New Jersey had the Socialist-left incumbent RINO Cliff Case running in the primary, but was taken out by Conservative Jeff Bell. The bitterness of the campaign allowed Dem Ben Bradley to win by a 55-43% margin over Bell. Bradley might still have won had Case been the nominee again. Conservatives were not going to vote for him.
Oklahoma freshman GOP Sen. Dewey Bartlett was dying of lung cancer and opted not to run (he died in March 1979). The GOP ran a poor candidate, Robert Kamm (OSU-Stillwater President) against Gov. David Boren, whose approvals were stratospheric, and he won 66-33%.
Other than these, the only other GOP opportunities were the special election in AL (where former Rep. Jim Martin managed 43% to left-leaning Don Stewart’s 55%), and the GOP didn’t contest Howell Heflin’s race that year.
Against then-freshman Biden in DE (he won 58% against a lesser-known opponent).
KY freshman Dem Dee Huddleston, who won 61-37%.
Montana, where Larry Williams (father of actress Michelle Williams) ran a respectable race against Rep. Max Baucus, though still lost 56-44%.
And the last being in West Virginia, where ex-Gov. Arch Moore should’ve been the victor, but lost by a single point to long-time incumbent Dem Jennings Randolph (whose race was largely bankrolled by then-Gov. Jay Rockefeller, outspending Moore 5-to-1, so that Rockefeller could ease himself into the seat in 1984, or earlier if the past-his-prime Randolph croaked). Had Moore won instead of going back to the Governorship in 1985, when he got in serious trouble, he’d have probably held the seat from 1979 until at least 1997 and Rockefeller would’ve been shut out (unless he would’ve taken on Robert Byrd).
Thanks for the write up. I did not know that about Michelle Williams.
Check this out
A jerk off scenario, but just imagine. Why the hell was Brooke a Republican? Boston dems too racist?
I couldn’t get the 2nd page of the article to load.
Brooke was establishment liberal, to be sure, but he was not a radical, certainly not in his time. In fact, he was extraordinarily alarmed by the radical left and the race-baiting hustlers and violent agitators (Black Panthers). As you’ll remember, even Hillary despised him and attacked him at that function where he gave a speech.
He was not going to be a Democrat, since a lot of the base of the party were the White working class (the Boston version of the Archie Bunkers). They were not big on Civil Rights (the Kennedys certainly weren’t). He was also raised in D.C., so its likely his parents were Republicans of the era. The MA GOP recognized him having star potential after he nearly won the Secretary of the Commonwealth race in 1960 (losing to future Boston Mayor Kevin White) and then-Gov. John Volpe brought him into his administration where he was able to win the Attorney General race in 1962 (even as Volpe lost reelection).
Of course, what brought him down in 1978 was twofold. His public divorce from his Italian-born wife, and the fact that he was just too left-wing for the GOP by then. Minus the divorce, he might’ve survived reelection in ‘78, but barring a change of direction, he’d have been out-of-step under President Reagan (he had endorsed Anderson, at least in the primaries). A better alternative would’ve been for Reagan to have made him HUD Secretary and had Gov. Ed King appoint himself to the vacancy and switch parties.
But to the point in the article, had Brooke been seriously considered by Nixon in 1972, it would’ve been a fiasco ultimately. The base would’ve been enraged by his supplanting Agnew, a populist-Conservative “hero”, for a liberal establishment politician Brooke. I don’t think it might’ve had much of an impact at all in moving Blacks back to the GOP en masse (at least for the ticket). Indeed, I think there would’ve been a 3rd party backlash in 1972 with Conservatives. Nixon might’ve gotten 20% of the Black vote - maybe - which would still have been lower than the 25-to- 1/3rd he got in 1960, still the highest in 60 years.
It’s hard to overstate how radicalized the Black community and vote was by 1972. Brooke going on the GOP ticket for VP would’ve been regarded with contempt and he would’ve been seen as a sell-out. See what the Black community did to poor Sammy Davis, Jr. after his endorsement of Nixon.
Had Brooke then succeeded Nixon in 1974, a big question would be if he would’ve pardoned him. Brooke was known for going after “wrong-doers” in MA as Attorney-General. He would’ve been torn badly on the issue as Ford was. If he had done the opposite, gone on tv and said, “No one is above the law, not even the President.” While the media would’ve relished that, and perhaps quite a number of Americans, as Ford himself opined, it would’ve ripped the country apart even further, and it was in bad shape by August 1974.
Ultimately, as President, Brooke would’ve probably rubber-stamped most of the Democrat agenda going into 1976. Almost assuredly Reagan would’ve defeated him. But what would the country have looked like during and after the trial of ex-President Nixon ? Would Nixon have exposed the epic-level “Deep State” corruption of that era (which worked against him) and shown the nation the two different sets of rules ? All curious to see as an academic exercise, but not likely in reality.
So in conclusion, Brooke was not the person to lead the nation at that time.
He was sexy.
Honestly, I’d argue Ethel’s going senile, sort of like how Roe of Roe v. Wade seemingly “recanted” her support for Pro-Life causes before her death due to going senile. Somehow, I don’t think the guy who literally tried to outright NUKE the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis when her husband’s brother was president would be the type to crush over.
Besides, last I checked, the Kennedys (well, JFK and possibly Robert Kennedy anyway) were allied with McCarthy (and that guy is hated by the left for exposing a lot of Communists in high places), so I’m extremely doubtful Robert Kennedy would have appreciated his wife basically gushing over the guy who nearly tried to nuke America during the Cuban Missile Crisis before Khrushchev had to outright restrain him. I know I certainly wouldn’t in Robert’s shoes.
The Kennedys, or at least Joe, JFK and Robert (Ted’s a different story, unfortunately...), WEREN’T commie-sympathizers, though. Heck, they went as far as to outright AID Joe McCarthy during the latter’s quest to expose Communists within our own government. That should speak volumes on just how they are NOT commie-sympathizing. If anything, they would have been closer to Nazi-sympathizers than Commie-sympathizers.
The other Democracts certainly were commie sympathizers, though, including even Truman, and he’s the guy who’s purported to be anti-Communist despite sabotaging a good opportunity to actually end the Korean War with a firm defeat of Communism.
At least JFK and Robert Kennedy supported McCarthy when even Eisenhower didn’t. And make no mistake, if he were as much of a snake regarding JFK as you claim he was, he wouldn’t have even needed to fake sick to bring about his downfall, either. He could make it to the event, and then thoroughly humiliate him in front of everyone, sort of like what the daughter of a man framed for murdering his wife did in that Maureen show while offering to help clear his name (and only failed to get him convicted for the crime she in fact committed against her mom because the opposing attourney made the mistake of trying to blackmail one of the maids with deportation into giving a completely different story). Even taking some sadistic joy in humiliating him. I’ve seen that kind of thing happen.
And JFK at least was still pro-American and anti-Communist (certainly anti-Communist enough to actually ally with McCarthy), unlike Emperor Zero who didn’t even try to hide his rabid anti-Americanism.
Besides, George Lucas, a huge leftist and likely a Marxist based on past comments made by him in the 1980s when gloating about the Hollywood System’s downfall, outright hated JFK based on what he said in that interview with TIME about Attack of the Clones, where he implicitly compared the Kennedy family to Nixon when explaining why the Empire was formed: https://web.archive.org/web/20020423000824/http://www.time.com/time/sampler/article/0,8599,232440,00.html
Specifically: “I’m more on the liberal side of things,” [George Lucas] says. “I grew up in San Francisco in the ‘60s, and my positions are sort of shaped by that ... If you look back 30 years ago, there were certain issues with the Kennedys, with Richard Nixon, that focused my interest.” Lucas’ own geopolitics can sound pretty bleak: “All democracies turn into dictatorships—but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea ... What kinds of things push people and institutions into this direction?”
Sorry, if JFK were as much a snake to McCarthy as you claim he was.
I will say this much though: I am not happy with JFK (or LBJ, or heck, even Nixon) promoting that stupid Missile Gap thing, especially when the Soviets weren’t overpowering us in any way (the only reason the Soviets beat us with Sputnik was because Eisenhower deliberately let them have a handicap and launch it into space first in order to avoid similar Soviet-orchestrated global protests to that of Nicola and Bart’s execution thanks largely to Sinclair lying about the details.). JFK was still anti-Communist, however, and it’s for that reason that I’m ultimately in favor of him (won’t comment one way or another regarding Robert, and Ted can go rot in a ditch).
“My mom loves Che Guevara. Her dog is named Che,””
Disgusting.
Didn’t we go over all this umpteen months ago ? JFK and RFK largely attached themselves to Joe McCarthy because McCarthy was REVERED amongst Irish Catholic Americans. McCarthy himself had been a Democrat early on when the party was quite weak in Wisconsin. With the collapse of the Progressive Party, who was led by a weak Sen. Robert La Follette, Jr., he took his machine and party and largely merged it back into the GOP. McCarthy had switched parties to the GOP a few years earlier (having run in the Senate race of 1944 and losing to Alexander Wiley), and in probably the biggest upset of the 1946 primary season, defeated La Follette, Jr. for the Senate race.
Had McCarthy come out more strongly for the liberal Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. in 1952, he might’ve held on to his seat over JFK. The Kennedys openly solicited McCarthy to endorse JFK, despite being a Democrat. At the time, they portrayed themselves as being more center-right than the left-wing Lodge. Of course, with the Democrats being more left-wing by the 1950s (as they generally had been since 1896 with the purge of the Bourbonites under Cleveland), JFK moved leftward once he became a Senator.
As the vicious leftist media, “Derp State” and pop culture attacks on McCarthy snowballed, JFK had to walk a fine line between preserving his ever-increasing left-wing credentials and not offending his Conservative Irish Catholic constituents. It was certainly no “profile in courage” with his sick-out. Fortunately for him, when McCarthy died at just 48 in 1957, he no longer had to worry about having to appease both groups and was able to continue moving leftward to what was then the “mainstream” of the Democrat Party (and away from the center-right he had come to the Senate on the platform of).
I disagree that JFK was a strident anti-Communist, at least by 1960. He might’ve liked to SAY he was, but his actions were clear. He was terrified of the Soviets, gave Nikita Khrushchev everything he wanted (which Nixon would not have, as he was neither scared of nor intimidated by this loud-mouth) and let the Cuban Freedom Fighters twist in the wind. No help for Bay of Pigs. Nothing.
He was woefully not up to the job of President, certainly not that of Senator, which he was using as a stepping-stone to power (and lying to his constituents - who were rejecting the liberalism of Lodge in 1952).
It’s unfortunate the calcified leadership of the MA GOP, on the brink of complete collapse in the 1950s, despite being the majority party, didn’t cast aside its Brahmin deathgrip and cultivate Irish Catholic working class Conservatives to find new candidates for the future (whom they had disdained since the Whigs briefly utilized the Know-Nothings before becoming members of the new GOP in the 1850s). Such a merger would’ve forestalled the rise of the Kennedys and prevented them from leading so many of the voters of the state on the primrose path to Marxism via the Democrat Party, where it now finds itself today.
I agree, but for the record, my former socialist MA colleague thinks JFK was a standard “hard core Cold Warrior.”
Bay of Pigs certainly disavows one of such a notion. It makes Oswald’s “reasoning” for killing JFK baffling (if the claim was “Hands off Cuba” — he certainly was “hands off”). I’ll bet Khrushchev was floored how easily he got away with everything. The Soviets weren’t going to go to WW3 over Cuba.
One thing is quite clear, however, and that is that JFK was THE most overrated President in the history of our Republic (and quite probably one of the most dangerously incompetent). A premier example of what happens when the media and pop culture “select” a leader, the very last people that should be doing so.
“Didn’t we go over all this umpteen months ago ? JFK and RFK largely attached themselves to Joe McCarthy because McCarthy was REVERED amongst Irish Catholic Americans. McCarthy himself had been a Democrat early on when the party was quite weak in Wisconsin. With the collapse of the Progressive Party, who was led by a weak Sen. Robert La Follette, Jr., he took his machine and party and largely merged it back into the GOP. McCarthy had switched parties to the GOP a few years earlier (having run in the Senate race of 1944 and losing to Alexander Wiley), and in probably the biggest upset of the 1946 primary season, defeated La Follette, Jr. for the Senate race.
Had McCarthy come out more strongly for the liberal Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. in 1952, he might’ve held on to his seat over JFK. The Kennedys openly solicited McCarthy to endorse JFK, despite being a Democrat. At the time, they portrayed themselves as being more center-right than the left-wing Lodge. Of course, with the Democrats being more left-wing by the 1950s (as they generally had been since 1896 with the purge of the Bourbonites under Cleveland), JFK moved leftward once he became a Senator.
As the vicious leftist media, “Derp State” and pop culture attacks on McCarthy snowballed, JFK had to walk a fine line between preserving his ever-increasing left-wing credentials and not offending his Conservative Irish Catholic constituents. It was certainly no “profile in courage” with his sick-out. Fortunately for him, when McCarthy died at just 48 in 1957, he no longer had to worry about having to appease both groups and was able to continue moving leftward to what was then the “mainstream” of the Democrat Party (and away from the center-right he had come to the Senate on the platform of).”
Like I said earlier, JFK didn’t even need to go to the hospital just to backstab McCarthy during the McCarthy hearings if that’s what he set out to do. He could have made it there, and then made sure to turn against McCarthy, all while faking being broken down by the Democrat opposition. I’ve actually seen that occur in a Maureen episode (and in case you need a primer on that show, it’s basically a court room show, and I think the rival was played by Christine Baranski, or at least a look alike. I think it ended up cancelled around the same time as GCB, if I recall correctly. And for the record, that show I definitely didn’t mention the last time I talked about this subject with you). Basically, a woman who was practically hated by everybody (and I do mean everybody, well, save for maybe one, a lesbian lover she had while married to her husband. Apparently one of the Hispanic maids got fired for putting a rat in her sheets, which she indicated was deliberate when admitting this during the investigation just to spite her boss, to list an example out of a list of enemies she had.) ended up murdered, with her husband being the prime suspect. His daughter offered to help clear his name, however, she eventually was starting to collapse in her defense, even admitting that her mom had been carrying an affair (a detail she had not let known to anyone). Maureen’s rival then tried to capitalize on this by trying to get one of the maids, the same one from earlier, to give a different story on why she was fired by leaving out the rat bit, and blackmailed her with deportation. However, the main lawyers caught on, and the case was thrown out with the rival lawyer being held in contempt of court for the attempted forcing of perjury. Anyways, it was later revealed in the end that it was in fact the daughter who killed her mom and framed her dad, and if anything, she volunteered to serve in her father’s defense team specifically to ensure he got the guilty charge, and she literally walked away with no consequences other than everyone being shocked and horrified. And besides, I’ve seen that happen recently as well, with all those corporations kow-towing to BLM even as they’re literally torching their stores, like with Wendy’s Twice for two separate shootings, not to mention the Mayor of Atlanta openly pledging to BLM and basically forcing the Police Commissioner to Resign, and THEN basically trying to worm her way into Biden’s camp. And don’t get me started on how Obama repeatedly backstabbed his Black constituents and yet they STILL came out in droves to get him back in office again. JFK didn’t do that with McCarthy despite having plenty of chances to do so.
“I disagree that JFK was a strident anti-Communist, at least by 1960. He might’ve liked to SAY he was, but his actions were clear. He was terrified of the Soviets, gave Nikita Khrushchev everything he wanted (which Nixon would not have, as he was neither scared of nor intimidated by this loud-mouth) and let the Cuban Freedom Fighters twist in the wind. No help for Bay of Pigs. Nothing.”
Probably the only bit he actually gave Khrushchev during the CMC was Cuba remaining Communist (and that bit I’ll definitely acknowledge was a huge shame and something JFK definitely deserved blame for), but at least the missiles were no longer present, especially when Khrushchev could have just as easily not removed the missiles after getting everything (and besides, based on what Pacepa stated, Khrushchev definitely lost out big from the CMC anyhow, actually screaming to kill the Viper in reference to JFK). I’m not even sure if we even lost Turkey anyhow, since even Jonathan Leaf indicated that the missile silos in Turkey were already planned to be removed even before the Turkey Deal made it official due to nuclear powered subs making them obsolete (and bear in mind, Leaf is NO JFK fan at all, made no secret about it in his 1960s PIG book, so he didn’t say that because he liked JFK in any way). And he’s certainly closer to being a strident anti-Communist than Carter, Clinton, and Obama were, or for that matter his brother Ted Kennedy (who infamously tried to get the KGB involved in overturning the election and getting Reagan thrown out). And he did attempt to do the Vietnam War and prevent the North from invading the South rather than, say, rooting for the North. I’ve seen plenty of Democrat guys who were a LOT worse there, like Lodge as you mentioned, and also McGovern who outright supported Ho Chi Minh in his heyday, even parroting the lie that he was “popularly elected”, while even JFK made it very clear he didn’t support Minh, and wisely realized having so-called “popular elections” would only result in the Communists taking over Vietnam.
“He was woefully not up to the job of President, certainly not that of Senator, which he was using as a stepping-stone to power (and lying to his constituents - who were rejecting the liberalism of Lodge in 1952).”
I don’t know about that, even Conservapedia made it pretty clear he was still conservative compared to most of the other Democrats at that time, let alone today. Besides, I’ve had to personally experience Democrats constantly lying to constituents here in Georgia like with our Atlanta Mayor for example, heck, even corporations lying to their customers by continuing to support BLM even as they’re torching their storefronts. And don’t even get me started on Obama and HIS repeated backstabbing of his constituents, yet his constituents never, EVER trying to vote him out back in 2012. He was a weak president, I’ll admit that much (but at least he was still more anti-Communist than FDR, Truman, Carter, Clinton and Obama were. Heck, in the case of the latter two, they were very OPENLY communist at that).
“It’s unfortunate the calcified leadership of the MA GOP, on the brink of complete collapse in the 1950s, despite being the majority party, didn’t cast aside its Brahmin deathgrip and cultivate Irish Catholic working class Conservatives to find new candidates for the future (whom they had disdained since the Whigs briefly utilized the Know-Nothings before becoming members of the new GOP in the 1850s). Such a merger would’ve forestalled the rise of the Kennedys and prevented them from leading so many of the voters of the state on the primrose path to Marxism via the Democrat Party, where it now finds itself today.”
Well, all I can say is, if I ever end up in Massachusetts, I’ll run as GOP there, and then should I get elected, go overtime to reintegrate Irish-Catholics there with the GOP and destroy Marxism’s hold in the area (I’m deciding whether to do Massachusetts, California, or New York for which ones I’ll run in to end Marxist control over those states. At least Georgia has Brian Kemp as governor, even if he is falling to the whole mask propaganda right now.). However, I won’t blame JFK or Robert for the hold on Marxism in MA (especially considering JFK’s repeated insistence that we not allow popular votes in Vietnam due to realizing that’s an easy way for it to become Communist makes it very clear he definitely didn’t support Marxism). If I were to blame anyone, it would have been John Kerry, since unlike JFK, who actually DID attempt to genuinely aid McCarthy in his so-called “witch hunts” (I’d personally call them crusading to give a more positive spin to a negative depiction), AND attempted to prevent Vietnam from becoming Communist, Kerry openly supported the Vietcong and Ho Chi Minh, despite being Catholic himself. Either him or Ted Kennedy, who unlike JFK or even Robert definitely was very open in his support for Communism and the Soviet Union. And for the record, his being against Communism (and certainly making far more of an actual effort to stop Communism than Ted or any of his successors in the Democrat Party) is the only reason why I have ANY respect for JFK at all (had it not been for that, make no mistake, I’d view him as trash like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and George Lucas).
“his accomplishments included losing the war in Vietnam”
He was elected on a promise to get us out of Viet Nam without abandoning the South Vietnamese to a bloodbath. “Peace with Honor.” He kept that promise. His Vietnamization program built up the the RVN forces to the point that they could hold their own against the commies.
He forced the commies to negotiate a sustainable peace.
His handling of Vietnam was superlative. Our efforts in Vietnam accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union by at least ten years, so don’t ever tell me that war was “meaningless.”
Then, when the leftwads and the media conspired to drive him out of office with fake news, Teddy Kennedy and the rest of the loathsome traitors in our government betrayed the people of South Vietnam into the hands of the commie murderers, and they got that bloodbath after all.
That left them free to rewrite history to suit themselves.
The way you heard it is not the way it happened.
As I said, no profile in courage. He wanted to have his cake and eat it, too.
"And don’t get me started on how Obama repeatedly backstabbed his Black constituents and yet they STILL came out in droves to get him back in office again."
The Democrat Party doesn't care about anyone or anything other than power and privilege.
"(JFK) did attempt to do the Vietnam War and prevent the North from invading the South rather than, say, rooting for the North."
Since the escalation didn't really happen until after his death, we don't know for 100% where he would've gone with it. If Cuba was any indication, he might've beaten a withdrawal. But as with LBJ, it was a total screw-up. We didn't fight to win. Either fight to win or don't get involved. You're just going to get people needlessly killed. Virtually every person listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died for nothing.
"I’ve seen plenty of Democrat guys who were a LOT worse there, like Lodge as you mentioned, and also McGovern who outright supported Ho Chi Minh in his heyday, even parroting the lie that he was “popularly elected”, while even JFK made it very clear he didn’t support Minh, and wisely realized having so-called “popular elections” would only result in the Communists taking over Vietnam."
Lodge was a Republican, not a Dem (despite his leftism). But this all illustrates why democracy is a grievous danger. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. Too much democracy in America. Voting should be an earned right, not a given.
"I don’t know about that, even Conservapedia made it pretty clear he was still conservative compared to most of the other Democrats at that time, let alone today."
Virtually all of the serious candidates running on the Dem side in 1960 were left-wingers. The most "Conservative" being probably FL Sen. George Smathers, but he couldn't do better than win his own state's party primary. If JFK had been "of the right" by 1960, he couldn't have won the nomination. It would've likely gone to Humphrey instead (and JFK would've been at-risk for defeat in the primary as Senator by 1958). Ronald Reagan was viscerally anti-JFK in 1960, as he was a left-winger. I don't bother trying to compare the ideology of 1960 with that of 2020. The issue is whether it was seen as left-wing in 1960, and the answer is absolutely yes.
"Besides, I’ve had to personally experience Democrats constantly lying to constituents here in Georgia like with our Atlanta Mayor for example, heck, even corporations lying to their customers by continuing to support BLM even as they’re torching their storefronts."
Expecting honesty from a party of liars, losers and leftists is asking too much.
"He was a weak president, I’ll admit that much (but at least he was still more anti-Communist than FDR, Truman, Carter, Clinton and Obama were."
That I disagree with. I say again he differed little from his predecessors. Talk is cheap. Actions say it all. Bay of Pigs was all we needed to know that any claims of anti-Communism were bull$hit. He left the Freedom Fighters to be tortured and killed despite our military leaders BEGGING JFK to let them help. This is unforgiveable. Nixon would've done something about this early on had he not been cheated out of his win in 1960. By 1969, it was too late.
"Well, all I can say is, if I ever end up in Massachusetts, I’ll run as GOP there, and then should I get elected, go overtime to reintegrate Irish-Catholics there with the GOP and destroy Marxism’s hold in the area"
Good luck with that, but this is something that should've been done SEVENTY years ago or more. Even the "Republican" Governor of Massachusetts is a far-left cretin who is all-in for Demonrats and their agenda. The last good Governor there was Ed King, a Conservative Democrat (1979-1983), who was called Reagan's favorite Dem Governor. He switched to the GOP and the party did nothing with him. The MA GOP remains a total joke.
"However, I won’t blame JFK or Robert for the hold on Marxism in MA"
Except he did pave the way. His martyrdom especially allowed his family and their sycophants to move the state away from its Conservative moorings. Even worse, the GOP offered virtually no opposition, especially ideologically. Ted took them straight to hell. That he was allowed to remain in office after the Mary Jo Kopechne incident especially shows how lost the state was.
"And for the record, (JFK) being against Communism (and certainly making far more of an actual effort to stop Communism than Ted or any of his successors in the Democrat Party) is the only reason why I have ANY respect for JFK at all"
Except for that Bay of Pigs thing, which proved that real action wasn't something he wanted to do. It's like the politicians who go around claiming to be pro-life personally, but voting for infanticide. I don't give a damn what you're personally for. I've said I can go around saying I'm personally for abortion. Kill 'em, hamburglerize 'em, grill 'em, eat 'em, put 'em in your freezer for a snack. But I'd NEVER impose my views on the public and would have to vote pro-life. Actions are all that matter.
“As I said, no profile in courage. He wanted to have his cake and eat it, too.”
No, a real lack of profile in courage would be him agreeing to help McCarthy, but then at the very second he is to help, sadistically stabs him in the back, like that daughter in that Maureen episode I alluded to regarding her father being framed by her for the murder of her mom, all while disguising it as being overwhelmed by the others. I know if it were me in JFK’s shoes and I was to lack a profile in courage especially regarding McCarthy, I would have in fact done that exact low and sadistic action, not to mention EXTREMELY cowardly, the kind of cowardice that Che Guevara was known for where he smiled at killing defenseless people, some even being his own compatriots, in fact.
“The Democrat Party doesn’t care about anyone or anything other than power and privilege.”
Agreed there, especially today. However, there’s still some good Democrats like Randall Terry, who is very clearly against Abortion, even went to jail for it.
“Since the escalation didn’t really happen until after his death, we don’t know for 100% where he would’ve gone with it. If Cuba was any indication, he might’ve beaten a withdrawal. But as with LBJ, it was a total screw-up. We didn’t fight to win. Either fight to win or don’t get involved. You’re just going to get people needlessly killed. Virtually every person listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died for nothing.”
Who knows, maybe he learned his lesson from Bay of Pigs and decided to fight to win.
“Lodge was a Republican, not a Dem (despite his leftism). But this all illustrates why democracy is a grievous danger. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. Too much democracy in America. Voting should be an earned right, not a given.”
Heck, Two wolves and a lamb deciding dinner isn’t even the half of it. THIS is what democracy is truly like: https://youtu.be/0hZby1M8Fd8?t=62 It’s more like wolves mindlessly killing fellow wolves and sheep alike for sheer bloodlust, like in the French Revolution.
“Virtually all of the serious candidates running on the Dem side in 1960 were left-wingers. The most “Conservative” being probably FL Sen. George Smathers, but he couldn’t do better than win his own state’s party primary. If JFK had been “of the right” by 1960, he couldn’t have won the nomination. It would’ve likely gone to Humphrey instead (and JFK would’ve been at-risk for defeat in the primary as Senator by 1958). Ronald Reagan was viscerally anti-JFK in 1960, as he was a left-winger. I don’t bother trying to compare the ideology of 1960 with that of 2020. The issue is whether it was seen as left-wing in 1960, and the answer is absolutely yes.”
No, if you want an example of someone who was left wing by 1960s standards, I suggest you look at George Lucas, who by that point was already focusing on film and has even been seen in a documentary wearing Maoist apparel (and bear in mind, based on what he said in a TIME Magazine interview made around the time Episode II of Star Wars was being made, he actually compared the Kennedys to Richard Nixon, and the latter he hated enough to base Palpatine on him). Not to mention Bill Ayers and Tom Hayden. THAT’S Left wing by 1960s standards, especially when even back then they were rioting and causing carnage for a sick laugh. So no, even by 1960s standards, JFK was a conservative, maybe a moderate at the very least. Tom Hayden, George Lucas, Bill Ayers, Charles Hanson, and the like were significantly far more left wing during the 1960s than JFK ever was.
“Expecting honesty from a party of liars, losers and leftists is asking too much.”
Yeah, I know that bit. I was just relaying that the crap I had to put up with in Atlanta (and my heads at Goodwill even seem to believe her lies and the fake COVID death statistics and force us to wear those stupid masks), and it definitely wasn’t like that under JFK, and in fact, I’m doubtful JFK would have ever approved of the crap going on right now.
“That I disagree with. I say again he differed little from his predecessors. Talk is cheap. Actions say it all. Bay of Pigs was all we needed to know that any claims of anti-Communism were bull$hit. He left the Freedom Fighters to be tortured and killed despite our military leaders BEGGING JFK to let them help. This is unforgiveable. Nixon would’ve done something about this early on had he not been cheated out of his win in 1960. By 1969, it was too late.”
At least he didn’t brag about trying to bring about Communism into America, actually FOUGHT Communism at times (whether he succeeded or not is another story) or even specifically hire Leninists as his secret service members (and that last bit was done by Bill Clinton based on Inside Access, that book made by that FBI guy). Certainly better than what I would have done to fight Communism which actually would be a nightmare to even my own allies, let alone my enemies (let’s just say that I’d act like the commanding officer guy in this video here from Resident Evil 0 and order for the nuking of not just the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, but also the Western Allies, the Third World, and even within America itself, all to get rid of any and all Communists of various stripes, not even caring if it meant outright causing all of humanity to go extinct and in fact if someone begs me to stop, I shove a rifle butt into his face while screaming at them to shut up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdiTYc0F_Qs Yes, you read that right, I’d be so extremely anti-Communist that I’m willing to commit a genocidal mass extinction event and possibly destroy the entire planet just to get rid of Communism, and be more likely to abuse even those on my side for even daring to speak up and stop it. I’ve come up with this after having to witness far too many people, both left and right, and including corporations, espousing Marxist thoughts even after the Cold War. Even Ronald Reagan failed in that endeavor especially when he spoke up for and defended the Marxist UN and even sided with the Marxist Nelson Mandela. Merely leave the Freedom Fighters to die at Castro’s hands? I’d just outright nuke Castro and not even CARE if the Freedom Fighters die from the resulting nuclear explosion in the process, being that far gone with my extreme anti-Communism, which if anything is arguably even WORSE.).
“Good luck with that, but this is something that should’ve been done SEVENTY years ago or more. Even the “Republican” Governor of Massachusetts is a far-left cretin who is all-in for Demonrats and their agenda. The last good Governor there was Ed King, a Conservative Democrat (1979-1983), who was called Reagan’s favorite Dem Governor. He switched to the GOP and the party did nothing with him. The MA GOP remains a total joke.”
We’ll see. Trump did get Pennsylvania to become Republican again. I think there’s a chance at restoring the GOP to its full glory in Massachusetts.
“Except for that Bay of Pigs thing, which proved that real action wasn’t something he wanted to do. It’s like the politicians who go around claiming to be pro-life personally, but voting for infanticide. I don’t give a damn what you’re personally for. I’ve said I can go around saying I’m personally for abortion. Kill ‘em, hamburglerize ‘em, grill ‘em, eat ‘em, put ‘em in your freezer for a snack. But I’d NEVER impose my views on the public and would have to vote pro-life. Actions are all that matter.”
Believe me when I say this, I also agree fully with that sentiment. And in fact, I would go very far to make sure my personal views ARE the views the public has to accept. If my personal views are pro-life, I’ll go as far as to shoot pro-choice dissidents.
Sorry, “Charles Hanson” was meant to be “Charles Manson”, as in the Manson family who killed that actress and stuck a fork into her.
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.