Posted on 01/21/2003 7:00:06 AM PST by meandog
You are wrong in stating that JFK didn't accomplish anything. I previously mentioned the only two things that he did accomplish. Jimmy Carter, William Jefferson Clinton were the two Presidents that didn't accomplish anything.
Sorry, I am not trying to tick you off, but you sure sound like a lacky to the ideology of Liberalism. JFK is their patron saint, and one of their favorite hobbies is inventing history that grows his legend. For what it's worth, I never "stated that JFK didn't accomplish anything," but ya know what? He didn't. You mentioned the two things he accomplished. One of them was, in fact, liberal fantasy. The space race was alive and well when Kennedy came on the scene. It reached its pinnacle after he departed.
The tax cut was a novel policy from a Presidential Democrat, but it was not his idea. He admitted that he had no interest in economics. And how hard do you think he had to fight with the Republicans in Congress to get a tax cut passed?
Like Clinton, the man was charasmatic. Unlike Clinton, Kennedy did not have enough time to bring complete disgrace to the office of Commander-in-Chief (though he was well on his way). When he died, he had served three years, had one foreign policy failure, one (charitable) draw and one incomplete. And, because the Liberals got to me too, I can't bring myself to say anything worse about the guy than he doesn't belong in the top twenty. I'll leave it at that, because, at the end of the day, Presidential rankings are irrelevant. I'm just repulsed by the nonsense that people are willing to buy into when it comes to that immoral bunch from Hyannisport.
...you have to have, state and defend objective criteria, not just one's own subjective preferences. But that is very hard to do.Absolutely, and that is why these lists are generally meaningless. That said, here's my bit for this discussion:
Great is the President who was larger than his times. Above all, greatness is for our Founders and those who preserve and protect their work. Washington and Lincoln are the archetypes. Reagan I'd add to it, certainly above the other Top Tens.
I'm uncomfortable putting FDR up there, although we must recognize his great leadership in the (gasp) Depression and the War.
Others were great leaders, but I don't see them anywhere near a Reagan or a Lincoln. Truman and Theodore Roosevelt, for example, were products of their times. Their times defined them more than they defined their times. As did Truman, T Roosevelt inherited most of his doings, Panama Canal, trusts, conservationism. He was was a doer, but he was not an innovator.* The greatness in them both was that they pulled the trigger, Truman literally, Roosevelt loudly.
Presidents who are good leaders is an entirely different category. I think Cleveland deserves credit for his leadership, especially Cleveland II. LBJ was a singularly successful manager of legislation. Polk was a great leader, too.
Our author included accomplishment in the mix, although he rejected negative accomplishment, ie. stopping something from happening. The early Presidents all deserve the shrine of greatness for making the expiriment happen. So many bad things could have happened that did not. I credit Taft the same way, for he kept some really bad ideas from becoming events.
Btw, thanks for your notes on the TR show. They ran a full page ad in today's (com)Post. Big bucks behind that production.
* On the down side for Roosevelt, where he did stir the people it was into dangerous enthusiasms. He was, as La Follette said, "Roosevelt is the keenest and ablest living interpreter of what I would call the superficial public sentiment of a given time and he is spontaneous in his response to it; but he does not distinguish between that which is a mere surface indication of a sentiment and the building up by a long process of education of a public opinion which is as deep-rooted as life."
I do so enjoy turning the progressives on each other.
Back to the history books, uncbuck. Santa Anna didn't have Texas -- Texas sent Santa Anna packing in 1836 and governed itself until the Union joined Texas in 1845.
So do I. Communism managed to murder far more human beings than Fascism/Nazism did.
It was a fraud. Nan Britton's daughter (or the daughter's daughter, can't remember which, right now) has had DNA done in recent years and compared to DNA of Harding family members (Harding had no direct descendents through his marriage). Not a match. Since Harding's wife had one son from her own first marriage, it is fairly likely that Harding was sterile.
The fact is that JFK's tax cut broke the ground for Ronald Reagan's tax cut in the '80s. It was impossible for Tip O'Neil and the Dimocratic Congress to argue against Reagan's tax cut when JFK had done the same thing! That was JFK's greatest contribution.
The only thing he did was drop bombs on Japan to end the war. Notice it took two bombs before Japan decided to call it quits. However, this was more of a continuation of a procees fully in place before he took over. He also started the Cold War because of his naivete at Potsdam and was the Father of Appeasement in both postwar Germany and Korea and would have done the same in Japan had not MacArthur been in charge there. By putting limitations on the military about when and where they could fight in Korea, he probably inspired LBJ to do the same in Viet Nam.
The fact is that JFK's tax cut broke the ground for Ronald Reagan's tax cut in the '80s. It was impossible for Tip O'Neil and the Dimocratic Congress to argue against Reagan's tax cut when JFK had done the same thing! That was JFK's greatest contribution.
Sir, I regret that your vehement abhorrance to the "Liberal" mantel. It is not my intention to insult you. Nevertheless, the harder you try to fight off the tag, the more firmly it appears to stick to you, because you are going out of your way to defend the poster-boy for the American liberal movement. Now you have committed the cardinal sin of comparing Kennedy to Reagan.
Look this all started because I said Kennedy had no legacy as president. You incorrectly offered up the space race, and somewhat correctly offered up the tax cut as a legacy. That is not enough. Regan won the Cold war. He restored America's feeling of Patriotism. He re-established our reputation as the force of right in the world. And he cut taxes and revived our economy. But the tax cut will be an afterthought on his legacy in history. And don't you forget it. And don't you EVER compare Kennedy to Reagan again. If you want out of this debate, just say "You're right, Kennedy was, at best, a second-rate president."
PS> Taking pleasure in posting this from the Scarsdale NY Public Library. Scarsdale: The limosine-Liberal Capital of the East Coast.
Just out of curiosity how am I comparing JFK to Ronald Reagan?
However, you are WRONG to say that JFK didn't accomplish anything! JFK had one great accomplishment in that his tax cut made it impossible for the Dimocrats to derail Ronald Reagan's tax cut without losing face!! That is the single biggest reason that Reagan's tax cut ever even happened at all.
It is obvious to me that your hatred of JFK has blinded you to the FACT that he actually helped our side. Now, let's see you deny that!
It is obvious that your highschool crush on John Kennedy has turned you into a liar. But, if you insist on continuing to run around in public with your pants around your ankles, I'm willing to humor you...
1) You did, in fact compare compare JFK to Reagan when you pointed out that their detractors use similiar tactics. The problem is that in Kennedy's case, the criticism is warranted.
However, you are WRONG to say that JFK didn't accomplish anything! JFK had one great accomplishment in that his tax cut made it impossible for the Dimocrats to derail Ronald Reagan's tax cut without losing face!! That is the single biggest reason that Reagan's tax cut ever even happened at all.
Again, read the thread. This whole debate has become a Chinese Finger Prison for you. The harder you try to extricate yourself, the tighter the squeeze. I conceded the tax cut from the beginning, but sought to downplay its significance. In order validate yourself on a small point, you are turning the tax cut into the Lousiana Purchase. And then, when you make outrageous claims like "it was the single biggest reason Reagan's tax cut even happened," you sound like you have gone off the deep end. I suspect that you are not even particularly familiar with the particulars of either one. Do just a little research, and you will discover (1) that the two were inspired for very different reasons, (2) that the scope of the two was entirely different, and (3) that the perspective of the congresses to which they were proposed had absolutely no similarities. Your assertation is nonsense.
Given all of that, my assertation was not that "JFK didn't accomplish anything," but that I wouldn't rank him in the top 20 US Presidents. Assuming that his tax cut was as great an accomplishment as you seem to think, how would that refute my argument? We are talking about men who built nations, freed the slaves, destroyed facism, and stared down nuclear communism. What else did JFK do?
Note: Think about the corner you have painted yourself into before you rush to respond.
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.