In several posts JFK has been referred to as a 'great president'. Personally I don't believe he was. He did have charisma and charm but I'm not sure he had too many other outstanding qualities. He seemed to be very much a pragmatist, and not necessarily led by deeply held beliefs or convictions. I think Bobby had far greater potential for greatness than JFK.
That said, one doesn't have to think JFK a great man to abhor what happened on 22nd November 1963 and to realise that in essence democracy suffered and enormous defeat.
Nerrilyn
Was JFK really a great president?
I will let a previous post of mine do the talking...JFK's AccomplishmentsThe resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis - Avoided nuclear war with the Soviets (WWIII) - Millions of lives saved - The earth environment was spared the effects of a nuclear exchange - Showed strong resolve (Soviets blinked first) Created the Peace Corp - Utilized American volunteers for aid in underdeveloped countries - Helped to aid the economies and health status of those nations Signed nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets - Reduced testing of nuclear weapons Created the civil rights legislation that was passed under LBJ - Was working on passage at the time of his assassination Escalated space program - Funded NASA to overtake the Soviets in space race - Set a goal of having man on the moon by the end of the decade Was against escalation of war in Vietnam -58,000+ lives later, the U.S. got out of Nam -16,200 troops/advisors in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated -500,000 troops in Vietnam by 1965 due to escalation by LBJ
Re: Was JFK really a great president?
Nerrilyn Diefenbach wrote:In several posts JFK has been referred to as a 'great president'. Personally I don't believe he was. He did have charisma and charm but I'm not sure he had too many other outstanding qualities. He seemed to be very much a pragmatist, and not necessarily led by deeply held beliefs or convictions. I think Bobby had far greater potential for greatness than JFK.That said, one doesn't have to think JFK a great man to abhor what happened on 22nd November 1963 and to realise that in essence democracy suffered and enormous defeat.Nerrilyn
I think JFK showed that he was headed for greatness, but the bastards that murdered him didn't let him achieve it. He had tremendous potential, tragically unrealized.
However, I do consider him great for many reasons. First because of the accomplishments Bob listed. Gee, I'd forgotten about the Peace Corp.
And because he planned to defy the war machine and bring *all US personnel* (so stated to include soldiers *and* CIA agents) home by 1965.
Because he pursued peace with Russia by signing the nuclear test ban treaty, promising not to invade Cuba (actually negotiated during the Missile Crisis), and gives a major speech at American University making it clear he wants to end the cold war.
And he started printing US currency instead of Federal Reserve currency (to prevent us from paying interest on our own money). He plans to reduce or eliminate the oil depletion allowance that is a major factor in making Texas oil moguls so rich.
And he recognized that the CIA was out of control and wanted them eliminated. But it was too late, Truman and Eisenhower had let things get too bad. Kennedy had realized how dangerous his enemies were, and even warned in the NY Times shortly before his murder that if there was a coup it would be a CIA coup. But those that were supposed to protect him had even turned against him. Once that happened...
In addition, Kennedy was a thinker, a writer, he had poetry in his soul, he was charismatic, exceptionally witty. He had it all. His courage was remarkable. I mean his courage to do what he thought was right. He had integrity, and humanity.
And if we are known by our enemies...I think that says a lot about him.
In the final analysis it's not fair to compare him to presidents who had full terms, or multiple full terms, or to look at his accomplishments and plans without taking into account that he didn't have time to fullfill his potential. He didn't have time to leave a full legacy. He was robbed of that along with his life. But his potential was great. In that way he certainly had greatness. He is a martyr for the people. I hate those bastards who robbed him, and us, of his greatness.
Myra
I think JFK showed that he was headed for greatness, but the bastards that murdered him didn't let him achieve it. He had tremendous potential, tragically unrealized.
However, I do consider him great for many reasons. First because of the accomplishments Bob listed. Gee, I'd forgotten about the Peace Corp.
And because he planned to defy the war machine and bring *all US personnel* (so stated to include soldiers *and* CIA agents) home by 1965.
Because he pursued peace with Russia by signing the nuclear test ban treaty, promising not to invade Cuba (actually negotiated during the Missile Crisis), and gives a major speech at American University making it clear he wants to end the cold war.
And he started printing US currency instead of Federal Reserve currency (to prevent us from paying interest on our own money). He plans to reduce or eliminate the oil depletion allowance that is a major factor in making Texas oil moguls so rich.
And he recognized that the CIA was out of control and wanted them eliminated. But it was too late, Truman and Eisenhower had let things get too bad. Kennedy had realized how dangerous his enemies were, and even warned in the NY Times shortly before his murder that if there was a coup it would be a CIA coup. But those that were supposed to protect him had even turned against him. Once that happened...
In addition, Kennedy was a thinker, a writer, he had poetry in his soul, he was charismatic, exceptionally witty. He had it all. His courage was remarkable. I mean his courage to do what he thought was right. He had integrity, and humanity.
And if we are known by our enemies...I think that says a lot about him.
In the final analysis it's not fair to compare him to presidents who had full terms, or multiple full terms, or to look at his accomplishments and plans without taking into account that he didn't have time to fullfill his potential. He didn't have time to leave a full legacy. He was robbed of that along with his life. But his potential was great. In that way he certainly had greatness. He is a martyr for the people. I hate those bastards who robbed him, and us, of his greatness.
Myra
-
Pennyworth
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
The Best and Worst....
Poll: Bush Worst President Since 1945
Ronald Reagan Picked As Best President In Nationwide Survey
(CBS) President Bush has been named as the worst president since the end of the World War II in a new national poll.
Mr. Bush was chosen by 34 percent of the voters who participated in the the Quinnipiac Unversity survey. Richard Nixon finished second with 17 percent -- just ahead of Bill Clinton with 16 percent.
Ronald Reagan was the top choice as best president, with 28 percent. Finishing second was Mr. Clinton with 25 percent.
The poll reflected deep partisan divisions. Mr. Bush was ranked worst by 56 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of independent voters but only 7 percent of Republicans.
Reagan, on thew other hand, was named as the No. 1 president by 56 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independent voters but only 7 percent of Democrats.
"Kennedy and Truman get big Democratic votes, especially among baby boomers (45 - 64 years old) and seniors (over 65), but recent memory counts," said Maurice Carroll, director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.
"Democrats say Clinton's the best and Republicans say he's the worst. Republicans don't think much of Jimmy Carter either. There's no contest for the GOP favorite: It's the Gipper," Carroll added.
The Quinnipiac University poll was carried out from From May 23-30 and surveyed 1,534 registered voters nationwide. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Ronald Reagan Picked As Best President In Nationwide Survey
(CBS) President Bush has been named as the worst president since the end of the World War II in a new national poll.
Mr. Bush was chosen by 34 percent of the voters who participated in the the Quinnipiac Unversity survey. Richard Nixon finished second with 17 percent -- just ahead of Bill Clinton with 16 percent.
Ronald Reagan was the top choice as best president, with 28 percent. Finishing second was Mr. Clinton with 25 percent.
The poll reflected deep partisan divisions. Mr. Bush was ranked worst by 56 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of independent voters but only 7 percent of Republicans.
Reagan, on thew other hand, was named as the No. 1 president by 56 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independent voters but only 7 percent of Democrats.
"Kennedy and Truman get big Democratic votes, especially among baby boomers (45 - 64 years old) and seniors (over 65), but recent memory counts," said Maurice Carroll, director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.
"Democrats say Clinton's the best and Republicans say he's the worst. Republicans don't think much of Jimmy Carter either. There's no contest for the GOP favorite: It's the Gipper," Carroll added.
The Quinnipiac University poll was carried out from From May 23-30 and surveyed 1,534 registered voters nationwide. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
-
Pennyworth
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
-
Nerrilyn Diefenbach
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
I haven't piked - I am a victim of the bush - phone has been out for the last couple of days.
What do I think?
I think that there is more to being a great president/leader than achievements. If that is the benchmark I would rate LBJ higher because he achieved more, plus he was an idealist who was passionate about improving the lot of the poor and worked hard at it. His vision of a 'Great Society' for America to end poverty and racial injustice surely is to his credit. There's no doubt he was politically expedient and knew how to use the system to get what he wanted, but behind it all was an underlying vision rooted in his own experiences of what it was like to be poor. Unfortunately he made the mistake that so many in power make - he believed the end justified the means. And of course he will never be forgiven for Vietnam. I wonder how the perception of LBJ would have changed had America won the war? But then I'm a cynic.
JFK on the other hand was a superstar. He had glitz and glamour and we all (well obviously not all) loved to love him, but like most superstars and celebrities he lacked a certain degree of substance and moral conviction. To his credit he never pretended to be more than he was and I think would have been mildly amused by the adulation he gets from some quarters. If JFK were president today the media would eat him alive. There would be no need to assassinate him. His own reckless, risk taking behaviour would have done the job instead.
But it's not about JFK. Well not for me anyway. And it's not about James Files and who did what to whom from where, as interesting and compelling as it is. It's about the cover up and the innocent people who were killed trying to do what they believed was right and were betrayed by their government. It is the cover up that is such an insult to everyone's intelligence, and is such a blight on the American psyche. This is what has carried through to the present - the assumption that if you're rich enough and powerful enough you can get away with just about anything at all in the name of democracy.
Nerrilyn
What do I think?
I think that there is more to being a great president/leader than achievements. If that is the benchmark I would rate LBJ higher because he achieved more, plus he was an idealist who was passionate about improving the lot of the poor and worked hard at it. His vision of a 'Great Society' for America to end poverty and racial injustice surely is to his credit. There's no doubt he was politically expedient and knew how to use the system to get what he wanted, but behind it all was an underlying vision rooted in his own experiences of what it was like to be poor. Unfortunately he made the mistake that so many in power make - he believed the end justified the means. And of course he will never be forgiven for Vietnam. I wonder how the perception of LBJ would have changed had America won the war? But then I'm a cynic.
JFK on the other hand was a superstar. He had glitz and glamour and we all (well obviously not all) loved to love him, but like most superstars and celebrities he lacked a certain degree of substance and moral conviction. To his credit he never pretended to be more than he was and I think would have been mildly amused by the adulation he gets from some quarters. If JFK were president today the media would eat him alive. There would be no need to assassinate him. His own reckless, risk taking behaviour would have done the job instead.
But it's not about JFK. Well not for me anyway. And it's not about James Files and who did what to whom from where, as interesting and compelling as it is. It's about the cover up and the innocent people who were killed trying to do what they believed was right and were betrayed by their government. It is the cover up that is such an insult to everyone's intelligence, and is such a blight on the American psyche. This is what has carried through to the present - the assumption that if you're rich enough and powerful enough you can get away with just about anything at all in the name of democracy.
Nerrilyn
Nerrilyn Diefenbach wrote:I think that there is more to being a great president/leader than achievements. If that is the benchmark I would rate LBJ higher because he achieved more, plus he was an idealist who was passionate about improving the lot of the poor and worked hard at it. His vision of a 'Great Society' for America to end poverty and racial injustice surely is to his credit. There's no doubt he was politically expedient and knew how to use the system to get what he wanted, but behind it all was an underlying vision rooted in his own experiences of what it was like to be poor. Unfortunately he made the mistake that so many in power make - he believed the end justified the means. And of course he will never be forgiven for Vietnam. I wonder how the perception of LBJ would have changed had America won the war? But then I'm a cynic.JFK on the other hand was a superstar. He had glitz and glamour and we all (well obviously not all) loved to love him, but like most superstars and celebrities he lacked a certain degree of substance and moral conviction. To his credit he never pretended to be more than he was and I think would have been mildly amused by the adulation he gets from some quarters. If JFK were president today the media would eat him alive. There would be no need to assassinate him. His own reckless, risk taking behaviour would have done the job instead...
Nerrilyn, I'm curious how you reconcile your remark about JFK's "lack of substance" with the two lists of his programs and accomplishments that were posted in this thread.
And, I think it's quite a euphemism to refer to LBJ as "politically expedient."
He was notoriously corrupt at best. He took bribes (On the day of the assassination, sworn testimony to the Senate Rules Committee described an illegal $100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing a $7 billion contract for General Dynamics in Fort Worth to develop the TFX fighter plane. When news of the shooting of Kennedy was received, the hearing ended. It never resumed.). He gave bribes (buying votes in Texas in 1948). He used voting fraud to get "elected" (his 1948 US senate "victory" wherein he won by 87 votes after 200 voter signatures were added to the voting list in Precinct 13 after the polls closed--in alphabetical order and in identical handwriting)--and Johnson had purchased tens of thousands of votes across Texas to bring himself within that range of his opponent). He blackmailed (Johnson asked Warren if he would be willing to head the commission. Warren refused but it was later revealled that Johnson blackmailed him into accepting the post. In a telephone conversation with Richard B. Russell Johnson claimed: " Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say.")
He was a murderer at worst. Many sources, e.g., Madeleine Brown his ex mistress reveal that he was part of the conspiracy to murder JFK, and he is said to have ordered Harry Marshall's death. He was guilty of cover-up. He called Captain Will Fritz--chief of the Homicide Bureau of the Dallas PD and personally informed him he had Oswald in custody and the investigation was over. He called Dr. Charles Crenshaw at Parkland hospital and told him to get a deathbed confession from Oswald.
I'd hardly refer to him as an "idealist."
I also don't think his escalation of the Vietnam war should be dismissed as almost a footnote to the record of a "great president/leader." His escalation was based on a proven lie--the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident. It's been proven that he knew that was a lie. Yeah, he was good at pushing bills thru congress; that could be a bad thing too. He rammed that Gulf of Tonkin resolution right thru. Again, it was based on a lie and it led to countless deaths on both sides. So he certainly mis-used his clout in that case. But it resulted in huge profits for his sponsors Brown & Root and Bell Helicoptor. So it was good for the war profiteers, or as Eisenhower called them the "military industrial complex."
Finally, I don't think it's fair to speculate on what would have happened with JFK had he lived. One could just as easily speculate that had he lived Johnson would have gone to prison because of his criminal associations with Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker. Of course as president he had the power to stop the investigations into those crimes and he immediately did. But speculation is pointless. I'd prefer to stick with historical facts. Even those are hard enough to determine.
Nerrilyn, I'm curious how you reconcile your remark about JFK's "lack of substance" with the two lists of his programs and accomplishments that were posted in this thread.
And, I think it's quite a euphemism to refer to LBJ as "politically expedient."
He was notoriously corrupt at best. He took bribes (On the day of the assassination, sworn testimony to the Senate Rules Committee described an illegal $100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing a $7 billion contract for General Dynamics in Fort Worth to develop the TFX fighter plane. When news of the shooting of Kennedy was received, the hearing ended. It never resumed.). He gave bribes (buying votes in Texas in 1948). He used voting fraud to get "elected" (his 1948 US senate "victory" wherein he won by 87 votes after 200 voter signatures were added to the voting list in Precinct 13 after the polls closed--in alphabetical order and in identical handwriting)--and Johnson had purchased tens of thousands of votes across Texas to bring himself within that range of his opponent). He blackmailed (Johnson asked Warren if he would be willing to head the commission. Warren refused but it was later revealled that Johnson blackmailed him into accepting the post. In a telephone conversation with Richard B. Russell Johnson claimed: " Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say.")
He was a murderer at worst. Many sources, e.g., Madeleine Brown his ex mistress reveal that he was part of the conspiracy to murder JFK, and he is said to have ordered Harry Marshall's death. He was guilty of cover-up. He called Captain Will Fritz--chief of the Homicide Bureau of the Dallas PD and personally informed him he had Oswald in custody and the investigation was over. He called Dr. Charles Crenshaw at Parkland hospital and told him to get a deathbed confession from Oswald.
I'd hardly refer to him as an "idealist."
I also don't think his escalation of the Vietnam war should be dismissed as almost a footnote to the record of a "great president/leader." His escalation was based on a proven lie--the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident. It's been proven that he knew that was a lie. Yeah, he was good at pushing bills thru congress; that could be a bad thing too. He rammed that Gulf of Tonkin resolution right thru. Again, it was based on a lie and it led to countless deaths on both sides. So he certainly mis-used his clout in that case. But it resulted in huge profits for his sponsors Brown & Root and Bell Helicoptor. So it was good for the war profiteers, or as Eisenhower called them the "military industrial complex."
Finally, I don't think it's fair to speculate on what would have happened with JFK had he lived. One could just as easily speculate that had he lived Johnson would have gone to prison because of his criminal associations with Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker. Of course as president he had the power to stop the investigations into those crimes and he immediately did. But speculation is pointless. I'd prefer to stick with historical facts. Even those are hard enough to determine.
JFK was a threat not to the people of the U.S. or to the world, but to those who took power on 11/22/1963 and still have it today. JFK was a great President. All the things that myra mentioned were true. We were getting out of Nam. He was breaking up the CIA. He was making drastic changes at the Federal Reserve. He was taking away big tax loopholes from big oil. He wasn't going to invade Cuba. His brother Bobby was going after the mob aggressively. For all these reasons, JFK was gunned down in the streets of Dallas. And look where we are today. George "Dumbya" Bu$h! A traitor/war profiteer who is the son of a traitor/war profiteer (George H.W. Bu$h) and the grandson of a traitor/war profiteer (Prescott Bu$h) and finally the great grandson of a traitor/war profiteer (Samuel Bu$h). Treason and war profiteering are the key staples of the Bu$h legacy. Completely 180 degrees different than those of JFK and the Kennedys in general. Just compare "Dumbya" Bu$h to JFK as I did in a previous post...
Just look at what has happened in 40+ years in the United States. Just how bad is it? Compare the current "President" to the one this website is connected to. Kennedy was well spoken. Bu$h obliterates the English language. Kennedy was an intellectual. Bu$h is closer to stupid. Kennedy kept us from world annihilation because of his handling of the Cuban missile crisis. Bu$h is taking us closer to Armageddon with his stupid decisions regarding Iraq, the Middle East, etc. Kennedy was a legitimate war hero. Bu$h was an AWOL draft dodger. Kennedy was rich and compassionate. Bu$h is rich and spiteful. Kennedy was a man of the people. Bu$h is kept in a bubble by his people. Kennedy gave speeches in open environments. Bu$h gives speeches to staged audiences only. Kennedy accepted responsibility, ala the Bay of Pigs. Bu$h refuses to take responsibilty, ala 9/11, Iraq, Plamegate and Katrina for examples. Kennedy believed in a balance of power in the U.S. government. Bu$h wants the executive office to be all powerful, ala King George. Kennedy was charismatic in public. Bu$h is embarrassing to watch in public settings (just look at the G-8 conference). Kennedy wanted ALL Americans to prosper. Bu$h only cares about the rich and powerful. Kennedy was a real American hero (yes, he had flaws). Bu$h is a real American traitor with the sins of 9/11 and Iraq on his conscience. I only hope the next President is closer in philosophy to JFK as opposed to Bu$h. That way the United States can return to being a TRUE democracy as opposed to being a fascist state.
The death of habeas corpus is just another reason why the U.S. is becoming the fascist state the some of us abhor. Torturing, illegal wiretapping and stolen elections are now the norm in the United States. That trail of deceit and evil started on 11/22/1963.
Just look at what has happened in 40+ years in the United States. Just how bad is it? Compare the current "President" to the one this website is connected to. Kennedy was well spoken. Bu$h obliterates the English language. Kennedy was an intellectual. Bu$h is closer to stupid. Kennedy kept us from world annihilation because of his handling of the Cuban missile crisis. Bu$h is taking us closer to Armageddon with his stupid decisions regarding Iraq, the Middle East, etc. Kennedy was a legitimate war hero. Bu$h was an AWOL draft dodger. Kennedy was rich and compassionate. Bu$h is rich and spiteful. Kennedy was a man of the people. Bu$h is kept in a bubble by his people. Kennedy gave speeches in open environments. Bu$h gives speeches to staged audiences only. Kennedy accepted responsibility, ala the Bay of Pigs. Bu$h refuses to take responsibilty, ala 9/11, Iraq, Plamegate and Katrina for examples. Kennedy believed in a balance of power in the U.S. government. Bu$h wants the executive office to be all powerful, ala King George. Kennedy was charismatic in public. Bu$h is embarrassing to watch in public settings (just look at the G-8 conference). Kennedy wanted ALL Americans to prosper. Bu$h only cares about the rich and powerful. Kennedy was a real American hero (yes, he had flaws). Bu$h is a real American traitor with the sins of 9/11 and Iraq on his conscience. I only hope the next President is closer in philosophy to JFK as opposed to Bu$h. That way the United States can return to being a TRUE democracy as opposed to being a fascist state.
The death of habeas corpus is just another reason why the U.S. is becoming the fascist state the some of us abhor. Torturing, illegal wiretapping and stolen elections are now the norm in the United States. That trail of deceit and evil started on 11/22/1963.
-
Nerrilyn Diefenbach
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Thank you for your replies. I respect your opinions and I certainly hear your passion.
JFKs 'lack of substance' was referring to his moral character. Something I, personally, have great difficulty with. I believe there was an underlying insensitivity, immorality and irresponsibility about JFK that was down right dangerous. And you're right Myra 'politically expedient', is somewhat of an understatement when talking about LBJ. I'm not an LBJ fan, but rather was just using him to try to make a point.
I think one thing we do agree on is that on 22/11/06 something really precious was lost and it was more than JFK the man and whatever he may have achieved. And it wasn't just America that lost it.
As far as George Bush is concerned you'll get no arguments from me Bob. Nor from a young Australian called David Hicks who has been held in Guantanamo bay since December 2001. After two and a half years in custody he was finally charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. No allegations have been made that Hicks killed or specifically harmed anyone. It appears that Hicks has been guilty of 'thought crimes' against America. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Whatever happened to a fair trial? This legal limbo where he is unable to invoke the writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of his imprisonment, makes an absolute mockery of the very democratic values that US (and Australian) intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq was meant to uphold.
Shame! Shame! Shame!
JFKs 'lack of substance' was referring to his moral character. Something I, personally, have great difficulty with. I believe there was an underlying insensitivity, immorality and irresponsibility about JFK that was down right dangerous. And you're right Myra 'politically expedient', is somewhat of an understatement when talking about LBJ. I'm not an LBJ fan, but rather was just using him to try to make a point.
I think one thing we do agree on is that on 22/11/06 something really precious was lost and it was more than JFK the man and whatever he may have achieved. And it wasn't just America that lost it.
As far as George Bush is concerned you'll get no arguments from me Bob. Nor from a young Australian called David Hicks who has been held in Guantanamo bay since December 2001. After two and a half years in custody he was finally charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. No allegations have been made that Hicks killed or specifically harmed anyone. It appears that Hicks has been guilty of 'thought crimes' against America. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Whatever happened to a fair trial? This legal limbo where he is unable to invoke the writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of his imprisonment, makes an absolute mockery of the very democratic values that US (and Australian) intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq was meant to uphold.
Shame! Shame! Shame!