Kennedies Killed By Liberals

Discussion in 'Education' started by Sinatra, Sep 29, 2009.

  1. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    I found the recent comments from Patrick Kennedy both unsettling in their intended purpose, as well as lacking any kind of historical context.

    Kennedy warned about 70 AARP union representatives of possible violence over the national health care debate, and using his own family's tragic past as a way to emphasize his point.

    “My family’s seen it up close too much with assassinations and violence in political life. It’s a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric and attack people personally,” Kennedy told the nurses, union officials and AARP members finishing their breakfasts at the invitation-only event in the Providence Marriott hotel. “It’s fine for people to debate the issue and attack the issue, but when they go and stoop to the level of the vitriolic rhetoric that we’ve seen this debate turn up, it’s very, I think, dangerous to the fabric of our country

    What this Kennedy, and most liberals don't appear willing, or capable of admitting, is that the deaths of both Robert and John Kennedy came at the hands of disturbed left wing fanatics. Both Oswald and Sirhan were communist sympathizers. Oswald was a known Castro supporter, while Palistinian Sirhan developed rage over Robert Kennedy's support of Israel.

    Perhaps a recent article in National Review sums up this odd historical disparity so many liberals have regarding violence against politicians in America...


    Saturday, September 19, 2009



    The 'Kennedy Killed by the Right' Myth [Jonah Goldberg]


    They set about creating the fable that Kennedy died battling “hate”—established
    code, then and now, for the political right. The story became legend because liberals were desperate to imbue Kennedy’s assassination with a more exalted and politically useful meaning. Over and over again, the entire liberal establishment, led by the New York Times—and even the pope!—denounced the “hate” that claimed Kennedy’s life. The Supreme Court justice Earl Warren summed up the conventional wisdom—as he could always be counted upon to do—when he theorized that the “climate of hatred” in Dallas—code for heavy right-wing and Republican activity—moved Lee Harvey Oswald to kill the president.

    The fact that Oswald was a communist quickly changed from an inconvenience to proof of something even more sinister. How, liberals asked, could a card-carrying Marxist murder a liberal titan on the side of social progress? The fact that Kennedy was a raging anticommunist seemed not to register, perhaps because liberals had convinced themselves, in the wake of the McCarthy era, that the real threat to liberty must always come from the right. Oswald’s Marxism sent liberals into even deeper denial, their only choice other than to abandon anti-anti-communism. And so, over the course of the 1960s, the conspiracy theories metastasized, and the Marxist gunman became a patsy. “Cui bono?” asked the Oliver Stones then and ever since. Answer: the military-industrial complex, allied with the dark forces of reaction and intolerance, of course. Never mind that Oswald had already tried to murder the former army major general and prominent right-wing spokesman Edwin Walker or that, as the Warren Commission would later report, Oswald “had an extreme dislike of the rightwing.”


    Amid the fog of denial, remorse, and confusion over the Kennedy assassination, an informal strategic response developed that would serve the purposes of the burgeoning New Left as well as assuage the consciences of liberals generally: transform Kennedy into an allpurpose martyr for causes he didn’t take up and for a politics he didn’t subscribe to.


    Indeed, over the course of the 1960s and beyond, a legend grew up around the idea that if only Kennedy had lived, we would never have gotten bogged down in Vietnam. It is a central conceit of Arthur Schlesinger’s Robert Kennedy and His Times. Theodore Sorensen, Tip O’Neill, and countless other liberals subscribed to this view. A popular play on Broadway, MacBird, suggested that Johnson had murdered JFK in order to seize power. But even Robert F. Kennedy conceded in an oral history interview that his brother never seriously considered withdrawal and was committed to total victory in
    Vietnam. Kennedy was an aggressive anti-communist and Cold War hawk. He campaigned on a fictitious “missile gap” with the Soviets in a largely successful effort to move to Richard Nixon’s right on foreign policy, tried to topple Castro at the Bay of Pigs, brought the world to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis, and got us deep into Vietnam. A mere three and a half hours before Kennedy died, he was boasting to the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce that he had increased defense spending on a massive scale, including a 600 percent increase on counterinsurgency special forces in South Vietnam. The previous March, Kennedy had asked Congress to spend fifty cents of every federal dollar on defense.

    The Kennedy myth also veers sharply from reality when it comes to the issue of race. The flattering legend is that Kennedy was an unalloyed champion of civil rights. Supposedly, if he had lived, the racial turmoil of the 1960s could have been avoided. The truth is far more prosaic. Yes, Kennedy pushed for civil rights legislation, and he deserves credit for it. But he was hardly breaking with the past. In the supposedly reactionary 1950s, Republicans had carried most of the burden of fulfilling the American promise of equality to blacks. Eisenhower had pushed through two civil rights measures over strong opposition from southern Democrats, and in particular Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who fought hard to dilute the legislation.



    The 'Kennedy Killed by the Right' Myth - Jonah Goldberg - The Corner on National Review Online
     
  2. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,155
    Thanks Received:
    19,792
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,243
    I think you missed the point Mr Sinatra..

    It is not whether it is a left wing or right wing fanatic. Its when the issue moves beyond the discussion of issues to “It’s fine for people to debate the issue and attack the issue, but when they go and stoop to the level of the vitriolic rhetoric that we’ve seen this debate turn up, it’s very, I think, dangerous to the fabric of our country"
     
  3. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,701
    Too bad Paddy couldn't be motivated to mention vitriolic rhetoric of personal attacks during the last administration, or even the administration before that.
     
  4. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    And that would be well and fine - except for the total lack of political consistency.

    We had over six years of vitriolic rhetoric during the Bush years - where was the dire warnings then?

    And frankly, while there are extreme examples to be found on both sides - the past summer saw groups of senior citizens, young parents, and all points between participating in a collective questioning of their government, no different than the war protests etc of the previous administration.

    If Mr. Kennedy wishes to use his own family as an example, he would do well to remember that it was leftist radicals who killed both Robert and John. In the modern era, it has been the extreme left who has engaged in more violent and dangerous protest.

    Some simple historical context is in order...
     
  5. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,155
    Thanks Received:
    19,792
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,243
    Mr Sinatra..

    Now as to your assertion that somehow, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan were "liberals" ..I think you miss the mark. Just because FoxNews labels Liberals as leftists and Communists doesn't make it so. Oswald was a leftist Communist wannabe.....he was far from the liberal ideology of the day which favored civil rights and personal freedoms

    Sirhan Sirhan was an anti-Israeli muslim. How does that qualify as "liberal"?
     
  6. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,701
    And liberals in the UK are closer to the right here. So, what?

    Libs - today, currently, in the USA - are associated with the left, as are communist and socialist ideals.
     
  7. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,155
    Thanks Received:
    19,792
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,243
    Again you mislable leftist as liberal. Just because the rightwing nutjobs interchange the two doesn't make it so.

    Now to the historical perspective of who has engaged in more violent and dangerous protest..
    If you look at the 60's...most violent protesters were Liberals....SDS...Weathermen..Panthers

    However, in recent history, most of the violent protesters were right wing. Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder (killed abortion doctor), James Von Brunn
     
  8. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,315
    Thanks Received:
    12,690
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,733
    Jonah Goldberg...the dbag that claims liberals are like Hitler because Hitler was a vegetarian.

    Oh, yeah...he's as credible as nothing.

    I look forward to his take on Hilter hosting the Olympics and Obama wanting our country to host the Olympics.
     
  9. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    patrick kennedy should only speak when he's sober, which is to say, never.
     
  10. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    The rhetoric that is currently going on did not nearly happen in the last administration. Especially in the amount of time and numbers. Comparing the two is both dishonest because there is no merit and stupid.
     

Share This Page