Missing more than just the man...

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Apr 4, 2009
16,829
2,492
245
RFK's Voice...

rfk_children_480_01.jpg


There is a major failing in today's political discourse. What is too often missing in our national debates is the moral dimension. Although, as a candidate, Barack Obama showed signs of changing the framework of Presidential politics, the last American political figure who insistently and credibly injected morality into politics was Robert F. Kennedy. In the more than forty years since his voice was stilled, no national leader has truly challenged us to apply the test of moral values to our search for solutions to domestic and global problems.

I had the opportunity to work for Robert Kennedy in his Senate office in New York.
---
His office attracted pleas for help from the most vulnerable of New Yorkers. I vividly remember hearing from single mothers in Harlem, whose nights were regularly spent protecting their children from being attacked by rats, to elderly residents of Queens, whose doctors were refusing to accept Medicare's payments in full. (Indeed today, increasing numbers of physicians are repeating this reluctance to treat Medicare patients.) I would regularly call landlords, physicians, and others on behalf of Senator Kennedy asking what they were going to do to make life a bit more bearable for those who were suffering. Invariably, I would hear the words: "You mean to tell me that Robert Kennedy cares about this?" I would get notes from him in tiny scrawled writing asking how we had helped each writer or caller. We seldom failed to get action on each individual situation, and then preserved the patterns of evidence for potential systematic solutions in a Kennedy Administration.

To me, working for him proved that appeals to morality, backed by the power of a political legacy and a future Presidency, could make a real difference in people's anguished lives.

In so many areas, Robert Kennedy based his political positions on a simple, fundamental, and passionate appeal to what was the right thing to do. The moral value system that under-lied his politics emphasized that each of us had a responsibility to each other. In the age-old tug of war between individual freedom and social justice, he pressed for the latter. He confronted college students about the scandal of those without a higher education having to serve in the military. He scolded medical students about their indifference to the needs of the minority poor. He pressured corporate executives to create jobs in inner city communities like Bedford Stuyvesant. He raised uncomfortable questions, like "suppose God is black?" And he dared to accuse a Democratic Administration of appealing to the darker impulses of the American spirit by playing God in waging a destructive war in a tiny Far East nation.

One of his favorite quotes was Dante's that "the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in a time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality." Today, I believe he would say that we have neutralized morality.

When was the last time an American political leader framed a policy issue in terms of our social conscience? Discussions about health care, the future of retirement, the education of our children, and the distribution of wealth, inequality, and poverty seem devoid of moral idealism. We talk instead about the accommodation of interests, as though each has an equal claim and as though the paramount standard must be economic self-interest. As a result, we are still shamefully far from what RFK defined as the essence of the American ideal: "a social order shaped to the needs of all our people."

Whole article...
 
Robert Kennedy was more a mythical moralist than true idealist.

He was known in his brother’s administration as a ruthless cut throat, the enforcer.

They had the greatest legislator in human history sitting as their VP, LBJ, and Robert vetoed using him to get stalled civil rights legislation through Congress time and time again because of personal animosity to LBJ and class prejudice. LBJ eventually did what the Kennedy’s could not and got it passed in a tour de force of legislative genius.

Vietnam: Robert did not voice one word of concern to LBJ about that war, he only became a dove when the war started tanking and McCarthy proved that an anti war stance could take the Democratic nomination during the 68 New Hampshire primary.

When looking at any Kennedy’s motivation or idealism, always, always read the find print.
 
Last edited:
Robert Kennedy was more a mythical moralist than true idealist.

He was known in his brother’s administration as a ruthless cut throat, the enforcer.

They had the greatest legislator in human history sitting as their VP, LBJ, and Robert vetoed using him to get stalled civil rights legislation through Congress time and time again because of personal animosity to LBJ and class prejudice. LBJ eventually did what the Kennedy’s could not and got it passed in a tour de force of legislative genius.

Vietnam: Robert did not voice one word of concern to LBJ about that war, he only became a dove when the war started tanking and McCarthy proved that an anti war stance could take the Democratic nomination during the 68 New Hampshire primary.

When looking at any Kennedy’s motivation or idealism, always, always read the find print.

It was after his brother's death that Bobby found his idealism. It was just before his own that JFK started to develop truly human principles and policies. It was a theft from society that these men were torn from us when they had just started moving beyond the shade of the political ideology of their father's day.
 
Robert Kennedy was more a mythical moralist than true idealist.

He was known in his brother’s administration as a ruthless cut throat, the enforcer.

They had the greatest legislator in human history sitting as their VP, LBJ, and Robert vetoed using him to get stalled civil rights legislation through Congress time and time again because of personal animosity to LBJ and class prejudice. LBJ eventually did what the Kennedy’s could not and got it passed in a tour de force of legislative genius.

Vietnam: Robert did not voice one word of concern to LBJ about that war, he only became a dove when the war started tanking and McCarthy proved that an anti war stance could take the Democratic nomination during the 68 New Hampshire primary.

When looking at any Kennedy’s motivation or idealism, always, always read the find print.

Banging Marilyn wasn't exactly the behavior of an idealist.
 
I don't think JFK had any real personal idealism at all, I think he died never truely understanding the concept. For JKF it was about power, simply being President. That was what he was groomed to be after the death of Joe.

Though he could change policy to do things he thought needed to be done, and voice idealism in vague terms that moved people, he would take no big risks for it.

Certainly Robert suffered after his brother's death but that did not manifest itself in any true form of idealism that exacts political cost.

LBJ was doing more for Civil Rights then Roberts caring PR visits to any ghetto.

As for Vietnam, if Robert had said in 64, 65, 66, 67, my brother and I got this tragically wrong he might have had some credibility but he did not post his conviction to that wagon until he was sure the war was lost and the Democratic convention could be won by opposing that war.
 
Robert Kennedy was more a mythical moralist than true idealist.

He was known in his brother’s administration as a ruthless cut throat, the enforcer.

They had the greatest legislator in human history sitting as their VP, LBJ, and Robert vetoed using him to get stalled civil rights legislation through Congress time and time again because of personal animosity to LBJ and class prejudice. LBJ eventually did what the Kennedy’s could not and got it passed in a tour de force of legislative genius.

Vietnam: Robert did not voice one word of concern to LBJ about that war, he only became a dove when the war started tanking and McCarthy proved that an anti war stance could take the Democratic nomination during the 68 New Hampshire primary.

When looking at any Kennedy’s motivation or idealism, always, always read the find print.

When pontificating about morals, always, always be able to differentiate between a political cut throat and 'the greatest legislator in human history' who used that ability to push through a resolution that actually led TO cut throats and the extinction 60,000 Americans.

When pontificating about politics always, always be able to comprehend how legislation actually proceeds (committees, amendments etc) and always, always be cognitive enough not to undermine your party's very competent Majority leader.

JFK made his civil rights address to the nation in June of '63, which led to writing of the legislation that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In November of '63, JFK was no longer president. We will never know how Kennedy would have proceeded to get that bill passed or if he would have gotten it passed. The irony is, that legislation may never have passed without the use OF Kennedy's cut throat in Dallas.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM3uaXp8DAk]YouTube - Cronkite Interview of JFK[/ame]
 
Civil Rights legislation was dead on arrival, the Southern Democratic block would not have it and the Northern Republican block did not want to give JFK a victory.

JFK had previously, in the first three years of his Presidency shown no great record of legislative achievement on major social issues, not like LBJ subsequently did.

Now, you are presenting Civil Rights legislation that will be very controversial in the South and you have the former most successful Senate Leader of that century sitting as your VP, one who had previously crucial in passing smaller civil rights legislation in the 50s and it does not occur to you to send him down to the Congress day after day and use him to get it through?

They did not use him effectively because Robert had an enormous amount of animosity for LBJ and JFK was largely indifferent to the legislative process.

If you look at the work that LBJ subsequently put in to passing that legislation, (and it was not really done in committee, that is not where it really moved, it moved through private deals and threats mostly made from the Oval Office phone directly by LBJ), if you look at how difficult it was and what a master he was at playing all the different factions no objective observer could or would say JFK had either the skill or interest in doing that. (It is hard to get major legislation passed when you are spending so much time playing little fishes in the White House pool. Nixon had the pool filled in because he feared he would need penicillin shots to swim in it after the JFK Presidency.)

As to sexual morals, I usually do not judge, even Presidents.

I am rather emancipated in that direction, but very few people would defend the way the Kennedy's treated Marylyn Monroe. It is one thing to have a consensual affair, it is another to pass around and use and then cut off emotionally unstable woman.

Indeed JFKs womanizing became so serial that it could have posed a security threat, he had one affair with a former Mafia mistress.

And let's not even get started on Ted and Chapaquitic.

I mean I may sleep with you, but I can promise you I will not leave you to drown in a car no matter how drunk I am.

This family did do many good things, in particular for the poor, but they are hardly the exemplars of great political moral leadership that their legend subsequently voiced.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread. I saw a documentary on Robert some time back and he seemed sincere in a way politicians rarely are. Shame we never found out. Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights

Morality (in politics) today is the insipid attempt to present all points of view and dependent on your affiliation, to defend the outcome of your side as if there were a universal law guiding it. Even Madoff is honored in jail, but unhappy that those he helped aren't more appreciative. Imagine that!


Edge: IT SEEMS BIOLOGY (NOT RELIGION) EQUALS MORALITY by Marc D. Hauser

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Glory-Dream-Narrative-History-1932-1972/dp/0553345893/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of…[/ame]
 
I never really looked into it or gave a crap but would anyone really be surprised if RKF was just another scalp on LBJ's belt along with JFK, MLK and Malcolm X?
 
Civil Rights legislation was dead on arrival, the Southern Democratic block would not have it and the Northern Republican block did not want to give JFK a victory.

JFK had previously, in the first three years of his Presidency shown no great record of legislative achievement on major social issues, not like LBJ subsequently did.

Now, you are presenting Civil Rights legislation that will be very controversial in the South and you have the former most successful Senate Leader of that century sitting as your VP, one who had previously crucial in passing smaller civil rights legislation in the 50s and it does not occur to you to send him down to the Congress day after day and use him to get it through?

They did not use him effectively because Robert had an enormous amount of animosity for LBJ and JFK was largely indifferent to the legislative process.

If you look at the work that LBJ subsequently put in to passing that legislation, (and it was not really done in committee, that is not where it really moved, it moved through private deals and threats mostly made from the Oval Office phone directly by LBJ), if you look at how difficult it was and what a master he was at playing all the different factions no objective observer could or would say JFK had either the skill or interest in doing that. (It is hard to get major legislation passed when you are spending so much time playing little fishes in the White House pool. Nixon had the pool filled in because he feared he would need penicillin shots to swim in it after the JFK Presidency.)

As to sexual morals, I usually do not judge, even Presidents.

I am rather emancipated in that direction, but very few people would defend the way the Kennedy's treated Marylyn Monroe. It is one thing to have a consensual affair, it is another to pass around and use and then cut off emotionally unstable woman.

Indeed JFKs womanizing became so serial that it could have posed a security threat, he had one affair with a former Mafia mistress.

And let's not even get started on Ted and Chapaquitic.

I mean I may sleep with you, but I can promise you I will not leave you to drown in a car no matter how drunk I am.

This family did do many good things, in particular for the poor, but they are hardly the exemplars of great political moral leadership that their legend subsequently voiced.

Hey Fogman, is it possible LBJ did not want to give JFK a victory either? You try to pass off speculation and opinion as fact. So, for historical accuracy and substance, can you please provide links to the National Enquirer issues you did your 'historical' research from?

You said: As to sexual morals, I usually do not judge, even Presidents. Well foggy, you just DID.

Let's try to ignore the insignificant issues like war and peace, and focus instead on morals through the eyes of Richard Nixon.

"Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."
Barry Goldwater
 
You can challenge any opinion I make if you like, that is what democracy is about, (hell, I would still drink a beer with you if you can learn to laugh), interpretation of meaning always is some what subjective. But I am not going to find evidence for your speculation, that is up to you.

‘What if LBJ just did not accept the order to help’? There is no evidence the order ever came. The Kennedy's never used LBJ effectively, he would have relished doing what he subsequently did and working the Congress like a master violin on the issue of civil rights..

Indeed Robert's enmity to LBJ was so great he wanted JFK to go back on the convention deal to make LBJ Vice President. Robert went directly to LBJ and tried to force him out of the deal. JFK did not take the campaign insults seriously; Robert could not give up a grudge. Read "Mutual Contempt Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Defined a Decade" which details this.

The fact of the matter is there is no record of the President requesting LBJ work the issue seriously nor of LBJ refusing. Taylor Branch in 'Pillar of Fire' makes a good case LBJ, despite being dismissed on the issue, pushed the administration to move faster and farther on Civil Rights than they ever had the guts to go and that LBJ's Gettysburg speech as forcing their hand on the issue. They wanted him to pull in racist Southern votes for the re-election campaign and he would not do it.

As to LBJ's genius at finally getting it passed, go to CSPAN and listen to the LBJ tapes on the issue and you will hear a master politician at work passing Civil Rights legislation.

Read Robert Caro's book 'Master of the Senate', revealing LBJ's previously demonstrated skill in passing previous Civil Rights in the late 50s legislation, and he also gives a some fascinating interviews about the rivalry between Robert Kennedy and LBJ.

As to sexual morals, I said I usually do not judge them, but if a thread lionizes a politician as a moral voice, well then some truth must raise it's hand and say "excuse me, I am far from prefect but I am not going to take lessons from this man."

LBJ had affairs, most of the women remembered him fondly, they did not commit suicide over it. The Kennedy's did not just have affairs, they destroyed lives. Literally.

Some kind of love?

Nixon? I am not defending his personality, I think he ruined what was becoming one of the most remarkable and successful foreign policy Presidencies with his personal grudges and paranoia, mind you JFK and Robert practiced much of what Nixon did, I mean these guys pulled off election fraud (it is the one time they did use LBJ effectively, he raised the dead for them in Texas, literally) and bribery (West Virgina primary) to their illegal wire tapping of Martin Luther King Jr.

But women were not dying over Nixon, understandable so.

I am just saying he filled in JFK's infamous female-fish pond.

There was not enough Chlorine for that water.
 
Last edited:
RFK's Voice...

rfk_children_480_01.jpg


There is a major failing in today's political discourse. What is too often missing in our national debates is the moral dimension. Although, as a candidate, Barack Obama showed signs of changing the framework of Presidential politics, the last American political figure who insistently and credibly injected morality into politics was Robert F. Kennedy. In the more than forty years since his voice was stilled, no national leader has truly challenged us to apply the test of moral values to our search for solutions to domestic and global problems.

I had the opportunity to work for Robert Kennedy in his Senate office in New York.
---
His office attracted pleas for help from the most vulnerable of New Yorkers. I vividly remember hearing from single mothers in Harlem, whose nights were regularly spent protecting their children from being attacked by rats, to elderly residents of Queens, whose doctors were refusing to accept Medicare's payments in full. (Indeed today, increasing numbers of physicians are repeating this reluctance to treat Medicare patients.) I would regularly call landlords, physicians, and others on behalf of Senator Kennedy asking what they were going to do to make life a bit more bearable for those who were suffering. Invariably, I would hear the words: "You mean to tell me that Robert Kennedy cares about this?" I would get notes from him in tiny scrawled writing asking how we had helped each writer or caller. We seldom failed to get action on each individual situation, and then preserved the patterns of evidence for potential systematic solutions in a Kennedy Administration.

To me, working for him proved that appeals to morality, backed by the power of a political legacy and a future Presidency, could make a real difference in people's anguished lives.

In so many areas, Robert Kennedy based his political positions on a simple, fundamental, and passionate appeal to what was the right thing to do. The moral value system that under-lied his politics emphasized that each of us had a responsibility to each other. In the age-old tug of war between individual freedom and social justice, he pressed for the latter. He confronted college students about the scandal of those without a higher education having to serve in the military. He scolded medical students about their indifference to the needs of the minority poor. He pressured corporate executives to create jobs in inner city communities like Bedford Stuyvesant. He raised uncomfortable questions, like "suppose God is black?" And he dared to accuse a Democratic Administration of appealing to the darker impulses of the American spirit by playing God in waging a destructive war in a tiny Far East nation.

One of his favorite quotes was Dante's that "the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in a time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality." Today, I believe he would say that we have neutralized morality.

When was the last time an American political leader framed a policy issue in terms of our social conscience? Discussions about health care, the future of retirement, the education of our children, and the distribution of wealth, inequality, and poverty seem devoid of moral idealism. We talk instead about the accommodation of interests, as though each has an equal claim and as though the paramount standard must be economic self-interest. As a result, we are still shamefully far from what RFK defined as the essence of the American ideal: "a social order shaped to the needs of all our people."

Whole article...

Again with this guy??? Ya got a little man crush going on or what?
:lol::lol:
 
You can challenge any opinion I make if you like, that is what democracy is about, (hell, I would still drink a beer with you if you can learn to laugh), interpretation of meaning always is some what subjective. But I am not going to find evidence for your speculation, that is up to you.

‘What if LBJ just did not accept the order to help’? There is no evidence the order ever came. The Kennedy's never used LBJ effectively, he would have relished doing what he subsequently did and working the Congress like a master violin on the issue of civil rights..

Indeed Robert's enmity to LBJ was so great he wanted JFK to go back on the convention deal to make LBJ Vice President. Robert went directly to LBJ and tried to force him out of the deal. JFK did not take the campaign insults seriously; Robert could not give up a grudge. Read "Mutual Contempt Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Defined a Decade" which details this.

The fact of the matter is there is no record of the President requesting LBJ work the issue seriously nor of LBJ refusing. Taylor Branch in 'Pillar of Fire' makes a good case LBJ, despite being dismissed on the issue, pushed the administration to move faster and farther on Civil Rights than they ever had the guts to go and that LBJ's Gettysburg speech as forcing their hand on the issue. They wanted him to pull in racist Southern votes for the re-election campaign and he would not do it.

As to LBJ's genius at finally getting it passed, go to CSPAN and listen to the LBJ tapes on the issue and you will hear a master politician at work passing Civil Rights legislation.

Read Robert Caro's book 'Master of the Senate', revealing LBJ's previously demonstrated skill in passing previous Civil Rights in the late 50s legislation, and he also gives a some fascinating interviews about the rivalry between Robert Kennedy and LBJ.

As to sexual morals, I said I usually do not judge them, but if a thread lionizes a politician as a moral voice, well then some truth must raise it's hand and say "excuse me, I am far from prefect but I am not going to take lessons from this man."

LBJ had affairs, most of the women remembered him fondly, they did not commit suicide over it. The Kennedy's did not just have affairs, they destroyed lives. Literally.

Some kind of love?

Nixon? I am not defending his personality, I think he ruined what was becoming one of the most remarkable and successful foreign policy Presidencies with his personal grudges and paranoia, mind you JFK and Robert practiced much of what Nixon did, I mean these guys pulled off election fraud (it is the one time they did use LBJ effectively, he raised the dead for them in Texas, literally) and bribery (West Virgina primary) to their illegal wire tapping of Martin Luther King Jr.

But women were not dying over Nixon, understandable so.

I am just saying he filled in JFK's infamous female-fish pond.

There was not enough Chlorine for that water.

'But I am not going to find evidence for your speculation, that is up to you.'

Is this how you decided to make me laugh fogman? YOU post speculation as fact and jump the shark linking Marilyn Monroe's death to being slighted by the President of the United States? What did Marilyn think, she was taking a screen test for the role of First Lady? Grow up, dry out, or both.

Where do we draw the line on personal lives and public policy? My belief is that the two should be separate, as long the personal doesn't interfere or adversely influence the public role. If personal life is the benchmark, let's reexamine Joseph Stalin's personal life. Maybe he, like Nixon or Jr Bush were monogamous. But here is the conundum, Kennedy fucked women, Stalin, Nixon and Jr Bush fucked populations and fellow countrymen. I never lost any sleep worrying that our president would blurt out the nuclear code to Judith Campbell during climax. People like Time's Hugh Sidey, who knew Kennedy and spent time with him were aware of JFK's womanizing. But Sidey said he never heard ANY talk about women from JFK. It was always discussion about issues and events that influenced and affected our country and the world. Jack Kennedy liked to fuck women, that is not breaking news. Nixon probably didn't even fuck Pat much, he was too dysfunctional and fucked up of a human being. The guy couldn't even drive a car after so many years receiving the diplomat treatment. But Nixon fucked a nation with his war on drugs. If you want to listen to tapes of president's, listen to the Nixon tapes. In his own words, he confirms that war on drugs was a culture war based on his own paranoia, mental illness and scurrilous character.

And while you are at it, listen to LBJ's conversations Richard Russell and with J Edgar Hoover a few days after Kennedy's assassination. It show how the Warren Commission was a public relations move to block any Congressional investigation into the coup d'état that occurred on an American street in broad daylight and to mollify the American people into believing Oswald was the lone assassin. It also shows LBJ at his diengenuous best, kissing and licking Hoover's ass.
 
Do you know how long it has taken me to learn to let a man have the last word?

No matter what those words say.

Knock yourself out.
 
Do you know how long it has taken me to learn to let a man have the last word?

No matter what those words say.

Knock yourself out.

The last word should be the 'first' word...the point of the Op-ed piece...

Senators, Presidents and Congressmen are public servants. We should judge them on what the do for their constituents, our country and most of all, the human beings that live, breath and raise their families in America...the We, the People

Does it matter to the single mothers in Harlem, whose nights were regularly spent protecting their children from being attacked by rats, or the elderly residents of Queens, whose doctors were refusing to accept Medicare's payments in full what Robert Kennedy did or didn't do in his personal life? What MATTERS is if he did the right thing to help those people. Robert F. Kennedy did.

We need a LOT more like him.
 
Do you know how long it has taken me to learn to let a man have the last word?

No matter what those words say.

Knock yourself out.

The last word should be the 'first' word...the point of the Op-ed piece...

Senators, Presidents and Congressmen are public servants. We should judge them on what the do for their constituents, our country and most of all, the human beings that live, breath and raise their families in America...the We, the People

Does it matter to the single mothers in Harlem, whose nights were regularly spent protecting their children from being attacked by rats, or the elderly residents of Queens, whose doctors were refusing to accept Medicare's payments in full what Robert Kennedy did or didn't do in his personal life? What MATTERS is if he did the right thing to help those people. Robert F. Kennedy did.

We need a LOT more like him.

You mean like his handling of the Bay of Pigs?
 
Do you know how long it has taken me to learn to let a man have the last word?

No matter what those words say.

Knock yourself out.

The last word should be the 'first' word...the point of the Op-ed piece...

Senators, Presidents and Congressmen are public servants. We should judge them on what the do for their constituents, our country and most of all, the human beings that live, breath and raise their families in America...the We, the People

Does it matter to the single mothers in Harlem, whose nights were regularly spent protecting their children from being attacked by rats, or the elderly residents of Queens, whose doctors were refusing to accept Medicare's payments in full what Robert Kennedy did or didn't do in his personal life? What MATTERS is if he did the right thing to help those people. Robert F. Kennedy did.

We need a LOT more like him.

You mean like his handling of the Bay of Pigs?

dilloduck...do you really want to get into the Bay of Pigs? Because I am more than willing to talk about it in detail and tell you why JFK (RFK's brother, the President) made the right decision. You better know what you're talking about, or don't waste your time or mine.
 
Last edited:
Do you know how long it has taken me to learn to let a man have the last word?

No matter what those words say.

Knock yourself out.

The last word should be the 'first' word...the point of the Op-ed piece...

Senators, Presidents and Congressmen are public servants. We should judge them on what the do for their constituents, our country and most of all, the human beings that live, breath and raise their families in America...the We, the People

Does it matter to the single mothers in Harlem, whose nights were regularly spent protecting their children from being attacked by rats, or the elderly residents of Queens, whose doctors were refusing to accept Medicare's payments in full what Robert Kennedy did or didn't do in his personal life? What MATTERS is if he did the right thing to help those people. Robert F. Kennedy did.

We need a LOT more like him.

:clap2:
 

Forum List

Back
Top