President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal.

[goldcatt]

IMNSHO, balance is overrated, but it is desirable in small doses.
Isolationists can and do hide behind non-interventionsim. I see little difference in their (isolationist's') distinctions. Non-interventionism as a policy amounts to isolationism.

Isolationists do hide behind noninterventionism. Just like authoritarian neoconservatives hide behind conservatism. But that doesn't make either of them correct.

I disagree on the issue of balance. Balance is necessary to keep the fringe in check. More like to keep it from becoming mainstream. IMO, while I dislike the institutionalization, structure and permanence of the two parties we have today people assembling themselves into two basic camps was inevitable based on the fundamental split in philosophy that's been debated since the Constitution was drafted.

You can call it Federalists v. Anti-Federalists, Republican Democrats v. Whigs, Democrats v. Republicans (a bizarre pair of labels if I ever saw one, considering what they actually stand for)...the entire split between the American Right and the American Left is based on the original argument over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States, complicated by the Originalist v. Non-Originalist reading of the document that sets it all up.

Everything else is really just noise, or an excuse to have the same old arguments with a different topic.

I think the debate is important, it's the way we go about it that's flawed.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I would actually say four basic camps. We pay a lot of attention to the left-right spectrum in the two-party system, but almost none to the libertarian-authoritarian split.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

IMNSHO, balance is overrated, but it is desirable in small doses.
Isolationists can and do hide behind non-interventionsim. I see little difference in their (isolationist's') distinctions. Non-interventionism as a policy amounts to isolationism.

Isolationists do hide behind noninterventionism. Just like authoritarian neoconservatives hide behind conservatism. But that doesn't make either of them correct.

I disagree on the issue of balance. Balance is necessary to keep the fringe in check. More like to keep it from becoming mainstream. IMO, while I dislike the institutionalization, structure and permanence of the two parties we have today people assembling themselves into two basic camps was inevitable based on the fundamental split in philosophy that's been debated since the Constitution was drafted.

You can call it Federalists v. Anti-Federalists, Republican Democrats v. Whigs, Democrats v. Republicans (a bizarre pair of labels if I ever saw one, considering what they actually stand for)...the entire split between the American Right and the American Left is based on the original argument over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States, complicated by the Originalist v. Non-Originalist reading of the document that sets it all up.

Everything else is really just noise, or an excuse to have the same old arguments with a different topic.

I think the debate is important, it's the way we go about it that's flawed.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I would actually say four basic camps. We pay a lot of attention to the left-right spectrum in the two-party system, but almost none to the libertarian-authoritarian split.

I agree with the bolded ...

I'm a Federalist at heart.

the the Originalist v. Non-Originalist arguments are mostly bullshit.

there are the strict texualists and the rest of them....

The founders, the framers, the ratifiers and an understanding of them and their times their stories takes quite some effort to grasp if only from the amount of time one must spend reading/going back.

I've read a few good books on this subject --- books published by conservatives and seek only to know what is knowable in the context of what is truly impossible to know.

I am an old fan of Rumsfeld's

 

[goldcatt]

IMNSHO, balance is overrated, but it is desirable in small doses.
Isolationists can and do hide behind non-interventionsim. I see little difference in their (isolationist's') distinctions. Non-interventionism as a policy amounts to isolationism.

Isolationists do hide behind noninterventionism. Just like authoritarian neoconservatives hide behind conservatism. But that doesn't make either of them correct.

I disagree on the issue of balance. Balance is necessary to keep the fringe in check. More like to keep it from becoming mainstream. IMO, while I dislike the institutionalization, structure and permanence of the two parties we have today people assembling themselves into two basic camps was inevitable based on the fundamental split in philosophy that's been debated since the Constitution was drafted.

You can call it Federalists v. Anti-Federalists, Republican Democrats v. Whigs, Democrats v. Republicans (a bizarre pair of labels if I ever saw one, considering what they actually stand for)...the entire split between the American Right and the American Left is based on the original argument over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States, complicated by the Originalist v. Non-Originalist reading of the document that sets it all up.

Everything else is really just noise, or an excuse to have the same old arguments with a different topic.

I think the debate is important, it's the way we go about it that's flawed.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I would actually say four basic camps. We pay a lot of attention to the left-right spectrum in the two-party system, but almost none to the libertarian-authoritarian split.

I agree with the bolded ...

I'm a Federalist at heart.

the the Originalist v. Non-Originalist arguments are mostly bullshit.

there are the strict texualists and the rest of them....

The founders, the framers, the ratifiers and an understanding of them and their times their stories takes quite some effort to grasp if only from the amount of time one must spend reading/going back.

I've read a few good books on this subject --- books published by conservatives and seek only to know what is knowable in the context of what is truly impossible to know.

I am an old fan of Rumsfeld's

Originalist and Non-Originalist is another set of labels that don't mean precisely what a lot of people who fling them around think they mean. Although strict constructionism is one brand of Originalism, that part they usually get pretty close to right. We'd be so much better off in this country if people would read facts instead of bumper stickers.

You're right, it does take a lot of time and effort. Which is why so many who claim to use Framers' intent as their primary interpretation method fail. First of all there isn't one single intent to be followed, just about every Framer and ratifier had his own interests and agenda. Second, there is simply too much information to be absorbed by any but the serious scholar, which many who claim to follow this method are not. It relies heavily on familiarity with both the British Colonial common law writ system and primary sources, which many who claim to follow the method have not read. In its context and done properly I suppose one could make the argument that debating the meaning of the language through the same principles as the debates over creating and/or accepting it is the proper way to go about it, but it seems really impractical to me.

I'm also a Federalist at heart. Which is why we tend to agree on a lot of issues, if not all of them. You simply cannot take a pack of fifty dogs all pulling in their own direction, give their leashes to one scrawny half-starved human and expect the human to end up in anything but shreds. History is proof of that.

Rumsfeld, eh? Maybe we don't agree on as much as I thought.

 

[Bfgrn]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."

And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.

LOTS of people can be concerned with and concerned about "the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties."

That's never been the actual question. The question, the thing that has separated libs from conservatives, historically, is the one involving HOW to address those concerns and problems.

An amorphous term like the "welfare" of the people is too ill-defined a concept to have much meaning of use in the discussion.

Concern for the health of the "people," as we see when we look at that hideous monstrosity we laughingly call "Obamacare" is expressed in a ridiculous and irrational fashion by the liberals who support that absurdity. If THAT'S your daffynition of "liberal," then you can be a liberal. I'm not interested. I am concerned with the public health and access to health-care, too. But my expression of that concern would NEVER be found in creating a Federal Government bureaucracy like the depraved joke called "Obamacare."

Caring for the housing of the people, likewise, can be expressed by libs in having the Fed government act like everyone's nanny at the expense of all wealth earners and producers. Or it can be expressed in less cumbersome and less socialist ways. Mandating that everyone who applies for a mortgage is required to by God GET one from a bank on pain of Federal prosecution of the bank or on pain of the denial to the Bank of certain needed bank access to Federal monetary management tools -- as we have seen -- is destined not only to fail, but to cause massive disruptions that could have and should have been utterly avoidable.

The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people. This is now and always was bullshit. The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.

That's point one.

Point two is simpler. JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody. For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.

Actually reading this conglomeration of bluster, ignorance, misinformation, disinformation and delusion, JFK's nephew has Liability pegged perfectly.

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Isolationists do hide behind noninterventionism. Just like authoritarian neoconservatives hide behind conservatism. But that doesn't make either of them correct.

I disagree on the issue of balance. Balance is necessary to keep the fringe in check. More like to keep it from becoming mainstream. IMO, while I dislike the institutionalization, structure and permanence of the two parties we have today people assembling themselves into two basic camps was inevitable based on the fundamental split in philosophy that's been debated since the Constitution was drafted.

You can call it Federalists v. Anti-Federalists, Republican Democrats v. Whigs, Democrats v. Republicans (a bizarre pair of labels if I ever saw one, considering what they actually stand for)...the entire split between the American Right and the American Left is based on the original argument over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States, complicated by the Originalist v. Non-Originalist reading of the document that sets it all up.

Everything else is really just noise, or an excuse to have the same old arguments with a different topic.

I think the debate is important, it's the way we go about it that's flawed.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I would actually say four basic camps. We pay a lot of attention to the left-right spectrum in the two-party system, but almost none to the libertarian-authoritarian split.

I agree with the bolded ...

I'm a Federalist at heart.

the the Originalist v. Non-Originalist arguments are mostly bullshit.

there are the strict texualists and the rest of them....

The founders, the framers, the ratifiers and an understanding of them and their times their stories takes quite some effort to grasp if only from the amount of time one must spend reading/going back.

I've read a few good books on this subject --- books published by conservatives and seek only to know what is knowable in the context of what is truly impossible to know.

I am an old fan of Rumsfeld's

Originalist and Non-Originalist is another set of labels that don't mean precisely what a lot of people who fling them around think they mean. Although strict constructionism is one brand of Originalism, that part they usually get pretty close to right. We'd be so much better off in this country if people would read facts instead of bumper stickers.

You're right, it does take a lot of time and effort. Which is why so many who claim to use Framers' intent as their primary interpretation method fail. First of all there isn't one single intent to be followed, just about every Framer and ratifier had his own interests and agenda. Second, there is simply too much information to be absorbed by any but the serious scholar, which many who claim to follow this method are not. It relies heavily on familiarity with both the British Colonial common law writ system and primary sources, which many who claim to follow the method have not read. In its context and done properly I suppose one could make the argument that debating the meaning of the language through the same principles as the debates over creating and/or accepting it is the proper way to go about it, but it seems really impractical to me.

I'm also a Federalist at heart. Which is why we tend to agree on a lot of issues, if not all of them. You simply cannot take a pack of fifty dogs all pulling in their own direction, give their leashes to one scrawny half-starved human and expect the human to end up in anything but shreds. History is proof of that.

Rumsfeld, eh? Maybe we don't agree on as much as I thought.

As a manager Rummie was a forward thinking doer. His reforms for the military pre-911were cause for consternation within the military-industrial complex.

Donald Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia he had an interesting career. ideologically we were on opposite ends of the spectrum, but he had my respect and admiration.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."

And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.

LOTS of people can be concerned with and concerned about "the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties."

That's never been the actual question. The question, the thing that has separated libs from conservatives, historically, is the one involving HOW to address those concerns and problems.

An amorphous term like the "welfare" of the people is too ill-defined a concept to have much meaning of use in the discussion.

Concern for the health of the "people," as we see when we look at that hideous monstrosity we laughingly call "Obamacare" is expressed in a ridiculous and irrational fashion by the liberals who support that absurdity. If THAT'S your daffynition of "liberal," then you can be a liberal. I'm not interested. I am concerned with the public health and access to health-care, too. But my expression of that concern would NEVER be found in creating a Federal Government bureaucracy like the depraved joke called "Obamacare."

Caring for the housing of the people, likewise, can be expressed by libs in having the Fed government act like everyone's nanny at the expense of all wealth earners and producers. Or it can be expressed in less cumbersome and less socialist ways. Mandating that everyone who applies for a mortgage is required to by God GET one from a bank on pain of Federal prosecution of the bank or on pain of the denial to the Bank of certain needed bank access to Federal monetary management tools -- as we have seen -- is destined not only to fail, but to cause massive disruptions that could have and should have been utterly avoidable.

The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people. This is now and always was bullshit. The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.

That's point one.

Point two is simpler. JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody. For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.

Actually reading this conglomeration of bluster, ignorance, misinformation, disinformation and delusion, JFK's nephew has Liability pegged perfectly.

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"

 

[Trajan]

Distortions of history aside, JFK is, was, and will always be considered a liberal Democrat.

Conservative spin aside, JFK is the spiritual as well as ideological father of today's liberals.

To say JFK would not be welcome into the Democratic party today is like saying Democrats don't like Bill Clinton.

reality is not the strong suit of today's conservatism. the evidence is that they keep saying every conservative President of the later half of the Twentieth Century was not a true conservative. They even have a name for it - RHINO

what a crock. so Vietnam was a "good war" (?)and the left would have fallen all over him? gtfoh.

or?

 

[Liability]

Dainty's basic dishonesty aside, JFK was clearly a liberal Democrat as that was defined IN HIS DAY.

But the meanings of such political terms tend not to remain static.

The ATTEMPT to pretend that they do remain static is dishonest of cretins like the always unpersuasive Dainty.

JFK is admired on SOME grounds by today's conservatives PRECISELY because of the things I've mentioned. Dainty cannot honestly address those points and considerations. That's not entirely his fault. He happens to just be flatly wrong.

I'm not a conservative, so I can't speak as to why conservatives admire JFK. But by any definition, he was not a conservative. He was a liberal and in some ways very much a pragmatist, in others not so much, but overall firmly in the liberal camp.

He wouldn't really belong in either main Party today, IMO. I agree that definitions of the Parties change as the different sub-categories of "Left" and "Right" cycle through. People like JFK, or Nixon, or Ike, or Johnson, or Reagan for that matter would be out of synch with partisan mainstreams today.

Wrong. JFK was as conservative as they come in fighting communism. Today's libbies tend to embrace that shit. Not JFK or Bobby, though.

When it comes to social and domestic issues, like most of today's liberals, of course, JFK saw the STATE as the font of goodness and light. The almighty fucking STATE could correct all social injustice and all manner of inequity. Such trite petty lib thinking.

So, "by ANYBODY's definition," JFK was a liberal on social matters and on the role of government in these things.

BUT, on international matters and on matters of U.S. military might, JFK was plainly a conservative. And the libs of his day didn't find that to be worthy of rebuke. Not so today.

Just ask Lieberman.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Politics

Although the father had abandoned Boston in frustration, JFK’s return to the city restored the family’s traditional power base among the large and powerful Irish-American community in Massachusetts. Strong family connections with the Chicago Irish political community (led by Mayor Richard J. Daley) augmented his national Catholic base. JFK always had two sets of advisors, an inner circle of Irish politicians who planned his campaigns, and a Protestant-Jewish coterie of intellectuals (mostly from Harvard) who promoted his stature as the intellectual in politics. That image was solidified by the Pulitzer Prize awarded his Profiles in Courage (1956). JFK possessed powerful assets: an excellent speaker and glib commentator on major issues, a middle-of-the-road political record that offended no one, strong expertise in foreign policy, articulate anti-Communism, unfailing charm and stage presence, a national network of Irish allies, a Catholic base that comprised a fourth of the electorate, and an immense purse that was ready to fund his ambitions, not to mention innumerable relatives who campaigned endlessly on his behalf.

JFK fought his way into the Senate in 1952 by defeating incumbent Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the archetypal Yankee. With the national Democratic party leaderless, JFK largely ignored the old-boy Senate (controlled by his rival Lyndon Johnson) to display his talents through newspaper and television interviews, magazine articles, and highly publicized speeches to Democratic party gatherings in every part of the country. Aided by his closest advisor, his brother Robert Kennedy, JFK appealed to conservatives by tolerating Joe McCarthy[6] and instead launching relentless attacks on corrupt labor leaders, especially Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters Union.

The Kennedy family represented the conservative wing of the Democratic party, and was known for its anti-Communism and close ties with Republican Senator Joe McCarthy Many liberal Democrats, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, distrusted JFK primarily because they could never forget the father’s break with Franklin Roosevelt or the family’s support for McCarthy. Yet with the fading away of Adlai Stevenson (the liberal Democratic candidate in 1952 and 1956), liberals lacked a viable candidate of their own.

* * * *

John F. Kennedy - Conservapedia

It would appear that I am not alone in noting that while clearly a lib on various social/domestic policy concerns, JFK was recognized as being a staunch conservative on foreign policy and military might issues.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Conservatives h-a-t-e-d Jack Kennedy.

...

Conservatives h-a-t-e-d Jack Kennedy.

yeah and his Keynesian economics were all the rage with conservatives.

Most men who served in the military were strong on FP and military issues. strong does not equal conservative. Many liberals were hawks on defense.

The Peace Corp was a liberal program. Conservatives h-a-t-e-d Jack Kennedy.

get a life you fucking troll and please post your bullshit elsewhere.

The Kennedy brothers (Bobby and Jack) went after Hoffa, and praised George Meaney -- union boss.

Conservative bullshit aside, Jack Kennedy would piss down the throat of today's right wing rather than allow pathetic creeps like Liability to hijack and attempt to own his memory. Kennedy was a partisan Democrat with a liberal ideology.

 

[georgephillip]

Regardless of which details of JFK's murder you subscribe to there are many who seem ready to just "move on" as we close in on the 50th anniversary of his assassination.

Has what happened that November day in Dallas in 1963 lost all relevance for us today? Water under the bridge?

"Nothing could be further from the truth, as James Douglass shows in his extraordinary book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis Books, 2008)...

"It’s not often that the intersection of history and contemporary events pose such a startling and chilling lesson as does the contemplation of the murder of JFK on November 22, 1963 juxtaposed with the situations faced by President Obama today.

"So far, at least, Obama’s behavior has mirrored Johnson’s, not Kennedy’s, as he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by 34,000.

"One can’t but help think that the thought of JFK’s fate might not be far from his mind as he contemplates his next move in Afghanistan.

"Douglass presents a very compelling argument that Kennedy was killed by 'unspeakable' (the Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s term) forces within the U.S. national security state because of his conversion from a cold warrior into a man of peace.

"He argues, using a wealth of newly uncovered information, that JFK had become a major threat to the burgeoning military-industrial complex and had to be eliminated through a conspiracy planned by the CIA – 'the CIA’s fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it' - not by a crazed individual, the Mafia, or disgruntled anti-Castro Cubans, though some of these may have been used in the execution of the plot."

JFK and the Unspeakable...

Were Jack Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev "scared straight" by the Cuban Missile Crisis?

I was alive at the time and can attest that the only other time when the entire US population was paying as close attention to hourly political events was during the week after 9/11/2001.

If Kennedy was removed from power because he was turning away from war in 1963, the individuals and institutions responsible for his murder are still among us, AND their wealth is infinitely greater than it was 47 years ago.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

* * * *

Politics

Although the father had abandoned Boston in frustration, JFK’s return to the city restored the family’s traditional power base among the large and powerful Irish-American community in Massachusetts. Strong family connections with the Chicago Irish political community (led by Mayor Richard J. Daley) augmented his national Catholic base. JFK always had two sets of advisors, an inner circle of Irish politicians who planned his campaigns, and a Protestant-Jewish coterie of intellectuals (mostly from Harvard) who promoted his stature as the intellectual in politics. That image was solidified by the Pulitzer Prize awarded his Profiles in Courage (1956). JFK possessed powerful assets: an excellent speaker and glib commentator on major issues, a middle-of-the-road political record that offended no one, strong expertise in foreign policy, articulate anti-Communism, unfailing charm and stage presence, a national network of Irish allies, a Catholic base that comprised a fourth of the electorate, and an immense purse that was ready to fund his ambitions, not to mention innumerable relatives who campaigned endlessly on his behalf.

JFK fought his way into the Senate in 1952 by defeating incumbent Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the archetypal Yankee. With the national Democratic party leaderless, JFK largely ignored the old-boy Senate (controlled by his rival Lyndon Johnson) to display his talents through newspaper and television interviews, magazine articles, and highly publicized speeches to Democratic party gatherings in every part of the country. Aided by his closest advisor, his brother Robert Kennedy, JFK appealed to conservatives by tolerating Joe McCarthy[6] and instead launching relentless attacks on corrupt labor leaders, especially Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters Union.

The Kennedy family represented the conservative wing of the Democratic party, and was known for its anti-Communism and close ties with Republican Senator Joe McCarthy Many liberal Democrats, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, distrusted JFK primarily because they could never forget the father’s break with Franklin Roosevelt or the family’s support for McCarthy. Yet with the fading away of Adlai Stevenson (the liberal Democratic candidate in 1952 and 1956), liberals lacked a viable candidate of their own.

* * * *

John F. Kennedy - Conservapedia

It would appear that I am not alone in noting that while clearly a lib on various social/domestic policy concerns, JFK was recognized as being a staunch conservative on foreign policy and military might issues.

if it's on a conservative internet site -- it must be true?



Kennedy praised Stevenson. enough with your links to revisionist history.

The Kennedy family included Teddy and Bobby. Both were fighting the conservative embrace of poverty as an American right after Jack's assassination which many conservative welcomed.

The southern white racist conservative wing of the Democratic party fled the Dems after the Civil Rights Act. They hated Jack Kennedy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

....

there is a conspiracy forum here on this site:usmessageboard.com. This thread is not in it.

thank you for playing, but...

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Politics

Although the father had abandoned Boston in frustration, JFK’s return to the city restored the family’s traditional power base among the large and powerful Irish-American community in Massachusetts. Strong family connections with the Chicago Irish political community (led by Mayor Richard J. Daley) augmented his national Catholic base. JFK always had two sets of advisors, an inner circle of Irish politicians who planned his campaigns, and a Protestant-Jewish coterie of intellectuals (mostly from Harvard) who promoted his stature as the intellectual in politics. That image was solidified by the Pulitzer Prize awarded his Profiles in Courage (1956). JFK possessed powerful assets: an excellent speaker and glib commentator on major issues, a middle-of-the-road political record that offended no one, strong expertise in foreign policy, articulate anti-Communism, unfailing charm and stage presence, a national network of Irish allies, a Catholic base that comprised a fourth of the electorate, and an immense purse that was ready to fund his ambitions, not to mention innumerable relatives who campaigned endlessly on his behalf.

JFK fought his way into the Senate in 1952 by defeating incumbent Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the archetypal Yankee. With the national Democratic party leaderless, JFK largely ignored the old-boy Senate (controlled by his rival Lyndon Johnson) to display his talents through newspaper and television interviews, magazine articles, and highly publicized speeches to Democratic party gatherings in every part of the country. Aided by his closest advisor, his brother Robert Kennedy, JFK appealed to conservatives by tolerating Joe McCarthy[6] and instead launching relentless attacks on corrupt labor leaders, especially Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters Union.

The Kennedy family represented the conservative wing of the Democratic party, and was known for its anti-Communism and close ties with Republican Senator Joe McCarthy Many liberal Democrats, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, distrusted JFK primarily because they could never forget the father’s break with Franklin Roosevelt or the family’s support for McCarthy. Yet with the fading away of Adlai Stevenson (the liberal Democratic candidate in 1952 and 1956), liberals lacked a viable candidate of their own.

* * * *

John F. Kennedy - Conservapedia

It would appear that I am not alone in noting that while clearly a lib on various social/domestic policy concerns, JFK was recognized as being a staunch conservative on foreign policy and military might issues.

if it's on a conservative internet site -- it must be true? * * * *

Sorry, Dainty, but that's not even close to anything I said. As strawman arguments go, yours should.

You remain pathetic.

The point of quoting conservapedia, you bombastic shit-muncher, is to note that others have maintained already the very thing I am maintaining in this thread. Namely: that JFK was deemed a conservative to many liberals of the day, even while many conservatives of the day deemed him a liberal.

I realize that these notions sail over your pinhead at light speed, but the reality is that they are not really all that contradictory.

In matters of importance to liberals on certain domestic issues, he was a faithful lib. But not on matters of foreign policy and some other matters like corruption in the organized labor organizations.

The converse of that was often true as far as the conservatives of the day were concerned. You can angrily deny it, but not on a factual level.

And your incoherent, childish and always ineffective ad hominems are simply not adequate as a rebuttal.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

John F. Kennedy - Conservapedia

It would appear that I am not alone in noting that while clearly a lib on various social/domestic policy concerns, JFK was recognized as being a staunch conservative on foreign policy and military might issues.

if it's on a conservative internet site -- it must be true? * * * *

Sorry...

as you should be. Conservapedia is an English-language wiki project written from an American conservative Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint that considers itself to support "conservative, family-friendly" content.

The American Taliban? These are the type of people who held JFK's religion against him.

Shame on you troll...

 

[Liberty]

the term liberal, in it's modern sense, is simply a lazy tool who wants to bring everyone down to their misery. Quite pitiful really.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

John F. Kennedy Jr.: Interviews Richard Mellon Scaife
Who's Afraid Of Richard Mellon Scaife?

John F. Kennedy Jr. Interviews Richard Mellon Scaife
Abridged from George Magazine, January, 1999

-------------

 

[Liability]

if it's on a conservative internet site -- it must be true? * * * *

Sorry...

as you should be. Conservapedia is an English-language wiki project written from an American conservative Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint that considers itself to support "conservative, family-friendly" content.

The American Taliban? These are the type of people who held JFK's religion against him.

Shame on you troll...

Ah, the old snipping to destroy the meaning of what was actually posted ploy. A sure sign that you are a loser.

While you are engaging in one of your legion of fallacies, Dainty, I think I'll just go ahead and note that regardless of the roots of conservapedia, what they posted is either itself accurate or it isn't. Playing "attack the messenger" is a shit-ass form of "debate," thus it's one of your mainstays.

What they wrote in the piece I quoted is accurate. Your fraud-filled fantasy isn't.

If you could make a coherent argument, you'd be able to say (fairly enough) that on many matters, JFK was a liberal, but that on other matters he was a conservative. But you dislike honesty.

Does it actually cause you pain when you are subjected to reality and truth, Dainty?

"IT BURNS!! IT BURNS!!"

Poor Dainty.

But it is funny to see you, the class ass-clown of trolling, pretending to call other folks a "troll."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

 

[georgephillip]

....

there is a conspiracy forum here on this site:usmessageboard.com. This thread is not in it.

thank you for playing, but...

conspiracy (plural conspiracies)

1. The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.
2. (law) An agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future.
3. A group of ravens.

Two out of three?