Blog powered by Typepad

« Well, at least he didn't execute them with an A-A gun! | Main | Did ya ever clean up the mess on that dress, Mr. President? »

Tuesday, 05 June 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Back in the mid 1960s a liberal could mean something far different than liberal today. I believe RFK would have been more like a Bill Clinton- whatever it takes to win and then triangulate the fighting after.

Now if ever there was a Kennedy who needed to be shot, it was that slimy bastard Ted Kennedy. In 1963, if Ted had been shot instead of John, I believe America would be a better place today.

But Tony Blair (whom we all know is a pretty straight kind of a guy) called Ted Kennedy a Great and Good Man, and Gordon Brown was proud that he had been given an honorary knighthood. Surely those paragons of the Labour party cannot be mistaken. Incidentally, what I remember about RFK is that he had a personal shirt bearer. He could click his fingers and a clean shirt would be brought for him to change into. Imagine if President Trump tried that.

The conservative Mr. Kengor of 'The American Spectator' defining liberalism is more than a bit suspect. Contrary to what a lot of right wingers would like to believe, liberalism has never been in line with communism, which has a history of oppression. But the dishonest language of conflating liberalism with anything objectionable is SOP for modern conservatives, isn't it? And it's always amusing when conservatives try to make the Kennedys their own. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard conservatives quote JFK's "A rising tide lifts all boats" to justify their "soak the poor" agenda.

'The American Spectator' shouldn't worry about liberalism. It should be more concerned with a conservative movement that supports deficit spending, oligarchy, autocracy, corporatism, trade wars and shooting wars of choice, among other things it once opposed.

"shooting wars of choice"? You mean like invading Cuba? Or Vietnam?

And what about his point that Bobby Kennedy was a 'yuuuuuge' fan and friend of good ol' Joe McArthy?

Do stop being so defensive, Bob!

Pointing out a weak argument has nothing to do with defensiveness, David. The Democratic party doesn't necessarily have any more to do with liberalism than the Republican party. Left and right, the parties, and liberalism and conservatism are all distinct things. Given that, your point about Cuba is valid but the escalation of the Vietnam War crossed administrations of both parties. The invasion of Iraq was Dubya's baby.

I missed a chance to add that the Republican party, which was once the party of patriotism and "law and order" is now the party of trashing the intelligence community, the Department of Justice and the FBI. Confusing, isn't it?

As for the association with McCarthy, Joe Kennedy was probably most to blame:

"In 1952, shortly after graduating from UVA, Kennedy got one of his first jobs thanks to an old family friend, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy, who had vacationed with the Kennedy family and even dated two of Bobby’s sisters, agreed to hire the young lawyer to work on his Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations examining possible communists infiltration of the U.S. government. Kennedy left six months later, after clashing with McCarthy’s brash young deputy, Roy Cohn.

Though both he and his brother John became increasingly disillusioned with McCarthy’s brutal tactics, neither brother completely disavowed him. In fact, Bobby Kennedy named McCarthy godfather to his first child, Kathleen, and when McCarthy was finally censured by the Senate in 1954, John Kennedy, ostensibly recuperating from back surgery, was the only Democrat not to vote in favor of the measure. It would be take two more years before the elder Kennedy publicly denounced one of the chief architects of the Cold War Red Scare."

The comments to this entry are closed.