|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
In light of the preparations for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, past conversations with conservatives have come to mind.
They told me that Democrats went away from them after Kennedy. Was it LBJ's Great Society, Medicare or Civil Rights legislation, perhaps that put them off? But they take a 1990's view of the world and from that point of view say that Kennedy was relatively conservative. The term 'relative' is the key. We progressives claim Kennedy as one of our own, for in light of the era in which he lived his proposals were progressive rather than status-quo or regressive. Just as Abraham Lincoln was a progressive from the standpoint of the period in which he lived.
So what do you think?
As a side line for those of you that are old enough, where were you when you got the news from Dallas? I was in a grade school cafeteria during lunch, being told the news by a gym teacher whom we did not believe at the beginning. We assembled in the gymnasium to watch Walter Cronkite on the television tell the story from its beginning. Upon the President's passing we went home for the day. I was to celebrate a birthday on the 24th and did not have my cake and ice cream in the face of unfolding events.
Conservatives tend to despise LBJ's Great Society as a major push for larger government.
I wasn't alive yet, but I can tell you that, as a conservative, I have a healthy respect for some of the things Kennedy accomplished, far more respect than LBJ could ever garner.
And when was the last acceptable Republican? Teddy Roosevelt?
It was Teddy Roosevelt, it my opinion, thanks for your imput.
Reagan was great in many, many ways. Many conservatives don't like that he ran up the debt and that he pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens. Many conservatives also question his stance on gun control in later years. Still, Reagan was far more conservative than most, and he is very well respected among conservatives.
Eisenhower was great, but he spent too much too.
Reagan was the last great Republican.
Thanks for dropping by, EA, the question is would you conservatives leave the New Deal and all its provisions on the wayside? I think that Reagan was just an icon for the GOP whose legend does not match up with what really happened during his term. I know because I was working through the period of his presidency. With today's far right GOP, Reagan would be considered a RINO.
It's the other way around. Reagan would be considered too conservative, with a few exceptions in his policies. Even those exceptions were justified with conservative ideology. Republicans today are liberal compared to the likes of people like Reagan or Goldwater.
Check out how the military grew under Reagan. Check out his tax cuts. Check out how he dealt with unions. Check out his opinion on abortion. Look at who he appointed as judges. Reagan was a conservative, certainly not a RINO. This is exactly what happens with revisionist history. Reagan is very popular, so now Democrats will start to claim him or diminish his accomplishments by calling him a RINO. Let's get serious. Reagan would have been infuriated by your claim about him not being a true conservative.
Here's what the National Review says:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/25 … y-john-yoo
Watch this for further proof of how great Reagan was in the eyes of conservative icon William F. Buckley. This is really interesting, a rare disagreement between two of the best known conservatives. Buckley opens up describing why Reagan was so great in the eyes of conservatives.
The Kennedy/Nixon election was the first election I have memory of and I remember the love affair the American people had with this man. His heroic PT109 story to the Cuban missile crisis proves what a great leader he was. As time has passed we have heard stories of his wanting to end American activity in Vietnam which also shows his understanding of quagmire interventionism. This truly says a lot about the man as a leader. His transgressions that were held close to the vest by the press aided in allowing the man as a legend grow. Was it fair to the people of this country to have the press hold this information back is a debate that can go on for centuries.
Was Kennedy a candidate conservatives could get behind with his social agenda is hard to tell. His institution of the Peace Corps and the space race to the moon were brilliant in their ability to show this country at its very best. Unfortunately what we have with foreign policy and actions in recent history shows a very greedy and linear approach to our interests as stated by many presidents since JFK.
I was in a third grade classroom when one of the teachers came in the room and whispered something to our teacher which made her gasp and start crying. A minute or two later the loudspeaker came on with the principle telling us that the president had been shot. I was scared because I did not know how else to feel. I watched Lee Harvey Oswald get shot on live television and then a couple of days later remember the funeral and that ominous drum beat as the procession went to Arlington to bury Kennedy. I can honestly say I lived through history at that time in my life.
Yep, JFK would be the last fiscally responsible (D) president. Media hates that he cut taxes and the country flourished.
Forth grade, eating lunch on the benches, the 5th grade class came in from a field trip to listen to the Vienna's Boys Choir, they brought with them the news Kennedy had been shot. My teacher had a radio in the classroom. We listened to the news the rest of the day.
You and I are contemporaries, Tireless, thanks for your imput. Economics today are different that what they were in 1960, how difficult would it be to reap results from a repeat performance of what JFK did during his term, virtually another era.
Today JFK would be called a moderate Republican.
But yes I would say he was the last acceptable Democrat.
However we have to keep in mind that nobody knows, or ever will, how he would have proceeded had he not been murdered. He might have done great things, like getting us out of Vietnam before it really got started. He might have done as he spoke of and booted the Federal Reserve and had he gone on LBJ might not have ever been the disaster he was. Social Security might not have been looted etc.
JFK will always be a great unkonwn
I am not so sure about the "moderate" part. Kennedy was a staunch anti-Communist, that alone makes him an extremist. He was also a Catholic married to a staunch Catholic woman so, aside from the Catholicism alone, he was anti-abortion thus expanding the extremism.
However, he knew the name of every attractive call girl in Washington D.C. and had multiple dalliances, affairs and mistresses, some as young as 19, so as a Democrat he is still golden. If he were all the extremist things and a horndog and a Republican he would have been the most disgusting man in American political history.
The only thing that mitigates JFK's reputation is that he was a Democrat and therefore holy to the media and lefties. Despite his extremism in economics (pro-capitalism); international politics (anti-communism); in geopolitics (the Vietnam War, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc...); inability to keep his pants on and his hugely physically, psychologically and cognitively debilitating illness - he is still SAINT JOHN, THE DIVINE.
It is disgusting that some think that Civil Rights Legislation is anathema to conservatives. Wasn't it Woodrow Wilson, saint of the lefty church, who segregated the military? Wasn't it Dwight Eisenhower who sent troops to guarantee the integration of Little Rock schools? Wasn't Abraham Lincoln a staunch capitalist, where is his leftism?
Kennedy was as much a cold warrior in the tradition of the period not too much nor too little, as was Eisenhower before him and Johnson after him. Most of the politicians of the time from either party were of a similar mindset. Wilson was a Democrat far before the party's transition. Eisenhower reluctantly got involved in Little Rock to enforce the 1954, Supreme Court Decision. He later said privately that if he knew that Earl Warren was such a radical he would have never approved his taking the Chief Justice position.
YOu need to go back and study your history again. Lincoln saw the need for emancipation of the slaves a goal that had eluded the 15 predecessors before him. Your knowledge and assessment of history reminds me of Sherman, Mr. Peabody and the wayback machine.
That has to be a pretty big burr in your saddle.
Nice to hear from you, Borsia, I still miss the guy after all these years. It is like you said, always wondering what could have been....
For my generation, I clearly disagree with JFK. Though I find his views and passion to be very refreshing, I sway to the modern day in Bill Clinton being the best. The amount of good he did for our country was far more measurable and positioned us for greater things. Regretfully, the Bush administration was voted in after his second term completion. Sure, everyone wants to bring back the big Monica scandal. Fine, he's guilty of an affair. But, I will take an affair any day before I would ever want to be lied to as Bush did when he assured us about the weapons of mass destruction. Liar or adulterer, I suppose there is a lesser of the two evils.
I don't care about the affair; I have disdain for President Clinton's moral values but do not feel his personal life was really part of his presidency. It wasn't our business in the first place. I DO care about the fact that President Clinton lied under oath about the affair. He took an oath to protect and defend the constitution and then lied while under oath. He broke the law. That was wrong, and it deserved a consequence. No president should be above the law.
George Tenet, the Director of the CIA back then, has gone on the record many times about this alleged lie. He says that he personally handed information to George Bush about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He has said, continually, that the CIA was adamant there were weapons of mass destruction and that this information was given to George Bush. How can you say that George Bush lied when the CIA admits that they gave the intelligence to him? Call if false intelligence, poor intelligence gathering, faulty information, or whatever you want, but calling George Bush a liar is unfair.
Clinton used the power of his office to attempt to suppress anything coming out about his many affairs and his other more violent degradation of women. For a party and a president that pretends to be the champion of women they sure love that disgusting pig, Bill Clinton. Perhaps it is because leftist women have prostituted their worth in exchange for the sacrament of abortion.
rather sad that the only thing we could focus on with Clinton was his inability to keep it in his pants. For the most part, the rest of his record was remarkable. He had a lot of clean up to do after senior bush and all of his crazy mistakes. Just like Obama has had with this round of Bush(s). The amount of money spent on superficial and immature investigations on the president is a waste and sickening reality to me as a tax payer. Why this country voted Reagan, Bush 1 and then Bush 2 blows my mind, leaving us liberals with the bill to clean up their messes is what I am fed up with. Then the best is the icing on the cake when you all voted in McCain and Palin as your party's representatives for the presidency. What a disgrace to the conservative political party to have Palin's name attached to anything. Maybe she can see Russia from her back yard? LOL, LOL, sigh....
Do we really want to get into a discussion about the oval office suppressing what comes out of that office? Let's not forget the Bush administration especially Dick Chaney and all the times that they executed executive power preventing us from seeing and reading factual documents that obviously prevented them from being "found out" with the 911 attacks. On any given "real" scale, Clinton was a far better president (with or without an affair) than Bush ever could have hoped to be. He was clearly and idiot that still to this day cannot pronounce the word nuclear correctly.
You have distinct opinions regarding President Bush, but that's exactly what they are, opinions. As for the whole 9-11 thing, are you referring to some kind of conspiracy theory? What was suppressed?
Carter pronounces nuclear incorrectly too, just for the record.
I tend to agree, regarding Clinton vs Bush.
Can you cite the actual lie about weapons of mass destruction? Iraq had them, Iraq had used them in the past and Iraq did not prove they had been destroyed. In fact Iraq refused to prove they had been destroyed. There were multiple incidents of banned weapons, not just WMDs, found during the Iraq War. There were tons of uranium discovered, caches of artillery shells with chemical warheads as well as aircraft, that had been banned, buried in the desert.
The real lie is that there were no WMDs found and that WMDs were the reason for the authorization of force.
You and I both know of what lie I am referring too. No need for insulting questions of such obvious facts.
It's also true that the Bush administration claimed, during the initial stages of the conflict, that Iraq was moving the WMD's to Syria. Now we find that Syria has WMD's. It's a leap to say that these are the same weapons, but it's also a leap to say they aren't. Our current knowledge supports the possible reality that the Bush administration was right about those WMD's being moved to Syria.
LOL. Leave it to the conservatives to pronounce a president "acceptable."
Then again, maybe it is the correct word. Given the continued attempts to "reject" President Barack Obama as
I guess everyone is entitled to judge based on their own morals.
4,000+ US soldiers and half a millions Iraqis killed in a war that cost the US trillions of dollars.
Personal affairs with individual women.
As for JFK, I was in the workroom of Mrs. Reynolds' first grade class.My mom sat glued to the TV and cried continuously for days.
by SparklingJewel9 years ago
NATIONAL SECURITYWar-front Intelligence reportFor approximately half of the U.S. population, it is an article of faith that “Bush lied, people died.” The tired clichè was making the rounds again this week...
by Sooner285 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 … 99310.htmlOn the front page of the Huffington Post, the caption reads: George W. Obama. I find this to be refreshing, and I am glad the left is beginning to see...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
[img]http://www.newsworks.org/images/stories/flexicontent/l_bush-mission-accomplished_600x400.jpg[/img]I've posted this in its entirety for your celebratory pleasure.Aren't you so glad the Iraq War went so seamlessly?...
by SparklingJewel9 years ago
Did you catch the article? One more piece to the puzzle revealed.Go to AP homepage and type a Query "Iraq yellowcake" to access article...it is not on any homepage for news except Fox (not even APs homepage...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
To all conservatives out there, what are the 10 ways that President Obama is destroying this countrybesides instituting Obamacare?
by Miss Info6 years ago
Why is it okay for the US to harbor weapons of mass destruction, but not okay for any other country?We all know that the US is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, why is this okay for the US, but...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.