Rate the Presidents, Installment #35: John F. Kennedy

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, US Steel reneged on a deal they'd made with the White House before, and decided to jack up their prices to an extremely high amount. Despite being labeled a socialist for it the US public was broadly in support, as the Steel companies where being seen to rip off the US. Apart from that I thought his economic policy would be widely praised by Republicans considering he cut taxes

I’m sorry, but I prefer US steel having the economic freedom to produce what they want for the price they want rather than having a tax cut. I don’t buy into the myth that Kennedy was both some type of liberal hero and economic moderate at the same time. You can’t have it both ways. Of course, the Kennedy legacy (propagated by the press that loved and protected him) is full of contradictions. He almost rivals in Nixon in terms of contradictions for God’s sake.

This thread isn't about Nixon, no really what the  does Nixon have to do with it? That's like saying FDR's response to Pearl Harbour wasn't good because Wendell Wilkie would have done the same thing.

Pro tip: Atlas censors the word “f[INKS]k, so your posts will come across more readable if you avoid the “what the f[INKS]ks” in the future. Anyhow, Nixon’s response would have been the same-you act as if Kennedy was some bold and determined leader who did what others wouldn’t have done. That isn’t true.

More? What more could JFK do? He sent the Troops twice into South, including the Marshall to protect MLK and the Freedom Riders. He introduced civil rights legislation, was the first President to issue a clear call for equal civil rights. You have to at least praise him for that.

Again, that’s admirable but not particularly brave. Every candidate who ran in 1960 except Harry Byrd would have gone through with that. That is like admiring Bush for responding to the 9/11 attacks-who in their right mind wouldn’t have retaliated against Al Qaida? Do you give Kennedy credit for the sun going down each night too?

See my above post, There's no evidence Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger It's the oldest slur in the Kennedy book, and it's bollocks

I don’t really care if it’s true or not. There are plenty of mafia connections that have been proven anyways. This seems to be your biggest hang up with my anti-Kennedy arguments, which is hilarious considering this is one of the least important points I made.

Again, the Mafia were not to my knowledge used in West Virginia. Heck the Kennedies fought a dirty campaign in Virginia (As Obama, Clinton, Bush, Bush Snr, and nearly every politician has).

“Your knowledge” isn’t the best source on the WV primary. Try harder.

And again, JFK didn't know that the CIA were even trying to kill Castro-let alone that they were using the Mafia. It started under Ike, and Kennedy had no idea at all about it. The Head of the CIA-John Mccone, a devout Catholic didn't even know the Program. The CIA in the 1960's were simply out of control. Kennedy never pulled out of Bay of Pigs, he never gave the order to use ground troops and always made sure that he wasn't going to use US forces at all-it was going to be done by the CIA and Cubans. Again, as I rant later I think your friend Nixon would have done the same thing in Cuba wouldn't he?

The “JFK didn’t know” defense is weak. It is proof that JFK had no control over his administration of personnel. What does John McCone’s Catholicism have to do with anything? Your points are getting kind of weird. Anyways, you are right that the CIA was out of control, and Kennedy didn’t have the ability to rein them in.

And by the way, JFK did pull out of the Bay of Pigs. That is fact. He pulled US air support, causing the whole mission to fail. He lost Cuba to the Communists (and by the way, I’m a non-interventionist who could care less about Cuba being communist, so don’t accuse me of being some bitter war hawk) for good. He had a chance to butterfly away the Cuban missile crisis right there, and he screwed up. As a result, the USSR decided to strengthen their foothold in the western hemisperhe by placing missiles on the island. Is that Kennedy’s fault? Not directly. But had he allowed the Bay of Pigs to even have a chance, he wouldn’t have had to deal with that.

Well, if you want to play that game Reagan with Able Archer, or Ike with Taiwan were also pretty close nuclear war wise. Firstly, claiming he was in way over his head when he had people like Maxwell Taylor and Robert McNamara around him is simply false, I mean as you even admit below JFK had achievements, so here's hardly over his head.

Robert McNamara, the guy who entrenched us in Vietnam in the first place, was competent? What kind of leftist are you? That’s the most contradicting thing I’ve read so far. McNamara was incredibly awful. There was nothing good out of that man at all. At least he had the humanity to apologize for the war, but that is about the only good thing I could possibly say about the man. McNamara was the worst man to be associated with the White House since Cheney.

And no, Reagan or Ike literally did not bring us as close to nuclear annihilation of Kennedy did.

I'd also point out his actions in 1962 where no different to Eisenhowers' against China in 1955, or Bush Snr against Iraq in 1990. It was neither the first nor last time the US threatened to use nuclear weapons.

Eisenhower or Bush Sr. are both fairly mediocre Presidents too.

The Pentagon were calling for war over Cuba, and so was much of the country. Coming out with an agreement, followed by a test ban treaty is actually pretty good diplomacy. It's a virtual copy of what Reagan did in the 1980's with Star Wars. But again, using Diplomacy (as he did rather well with Bobby) shows his foreign policy was on the whole rather good.

There was no going back after the Bay of Pigs. He botched one approach to Cuba, so he took a more sensible choice when he was out of options. This isn’t anything to admire. It’s the result of poor leadership.

He hasn't been running Cuba since 2009. The comment was basically saying the 'right' had prevailed in the US.

Oh please, do you really believe Fidel’s voice isn’t still heard? That is like saying Putin had no power when he Prime Minister of Russia from 2008-2012.

This is about Kennedy. Not Nixon. How can I overlook Nixon when the whole ing thread is about Nixon. Why would I have any reason to mention Nixon in the first place??? How can I overlook something that no-one mentioned before???

Oh come on, if this was the “Opinion of Richard Nixon” thread you’d be posting all about how the man was a one star President, when Nixon really did everything Kennedy wanted to do and made it better. I’m not even saying that Nixon was a great President (indeed, he is the most conflicting of them all) but the Kennedy sponsored myth that the election of 1960 was some great contrast is ludicrous and patently false. And quit trying to swear, my friend-no need to be so angry.

Why would I mention Nixon in this thread? Sure Nixon did some good things in the 1970's-when did I ever say he didn't? I'm leaving Nixon's Vietnam for another day, but JFK had a mixed view on Vietnam that isn't aided by his death at all

He died before he got a chance to make things worse. At least LBJ had some sense during the Gulf of Tonkin incident-had JFK lived, it isn’t impossible to imagine a mushroom cloud over Hanoi, judging by his history and leadership style.

That's bollocks, and you can do better. How does Kennedy making peace with a socialist that was widely hated in 1964 help him win an election? That's like saying George Bush would sign a peace treaty with the Taliban in 2004 because he's scared of John Kerry-it makes that much sense. He could of done what Johnson, Nixon, Carter and every other President apart from Obama has done and ignore Cuba. Making peace with Cuba doesn't help him at all in 1964 against Nixon

Nixon went to China. He won reelection. Talking to your enemies isn’t exactly as unpopular as it seems in America. Obama has done just that and for the most part is pretty well liked by everyone accept the right. He knew that if he’d intervene in Cuba, the Soviets would get involved again, and he knew that he couldn’t just ignore Cuba either because he was the one responsible for the mess and one way or the other he’d have to clean it up.

Yeah that's why I like him

That’s where the JFK myth originated from.

[Mr. Illini]

5 stars

I'm a sucker for the Kennedy family. I come from an Irish, northeastern, bleeding heart Catholic background. What can I say?

[PJ]

I come from an Irish, northeastern, bleeding heart Catholic background.

This is true for me as well. My entire family is huge Kennedy hacks, and one of them even claimed that Kennedy was a better president than Lincoln.

Personally, I think he's vastly overrated. Choosing to begin American involvement in Vietnam was a bad move, and his tax cuts were too overzealous, but he had a positive impact on civil rights, got the ball rolling on space exploration, and the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was definitely needed. Had he not been assassinated, he probably would've had an even more lasting legacy, but he also would've had the potential to do more damage. I feel like a moderate hero because I already gave the last two presidents three stars, but that's what I'm saying here too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. As far as I see it, we both won and lost Vietnam: We lost the war by getting involved (thanks Johnny!) and won the war by concluding a successful peace treaty. Nixon did what he had to do to get that treaty, but he wouldn't have had to get it. You won't ever see me blame Obama for ISIS for the same reason.

What, exactly, did the Viet Cong accept in that treaty that they wouldn't have accepted from the get-go, without Nixon needlessly dragging on the war for five years? What strategic advantage did they lose? The Viet Cong were ready to come to the table and negotiate peace as early as 1968, and in fact, hadn't Nixon sabotaged the peace talks, chances are LBJ would have been remembered as the President who ended the war. "Peace with honor" basically meant "let's bomb them for a couple years to show how tough we are, and then essentially accept their terms because we can't win this mess."

[Blair]

I’m sorry, but I prefer US steel having the economic freedom to produce what they want for the price they want rather than having a tax cut. I don’t buy into the myth that Kennedy was both some type of liberal hero and economic moderate at the same time. You can’t have it both ways. Of course, the Kennedy legacy (propagated by the press that loved and protected him) is full of contradictions. He almost rivals in Nixon in terms of contradictions for God’s sake.

Well that's where our economic differences are shown-I think the state has a right to get involved in economic affairs to protect the nation, consumers etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well even if that's the case, I'm still going to praise a President for making a strong decision-namely in sending the Army down to Mississippi to protect James Meredith. Sure Nixon may of done it, but I still think JFK warrants praise for showing the leadership that you crave for.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just wanted to make it pretty clear you know, as thinks get lost in these walls of text. It's a myth about the Kennedy's, and well at least I've managed to teach you one thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well the book's I've read about JFK (too many) never mentioned the Mafia. Looking at it now the only claim comes from Frank Sinatra's daughter who said in 2009. Brief Kennedy History: JFK ditched Sinatra from his holiday plans in 1961, leading to the a infamous split between the two, along with Frank becoming more and more right wing

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-kennedy/articles/jfks-secret-mafia-history/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I'll agree with half of that-there's no evidence that JFK, RFK or Mccone ever approved efforts to kill Castro. There's lot of evidence showing that Helms and Bisell who ran the program kept Kennedy in the dark-I'm certain that Kennedy wouldn't of approved a plan to involve the Mafia with the CIA, considering his brother was currently fighting them at the Justice Department. The point about the Catholicism was that in the book I'm reading (Brothers by David Talbot) he argues that John Mccone would never of approved it.

Eh Kennedy had the ability, just not the time. He fired Dulles in 1961 (the person who ran it from the 1950's and ed up Iran), he threatened to 'break it into a thousand pieces', . The CIA have, and still are out of control- being President for 3 years isn't going to mean that you can stop the CIA. Again your holding JFK by impossible standards if you expect him to break up the CIA in 3 years

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not a fact-JFK never agreed to air support. Ever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Bay_of_Pigs.aspx

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.prouty.org/bay_pigs.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/

I'll agree with you that Bay of Pigs was awful, Kennedy should have discarded it. Even with the air strikes you claimed he cancelled the whole operation would still have failed-because 1,400 lightly armed troops were facing 20,000 who knew where they were going to land. JFK followed the advice of the CIA, the JCS and Eisenhower, and he should have ignored them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree, even if BOP worked with Full US support it would have been a disaster. Firstly the Soviets could have attacked Berlin ( as the US would do, say if the USSR tried to invade Italy or another NATO Ally) BOP working doesn't make the world a safer place-it leads to the US having to put about 50,000 troops into Cuba to fight a war of occupation against a people who supported Castro rather than the Imperalist Yankees. Kennedy using troops in BOP would have made the world a much more dangerous place, and is a prime example of the reckless character you claim he has (or doesn't have in this case)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He was a smart man, who for the Kennedy years was one of the more dovish members of the Cabinet who didn't council Kennedy to go to war over either Cuba or Berlin. McNamara should have resigned in 1964, or worse in 1966 but for some reason he stayed loyal to LBJ till the end. He was awful in the later years of Vietnam but he was still a smart figure on foreign policy-my point was that Kennedy wasn't this bumbling inexperienced fools surrounded by weak men that you make him out to be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again there was-as I said before Kennedy could have simply invaded Cuba in 1962 (as the Joint Chiefs urged him to) He had two alternative options in Cuba-do nothing or Invade. He took the third option, which was to make diplomatic efforts-something you seem to praise Nixon with in China

President Kennedy trying to open relations with Cuba, when nearly everyone was against is not poor leadership. Poor leadership is following your advice and invading in 1961

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No it's nothing like that. Putin was clearly very much in control, and in good health in 08-12. Castro IIRC has had several strokes, and is wheeled out for an event every year-he's on death's door and has  little control over Cuba's policy anymore- much less than Putin for Russia in 2008 so that example is not apt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Much like the Bootleg claim, this is another point that devalues your argument as it makes you look rather petty. Nothing in JFK's foreign policy history-from getting peace in Loas, to withdrawing advisers from Vietnam, to signing nuclear deals with the USSR suggest that JFK would have used nuclear weapons on Hanoi-there's literally nothing credible that supports that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, considering Cuba went red in '59 this would the same as a US president in 1954 trying to open relations with China-Whilst I praise Nixon for doing it in 1972 it was certainty an easier time to do it. In that case, the question begs why didn't Nixon open peace talks with Cuba?

Your whole argument isn't consistent-is JFK a weak inexperienced lackey who should have been strong on bay of pigs, or is he a reckless aggressive hawk who would have ended the world. The Answer is probably both in this case for you-I hope I've managed to clear up at least one or two JFK myths

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

George HW Bush of Zapata Oil claims he had nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs, codenamed Operation Zapata, but he's not fooling anyone.

[VPH]

5 stars. Again one of the best leaders.

[Rockefeller GOP]

He was certainly more courageous on civil rights than Ike.

Bullsh*t, pure and simple.

[TDAS04]

He was certainly more courageous on civil rights than Ike.

Bullsh*t, pure and simple.

No.

Eisenhower did not even condemn the killing of Emmett Till or meet with Emmett's mother.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/peopleevents/p_parents.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also This:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Dwight Eisenhower

I've never claimed that Republicans necessarily became the racist party or that all Republicans are racist, but regardless of what you think, it's possible that some Democratic presidents were better for civil rights than some Republican presidents.

[Blair]

He was certainly more courageous on civil rights than Ike.

Bullsh*t, pure and simple.

Ike called troops to Little Rock, which was good. However he never really commented on the subject publicly in the sense that he didn't show any passion-he enforced Brown v Board because he saw it as law. Compare this to Kennedy's comments after the Birmingham action, the fact he sent Federal Marshall into the South to protect king and the fact that he send the troops into Ole Miss when you had a riot going on-Ole Miss made little rock look like a picnic.

Ike on civil rights-'the Supreme Court has spoken and I am sworn to uphold the constitutional processes in this country; and I will obey''

JFK on civil rights- 'I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.'

Likewise the fact the sent major civil rights bill to congress, which went further than the 1957 or 1960 bill has to be praised. The point about courage is  relevant since it meant pissing off the Southern Democrats

[JonathanSwift]

Final Result: 3.43 Stars

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Final Result: 3.43 Stars

JFK also got 'Arthured. Nice.