I caught a talking head today giving his two cents on the importance of Ted and Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama.
The question posed was "Who's endorsement carries more weight, Ted's or Caroline's?"
He jumped and said Caroline's. I thought to myself WTF?
He explained it this way... Ted is a member of the old Democrat Guard and as such doesn't mean give an impression of hope for the future. Caroline he went on to say, invoking the "memory" of her father meant much more to young people.
I have to disagree, I would bet you that 7 out of 10 under the age of 55 couldn't identify Caroline in a F-ing line up. And as for her father's memory, we weren't alive to remember or were so young we know little more than what the history books covered about his brief stint in the Navy as a PT boat commander, Cuba and the missile crisis and his death followed by the outpouring of grief. My sisters are pushing 50 and neither one "remembers" a thing about it. This means that with an average lifespan of 86 years, most of America is too damn young to remember him. In fact, as a young person told me today, "All I know about Kennedy (the President) is that the country was on the brink of ending twice in his short presidency". (I'm sure this was in reference to the missile crisis and the Bay of Pigs f*** up he managed)
Caroline's endorsement means Jack "Kennedy" s*** to most of America. She's another spoiled Kennedy brat who thinks she can shape the world by bringing up her long ago dead father. To be honest, Ted's doesn't mean s*** either except to the insider power brokers inside the beltway.
Do you think that Ron or Mike Reagan's endorsement would matter a s*** to anyone? Despite the fact that only one of them apparently feels he got enough hugs from Ronnie while the other was frying his brains on whatever dope he could get, it would mean nothing, Even if he had died when Hinkley shot him. But Kennedy is supposed to really mean something? Bulls***.
The entire Camelot bulls*** story just doesn't stand up to the historical record save for a "feeling". Sure unemployment fell from 6'9 to 3.5 by 1968, but Kennedy died in '63, and it was Johnson who pushed through the novel idea of TAX CUTS. May have been Kennedy's idea, but so what, you get credit for what you do, not what you say (unless you are a Democrat, then good intentions mean more than actions). We almost had Soviet missiles 90 miles from our coast because of Kennedy's lack of Gravitas (if Moscow had thought he was a strong leader they never would have even tried it) and then his lack of follow through in the Bay of Pigs left us a Communist country within rafting distance from us for the last 40 plus years.
Ya, invoke the memory of the late, great Kennedy. History gets it right over time and his time is not looked upon all that favorably outside of he made people feel good.
But what would I know; I'm just an Average 21st century American.
Kennedy Schmennedy
|
Posted By: Average American Posted on: Jan. 30, 2008 at 11:22 PM |
5.0 / 5
Based on 2 ratings.
|
*This article was filtered, login or change your preferences to remove language filter.
Comments:
|
Jan. 31, 2008 at 05:58:50 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| And I actually rated it. AA, if you think people don't matter, that leaders aren't loved, then why on earth does every Republican debate center on which guy is the Reaganiest on the stage? |
||
|
Jan. 31, 2008 at 06:46:18 AM
|
||
| This is why people know that AA is nothing more than a pile of crap because of your blind hatred of Democrats. You can not see that there are many good Democrats but the RNC's talking point tell you otherwise. Open up your mind if you can.
|
||
|
Jan. 31, 2008 at 02:02:45 PM
|
||
| Oh they matter, just not to the majority of the population nearly fifty years later. Reagan is to the Republicans what Kennedy and FDR are to the Democrats, "street cred". They really have no meaning in the here and now. My point about Kennedy was the idea that by simply invoking the name of a person, whether it be Kennedy, Reagan, or Jesus Christ, does not grant you by divine fiat that which you claim in their name. And to think that Caroline Kennedy would have more influence that the king of influence peddling in Washington DC is laughable. |
||
|
Jan. 31, 2008 at 02:05:36 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Average American on Jan. 31, 2008 at 02:02:45 PM]
Average American
Jan. 31, 2008 at 02:02:45 PM Oh they matter, just not to the majority of the population nearly fifty years later. Reagan is to the Republicans what Kennedy and FDR are to the Democrats, "street cred". They really have no meaning in the here and now. My point about Kennedy... View this Comment Besides, when the GOP brings up Reagan they are speaking more of his philosophy than his personality. (I speak of both) but most are talking about what he did not who he was. When Kennedy is brought up it is personality first because most of what he actually lived to do (outside of forcing the Russians to back down) was uneventful. |
||
|
Jan. 31, 2008 at 03:12:31 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| Another great article, Average. You are a very prolific writer. It's a little refreshing to occasionally get such a dose of reality. If only people---especially the JFK/MLK lovers who take those leaders' visions and turn them into punchlines---read a history book or at least read one with an open mind and weren't easily led by fairy tales. The best U.S. presidents of the 20th Century:
They are true leaders. |
||
|
Jan. 31, 2008 at 05:31:46 PM
|
||
| I was willing to go along with you up until #5. Even the LBJ comment for the reason you posted. I would replace Clinton (and I am not saying this for personal dislike, I give him credit for keeping the economy moving) with Reagan. Why? As you placed one reason for each, big-picture outlook, establishing civil rights for minorities, being bold and aggressive while being innovative, successful leadership, I would grant Reagan the strength displayed in the face of resistance in ushering in the fall of the Soviet Union by forcing a battle of dollars, not bombs. |
||
|
Feb. 1, 2008 at 12:22:52 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by True Independent on Jan. 31, 2008 at 03:12:31 PM]
True Independent
Jan. 31, 2008 at 03:12:31 PM Another great article, Average. You are a very prolific writer. It's a little refreshing to occasionally get such a dose of reality. If only people---especially the JFK/MLK lovers who take those leaders' visions and turn them into... View this Comment I'd ax Nixon, and Clinton, and replace them with Truman, and FDR a 2nd time. Nixon was a crook, and Clinton was Clinton. |
||
|
Feb. 1, 2008 at 09:35:10 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| Reagan? He's not nearly the worst, but if my list were expanded, he would place within the the top 10. L.C.: Harry Truman is #6 on my list. Nixon was probably the most intelligent president we've ever had. If he weren't so paranoid, I think he would have done greater things for this country. You simply discount him as a crook with no further thought. Remember, I said either read a history book or read one with an open mind. Clinton was Clinton What the f*** does that mean? Oh I see, you're still in campaign mode. So you'll dismiss a good Democratic president because you're taking a side in the party's civil war. That's smart, I guess, but not if you chose to stand with the losing side behind Obama. I can't wait to see you guys complaining about President Hillary Clinton for the next four years. It'll be great and it will be without good reason. Hannity has conditioned you guys well to hate Hillary. And don't say that you have a mind of your own. You don't because it was developed by the biased people who raised you, molded by the stupid teachers who instructed you, and perverted by the media who give you your marching orders. Nothing satisfies you liberal partisans. |
||
|
Feb. 1, 2008 at 11:09:44 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by True Independent on Feb. 1, 2008 at 09:35:10 AM]
True Independent
Feb. 1, 2008 at 09:35:10 AM Reagan? He's not nearly the worst, but if my list were expanded, he would place within the the top 10. L.C.: Harry Truman is #6 on my list. Nixon was probably the most intelligent president we've ever had. If he weren't... View this Comment No, I dismiss Clinton because he was the best Republican President ever. What did he accomplish? NAFTA, welfare reform, and bringing the Republican's control of the House and Senate. As for Nixon, try reading How the Good Guys Finally Won, or Boys on the Bus, or anything from Hunter S Thompson from those years. Burglary, using the IRS to destroy opponents, lying, cover ups. I also dismiss him as the smartest President ever - Thomas Jefferson, FDR, even Coolidge, Wilson, Ike were pretty intelligent guys. Bill Clinton also had a big brain. Look where it got us. |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


Report Abuse