JFK overrated?

I didn't want to ask this question last week since it was the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, but why are people (especially Boomers) fixated on John F. Kennedy?

Mind you, I'm not saying that he was a bad president, but was he really one of the greats? Many polls have him ranked right up there with James Madison, John Adams, and James Monroe, which I find absolutely ridiculous. A C-SPAN poll from 2009 even had him ranked as the 6th greatest president of all-time!

Privately he was a bigger horndog than Bill Clinton. His
exploits outside of marriage are legendary. He hung out
with Sinatra for ahwhile, and Sinatra's valet wrote in his
book that all Jack talked about was 'poontang'. At least
he kept it out of the White House.

Youth, novelty, Catholicism and an attractive wife were all to his advantage along with constant media manipulation. I hear he did not keep it out of the white house or even out of the marital bed but he sure kept it out of the press. His successor had broads being hustled in and out of the White House all the time too.

Quote: FleaStiff

Youth, novelty, Catholicism and an attractive wife were all to his advantage along with constant media manipulation. I hear he did not keep it out of the white house or even out of the marital bed but he sure kept it out of the press. His successor had broads being hustled in and out of the White House all the time too.

If he was getting Lewinski's in the WH, at least he was
never caught.

Quote: EvenBob

If he was getting Lewinski's in the WH, at least he was
never caught.

We're talking about an era when Lucy and Ricky had to have separate beds. TV newscasters heads would explode reporting what is reported today.

No one every speaks of his accomplishments, only his failures, shortcomings. He secured a .test ban treaty with the USSR and aided the end of segregation at travel facilities, housing and the peace corps. Also a huge tax cut.

I'm related to the Kennedy family and in my rather big family it cuts down the middle. Half despised them and the other half loved them. My father worked on all of Jack's campaigns and some of Ted's and he admired them greatly. My mother couldn't stand them, especially Ted, and that was before Chappaquiddick. She also despised the father and thought he was scary.

I have to say I find him overrated. Boomers fixate on him similarly to how the kids fixate on Obama today. In the case of JFK you had the fact that Ike was the first POTUS they remember and in comparison JFK was a young, hip guy. IMHO he can be considered the first "modern" POTUS. But add in another thing. The oldest boomers were 15 or so when he took office and 18 when he was killed. So he was POTUS during their early, formative years. It is a reminder of a happy part of their life for most of them. Then to see him cut down so early makes them wonder what might have been.

Much like Obama today, the young people thought he was an emperor of style and hip. He hung out with Sinatra much as Obama has his celebrity groupies today. Don't discount that both came after a POTUS of more conservative social behaviors.

As to thinking he is overrated, I base it on a few things. One, he was POTUS for too short of a time. He did set up some good things like the Peace Corps and give an economy boosting tax cut for the rich, but he also had the Bay of Pigs and probably would have gotten at least as involved in Vietnam as LBJ did. Put another way, he gets more credit for starting things and less blame for how they turned out because of his early death.

Not to say he was bad, but he is overrated.

Quote: AZDuffman

As to thinking he is overrated, I base it on a few things. One, he was POTUS for too short of a time. He did set up some good things like the Peace Corps and give an economy boosting tax cut for the rich, but he also had the Bay of Pigs and probably would have gotten at least as involved in Vietnam as LBJ did. Put another way, he gets more credit for starting things and less blame for how they turned out because of his early death.

Not to say he was bad, but he is overrated.

That's a pretty fair analysis. Kennedy had the potential to be great, but not enough time. (For perspective, I was 9 when he was assassinated.)

One thing that those who weren't around can't know is the incredible feel of living at that time. The early '60s felt like change, felt like potential, but also felt like danger, and felt incredibly fragile. Even as a 9 year old. We didn't just have fire drills in school, we had air raid drills. For nuclear attack. Kennedy was a young man coming after old men. He represented the promise and the dynamism of youth, he represented positive change, and the belief that together we could change the world. When he said, "Ask not, what your country can do for you... but what you can do for your country!" that was just incredibly powerful and meaningful, and energizing in a way that political speech doesn't resonate today.

Was it that way for everyone? Of course not. But the power for change and the potential for justice was there. When JFK was killed, people weren't just mourning the loss of life, they were mourning the loss of that potential, which was personified in the man.

Of the presidents that followed him, Clinton and Obama are the only once that come close on charisma and looks.

Therefore, much in the same manner that recent songs unfairly populate yearly lists of the all-time best songs, Kennedy ranks among the most liked and admired presidents. Throw in the assassination and he can't be beat.

Quote: Mosca

One thing that those who weren't around can't know is the incredible feel of living at that time. The early '60s felt like change, felt like potential, but also felt like danger, and felt incredibly fragile. Even as a 9 year old. We didn't just have fire drills in school, we had air raid drills. For nuclear attack. Kennedy was a young man coming after old men. He represented the promise and the dynamism of youth, he represented positive change, and the belief that together we could change the world. When he said, "Ask not, what your country can do for you... but what you can do for your country!" that was just incredibly powerful and meaningful, and energizing in a way that political speech doesn't resonate today.

I try to explain the 1980s to "kids" this same way. We didn't have the air raid drills, but we were still very worried about the USSR until 1987 or so. The 1970s was a decade of the USA being kicked around and humiliated. First we lost Vietnam, then the gas shortages brought us to our knees. A POTUS leaving office in disgrace. Stagflation. And finally a mob in Iran takes 52 people hostage and we could do zip about it. Reagan took office in 1981 and it almost turned on a dime.

The day he took office the hostages came home, and they came home the same week as the Super Bowl which became a ticker-tape celebration. The gas crisis started to ease about the same time. And while the economy took until 1983 to boom, inflation started to have its back broken. But the triumph was that patriotism was OK again. For the first time in 20 years people felt great to be Americans. The USSR dissed the USA by not showing up at the LA Olympics and then the ChiComs dissed the USSR when they showed up. It was a glorious time.

We haven't had such a period since. The 1990s were more like the 1950s in some ways. A good economy but a USA trying to disengage from the rest of the world. The 2000s saw a brief spurt of national purpose after 9/11, but the PC term "war on terror" instead of "war on radical islam" was just too murky that many people would tune out. The 2010s has been about a USA the most divided on national direction since the 1930s at least but possibly since the 1850s with part of the nation wanting a more socialist direction, another part asking why we would want to do anything so crazy, and the rest more worried about Paris Hilton and the Kardashians.

I would fret that I do not see the next such leader in the wings, but you never do until they emerge. Maybe it will be the next POTUS. But it will take a person of sufficient charisma, sufficient leadership ability (they are not one in the same), and a POTUS challenged by international events that they rise to them.

We can only hope. Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, and Obama have all been average at best. None was a complete package.

If I'm not mistaken Kennedy's politics would be considered conservative by todays standards.

I believe he advocated tax cuts.

Quote: treetopbuddy

If I'm not mistaken Kennedy's politics would be considered conservative by todays standards.

I believe he advocated tax cuts.

When they played tape of JFK calling for tax cuts the Kennedy family asked that the commercials be pulled.

JFK could not get the Democrat Party nomination today.

I think John F. was the last leader the country had, and of course that is an opinion.

I would have thought with all the intellectuals that hang out here someone would have googled, maybe everyone is just contributor burned out?

He also presided over the first nuclear test ban treaty, which was a pretty good thing.

Swore to bust the cia into a thousand pieces.

He actually "served" served in the armed forces.

The last Catholic president which made him easier to associate with the common man, "core values".

Sent his brother Robert in to break up the criminal teamsters, which needed doing.

He tried to fix South America to stop the dictatorships friendly to the Soviets, important at the time.

He wanted to stop the war in Viet Nam, return the power to coin money to the treasury from the fed.

He did a lot of good things other than pronounce the phrase "ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country".

He stood up to the Soviets on the Cuban missile "crisis", a complete opposite to our current "dear leader".

I think he was the last American president who strained at the leash of those truly in power.

I voted "not overated" simply due to this is poll started by a conservative,
If the poll was started by somebody on the left, I would have voted "overated"
That's how I roll on political polls.
I'm an independent in reality but a registered republican so I can vote in the primarys.
Since I'm a registered repub, got a survey from the repubs, boy, I had fun with that survey answering every question with a left bent.

Quote: terapined

I voted "not overated" simply due to this is poll started by a conservative,
If the poll was started by somebody on the left, I would have voted "overated"
That's how I roll on political polls.
I'm an independent in reality but a registered republican so I can vote in the primarys.
Since I'm a registered repub, got a survey from the repubs, boy, I had fun with that survey answering every question with a left bent.

Haha...and this is the same guy who thinks that the mainstream media is "unbiased". lol

Quote: AZDuffman

One, he was POTUS for too short of a time..

Possibly the fair rating would be to look at the first 3 years of every Presidency (for the ones that made it to 3 years) and stop right there.

But also, let's remember the accomplishments of President Atchison. He slept most of that day. (and he may not have even been President)

Quote: rxwine

Possibly the fair rating would be to look at the first 3 years of every Presidency (for the ones that made it to 3 years) and stop right there.

What a silly thing to say. Why would a person do this when evaluating the greatest presidents of all-time?

James Garfield died after being in office for only 6 months. By your logic, when we rate the greatest presidents of all-time, we should only look at the first 6 months of each president's first term in order to compare. *facepalm*

Quote: Beethoven9th

What a silly thing to say. Why would a person do this when evaluating the greatest presidents of all-time?

James Garfield died after being in office for only 6 months. By your logic, when we rate the greatest presidents of all-time, we should only look at the first 6 months of each president's first term in order to compare. *facepalm*

And William Henry Harrison - "I died in thirty days!"

(Simpson's quote)

Quote: Beethoven9th

What a silly thing to say. Why would a person do this when evaluating the greatest presidents of all-time?

James Garfield died after being in office for only 6 months. By your logic, when we rate the greatest presidents of all-time, we should only look at the first 6 months of each president's first term in order to compare. *facepalm*

Only if you want to make a point about Garfield. He would in fact be a really great President if he had accomplished many great things, and had done it in six months as well, where as others took 4 or 8 years.

If you don't include such asterisks as "time in office", your rating is not very useful, if such ratings are really useful.

I will add, if a President got voted out, resigned, that should actually hurt his rating, not be put as an asterisk for why his rating must be handicapped.

We loved JFK because he was so pumped up by
the Lib press. He walked on water. Everything he
did was front page news and he had very small
kids. In those days the kids weren't hidden away in
a closet like they are now, everybody related to
the young family. Even his press conferences were
a treat, there was humor and good feelings, they
were all on his side.

He was all for civil rights on the surface, yet came
from one of the most bigoted families imaginable.
The black guy who was Sinatra's valet said in his
book that he had never in his life met a more vile
hateful bigot that the presidents father, Joe Kennedy.
If you were black, he would call you names right to
your face and make constant derogatory remarks.
This is the environment Jack was raised in, I somehow
doubt he was as unbiased as he appeared. Lyndon
Johnson signed the bill and he was as hateful as they
come. He used the N word daily. He was a peach of
a guy.

"Robert Parker, LBJ’s longtime black employee and limousine chauffeur, claims that Johnson blasted him daily with a blizzard of bigoted slurs."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/123709-the-real-history-of-lbj-and-race-goebbles-would-be-proud.html

History looks kindly upon Kennedy in part because he had the balls to stand up to the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis.

Khrushchev blinked first.

Too bad the mob whacked JFK.

Quote: rxwine

Possibly the fair rating would be to look at the first 3 years of every Presidency (for the ones that made it to 3 years) and stop right there.

I do not know if that would quite do it. An issue is that the longer you are in charge the harder leadership becomes. Almost anybody can come in to a situation, put in a few good ideas, and have a short, quick, good impact. But eventually you have to "beat your own numbers" as they say in the business world. You also must see through what you started. An example would be the Moon Shot. JFK called for us to do it, but within a few years lots of Democrats wanted to kill it and "spend the money here on Earth." If he had lived, could he have kept the enthusiasm and momentum going to make it? Personally I give that 50/50. On Civil Rights, JFK and LBJ were both against them before they were for them, voting against them under Ike. Could JFK have broken the Democrat filibuster in 1964? I will again say "maybe."

I say "maybe" on both because both would depend on his personal popularity back then. I still have JFK Halves from a great-aunt who loved "that handsome Irish Catholic" but for every one of her was a southern protestant who felt different. And lets not underestimate the chances of a Teamster strike near the 1964 election.

JFK did benefit from living in "interesting times." He had lots of chances to prove himself to the nation and the world. A danger is that when a POTUS does not have this they try to make it. Clinton would be an example here, he was POTUS during perhaps the most quiet 8 years of our lifetimes. What he did in 8 years internationally simply cannot be compared to what JFK did in 3.

Quote: AZDuffman

I do not know if that would quite do it.

Not much choice but to work with what you got, and guess about the rest. LBJ might have never been President at all if Kennedy lived. All kinds of things could change.

I don't understand the debate and don't get why others can't see what is obvious. All leaders, no matter their time in history, the nation, the ideology, are viewed as "great" because they master the ability to communicate at a high level. Give an example of a "great" leader in history who was a poor communicator --- don't worry, I'll wait.......

Quote: rxwine

...had done it in six months as well, where as others took 4 or 8 years.

Then shouldn't THIS be the criteria for greatness??? DUH!

Quote: MrV

History looks kindly upon Kennedy in part because he had the balls to stand up to the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis.

Khrushchev blinked first.

Too bad the mob whacked JFK.

Not sure if I believe that, BUT if they did, he deserved it for how he used them to win election and then allowed Bobby to crackdown on them. NOBODY gets away with that and even if they were not involved they shed no tears, believing he got what he deserved.

Quote: doubleluck

I don't understand the debate and don't get why others can't see what is obvious. All leaders, no matter their time in history, the nation, the ideology, are viewed as "great" because they master the ability to communicate at a high level. Give an example of a "great" leader in history who was a poor communicator --- don't worry, I'll wait.......

That's a self-referential argument.

You are stating, initially, that a prerequisite quality of a, "Great," leader be that he/she be a master communicator and then asking for an example of a, "Great," leader who was not a master communicator. If being a master communicator is an assumed prerequisite to being a, "Great," leader then such an example is impossible, by definition.

In any event, it is undisputed that a President of the United States is a leader, and not all Presidents of the United States have been great communicators. Herbert Hoover is an example of one President who is often considered to have been a poor communicator, the way he came across described as, "Mean-spirited and uncaring,"(1) "Cared little about his fellow citizens,"(2) and described as, "A stubborn micromanager with poor communications skills."(3)

1.) http://www.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2007/02/16/worst-presidents-herbert-hoover

2.) http://www.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/tragic.html

3.) http://books.google.com/books?id=22G7x_UN5G0C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=herbert+hoover+poor+communication&source=bl&ots=kcIb6q7eqW&sig=Yhwh8t5i35rnk4XP0FN1pHJCKYY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=faGaUtztFdfmoASOkIKgBw&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=herbert%20hoover%20poor%20communication&f=false

" Lyndon
Johnson signed the bill and he was as hateful as they
come. He used the N word daily. He was a peach of
a guy."

1964 Driving 60 or so miles north of San Antonio, hit a stretch of highway, stripes freshly painted, brand new road signs etc. Was just outside Johnson City downtown. Which had a banner across main street, that said . Johnson City Home of America's finest peaches
and President Lyndon B Johnson. Seems his family had bought all the farms for pennies on the dollar during the depression, so Peaches got top billing.

I turned around in a driveway that might have been a back way into his ranch. A guy in a suit stepped out of bushes as I went back onto highway. Yeah, beer bottles all over the floor of the car. Kept waiting for cops or feds to pull me over, but nothing happened. Good Lord looks out for fools.

I knew JFK had lots of mistresses...but never until today did I know that he persuaded one of them to give oral sex to his aide IN THE WHITE HOUSE POOL.

Good god man. Kind of takes philandering to a new level.

Gee. we all know a girl named Mimi would never lie just to sell a book

Quote: Buzzard

Gee. we all know a girl named Mimi would never lie just to sell a book

Obviously it's possible she is lying. But in all of the news reports, not a single person (that I read) brought up the possibility that it was a made-up story to make a buck. It seems like enough people are still around to confirm parts of the story to squash most of the "liar" accusations. Either that or I didn't dig deep enough online to find the naysayers.

I think it was Mimi who was standing behind me at the blackjack table the other day cheering me on. :-)

Mimi's old news, and it did check out at the time.

Quote: Boz

Not sure if I believe that, BUT if they did, he deserved it for how he used them to win election and then allowed Bobby to crackdown on them. NOBODY gets away with that and even if they were not involved they shed no tears, believing he got what he deserved.

JFK was a gangster's son.

Old Joe was "mobbed up," obviously.

JFK signed his death warrant in spurning the mob by dissing Sinatra, and encouraging Bobby to go after the Mafia.

Idiot.

He coulda been a contendah, instead of a dead man.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Mimi's old news, and it did check out at the time.

Sure it did. Pictures and all, I presume.

Mimi just started all that shit because I dumped her for Jackie.

Then Jackie dumped me for Aristotle.

Check it out easy enough. Aristotle or Jackie. Ask either one !

Or JFK even, if you think Mimi was telling the truth.