Matthews: Americans Most Want JFK Added to Mount Rushmore
Maybe Princeton professor Cornel West should redirect his get off the crack pipe suggestion to MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
On Monday's Hardball, the host actually said with a straight face that John F. Kennedy is "the American president we Americans most want to see joining Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt up there on Mount Rushmore (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero” appears in bookstores next Tuesday. It tells the story of the American president we Americans most want to see joining Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt up there on Mount Rushmore.
Apart from drugs and/or alcohol being the culprit, one has to imagine Matthews was referring to a November 2009 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair online poll that asked the question, "If you could add a president to MOUNT RUSHMORE, which one of these would you pick?"
Kennedy came in first at 29 percent in this highly unscientific poll placed at two extremely liberal websites where people could vote as many times as they wanted.
Such surveys are typically looked upon with a grain of salt. This was especially the case here as the folks designing this poll actually put Barack Obama up as one of the answers.
Despite him having only been in office for ten months, sixteen percent of respondents chose him.
Nice poll to gauge public opinion by, don't you think?
Significantly more scientific is a fairly comprehensive list of presidential rankings done since 1948 available at Wikipedia.
To be sure, these kinds of polls normally get the opinion of academics, political scientists, and presidential historians that typically lean left, but they're far better than an online poll done by CBS and Vanity Fair.
With that in mind, Kennedy's aggregate ranking in these surveys is eleven putting him well down the list of folks to be added to Mount Rushmore.
Sorry, Chris, but this isn't something you're likely ever going to see no matter how many books you write about this man including the one about to come out titled “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero”:
For those interested, here's the aggregate top ten:
- Abraham Lincoln
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
- George Washington
- Thomas Jefferson
- Teddy Roosevelt
- Woodrow Wilson
- Harry Truman
- Dwight Eisenhower (tie)
- Andrew Jackson (tie)
- James Polk
Anticipating the question, Ronald Reagan's aggregate rank is 17.
Remember: the folks doing the ranking are mostly liberals.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why...??
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 8:58pm.
He failed in so many ways. The things he did do right were great but his weakness and less than sterling leadership qualities got us the Bay of Pigs which led to the Cuban Missle Crisis. He did lower taxes but then went about getting us entangled in Viet Nam where we spent billions and tens of thousands of lives (a full credit to Loser Boy Johnson for expanding it and making completely stupid decisions followed by Tricky Dicky's less than wonderful performance).
Other than Viet Nam name one thing from his adminstration that lasts today or was so monumental in his day.... perhaps the 'man on the moon' thing...? I curse him for putting that putz from Texas on the ticket.
I'm sure he meant Reagan...
Submitted by Dbak61 on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 1:45am.
a President who put America first. And not the sniveling, boozing, drug-addled womanizer JFK, who blinked at the Bay and folded under Kruchev .
Mnt Rushmore National Monument
Submitted by lrgon on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 8:58pm.
add JFK?
What we need to do is remove Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt from the monument.
Lincoln is the idol of central planners and Teddy is the idol of environmentalist crazies.
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:45pm.
Yeah, Lincoln should have forgotten that stupid oath he took when he became President. You know, that one that your hero has promised to violate and ignore if he becomes President?
Lincoln, the idol of central planners? Just when I think you can't be more history deficient, more kooky, and more nonsensical...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Lincoln wasn't a Paulian, Uns.
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:51pm.
Therefore, he didn't measure up to Irgon's high standards./sarc.
Let's edit it instead
Submitted by TheHistorian on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 8:59pm.
Let's take TR OFF from Mount Rushmore. Then we will have a more representative group of true founders and contributors to the nation.
Dennis Prager
I there room to give the
Submitted by HelloDare on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 9:05pm.
I there room to give the Womanizer in Chief an erect penis? Maybe a well-placed pine tree.
Scum alert*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 9:16pm.
Interesting that you have been a member for 3 years and not know that kind of language is unacceptable here. Then again, if you are unable to retain information then you must be a lib.
From the Diaphragm
Submitted by IrateNate on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:12pm.
What "language" - womanizer?
Just...
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 9:08pm.
leave it alone.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
→ Kennedy
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 9:11pm.
Maybe there's an Ex-Pat Cuban who can do the chiseling.
Like the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 9:19pm.
Mt. Rushmore ain't broke, and it don't need fixin.'
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I agree. You'd never get a
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:55pm.
I agree. You'd never get a consensus these days as to who should be added anyway.
Where historians can generally agree
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 11:05pm.
By and large, historians agree that if you were to pick the top 5 Presidents, they would be Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln (boy that is sure to enrage Irgon!) and FDR. They agree on those four by and large. The argument begins over number 5 for them.
And as for the worst Presidents? Grant and Harding.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns, You forgot to mention
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:48am.
Uns, You forgot to mention Carter and the current office holder as worst Presidents.
Them two are fighting to see who will be The One. :-)
The Sleep Of No Dreaming
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:00pm.
...and the only reason I didn't was because of one important rule of history:
Not enough people are dead yet.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns,
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 9:54pm.
I too, would have added anti-Semite Carter...along with Fillmore, the proto-communist FDR, the detestable LBJ, Fillmore, and the vile BJ Clinton.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
You must not like Fillmore
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 10:00pm.
Curious...why Fillmore? I could understand why Buchanan...but Fillmore?
Yes, Carter's an idiot, but with the passage of time, with the ability to see more of his administration's papers...I suspect his standing will get worse. Hence, I'm doing what most historians do: I'm waiting for more people to die before making the call.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 11:53pm.
I'm with Trix - though for me, it's the first name - Millard. :o)
MD
Tingles Only Says This ...
Submitted by LibertyAtStake on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 9:23pm.
... Because Tingles Has Spent His Entire Career Failing At Maintaining His JFK Hair Helmet.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Mt Rushmore
Submitted by NewLife56 on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 9:33pm.
Ronald Reagan
29 percent?
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 9:50pm.
Since when is 29 percent "most?' To be "most," you have to at least break 50 percent.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Most as in most amount of
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:54pm.
Most as in most amount of votes, not majority of total votes.
Huh?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 12:36pm.
So, it isn't "most Americans" after all, Thanks for proving my point.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Not "most
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 1:59pm.
Not "most Americans";
"Americans most want."
Cobra/balboa~%
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 2:08pm.
Too funny!
Let's just agree that the decision was best left to those who created the masterpiece. Thank goodness they didn't ask anyone.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Perfect
Submitted by TXTRUTH on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:17pm.
It is perfect the way it is. No additions needed.
Woodrow Wilson #6? That
Submitted by goldwater89 on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:24pm.
Woodrow Wilson #6?
That vehement racist? He also ran on an anti-war platform and then there us into World War 1 for no good reason.
This post from someone who is
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 11:08pm.
This post from someone who is embarrassed and ashamed of the military no matter what.
I'd say the repeated attacks on U.S. shipping were good enough a reason to get involved...or was Wilson just supposed to stand on the shore, yelling "STOP THAT! STOP THAT! STOP THAT!"?
Oh, and once again you show you lack basic perspective. If you were to banish everyone from the past for being a "vehement racist", not even JFK would be good enough for you. Or LBJ. JFK, for fear of alienating southern Dems, dithered on the Civil Rights movement. LBJ only supported it to score political points. That's just two examples I can come up with on the fly. I could type more, but server space is limited.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Wilson was a Democrat
Submitted by stunned on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 7:10am.
Wilson's record has been glossed over because he was a Democrat. I have no issue with his getting us into WWI nor can you blame the mess Europe fell into after the war because the horrible Treaty of Versailles. But he was the most racist President we had. He codified segregation in the Federal government and in the military to appease his white southern Democrat base and this led to 30 years of discrimination and oppression not seen since the end of slavery. He called the violent extinction of black voting and officeholding in the South "the natural, inevitable ascendancy of the whites." and under his administration the KKK rose to be a huge political force in the country who saw him as a friend in the WH. I live just 5 miles from a campground in NJ where HUGE KKK rallies and cross burnings occured and in our litttle town's museum you can see and read how our native son was their hero. He was also a big proponent of eugenics.
His record has been glossed over or expunged from history books with the "oh the whole country was like that" but THAT IS A LIE and many people did speak out and oppose him and most of them were Republicans. LOL if he had been a Republican he would have been demonized in the classroom for the last 50 years.
tired of liberal lies
People are trapped in time
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 9:38pm.
Wilson was not alone in his being a proponent of eugenics. Many people were until people saw what eugenics logically leads to in the spring of 1945. Did you know that some of the early Nazi laws covering eugenics were inspired by state laws on the books in places like CA?
You seem to suggest that Wilson was the guy who began segregation. But keep in mind that his re-election campaign in 1916 was the 20th anniversary of the Plessy ruling which gave legal sanction to Jim Crow laws.
Was he THE most racist President we had? I don't know. Was he a racist? Certainly. But you seem upset at him for not being a radical in his time who rejected these ideas. The problem is that he, as many other people are, was a product of his time. Wilson is not one of my favorite presidents, and he held unsavory viewpoints, but I can't hold him responsible for simply being the product of his time.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm a Vet
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 12:43pm.
I'm a vet and I'm, not ashamed of the military and I too, am taken aback at Wilson being number 6. That man was the biggest raciest ever to sit in the Oval Office, and he did more to segregate the military than any other President before him. He reversed over 100 YEARS of integration in the armed forces, integration that began during the Revolutionary War.
He also waited three years before jumping into WWI, and did so with a military that was prevented from using the best weapons they had available, for political reasons, and that alone killed tens of thousands of American troops needlessly. Wilson was a TERRIBLE Commander in Chief.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
To stunned and CobraMan
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:15pm.
Sheesh, reading your posts, it's as if I wrote an impassioned defense of the Wilson administration. Which I didn't. I'm not much of a Wilson guy either, especially considering his "contributions" to Versailles (I put contributions in quotes because he took turns being David Lloyd George's and Clemenceau's b****.) But I haven't.
And while I shall not defend Wilson's racism (He LOVED Birth of a Nation, for instance), I can't declare him the most racist President, either. I'd have a damn hard time making that call. Besides, both of you are acting as if segregation was Wilson's doing. Ever wonder why General Pershing had the handle "Blackjack"? Have both of your forgotten about other events such as the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, which predated Wilson by 20 years?
Let's face it: racism was every bit a part of this country's past. What separates me from the Left is that I acknowledge this ugly aspect of the nation's history, and wish to consign it to an unlamented death by doing unto others as they do unto me, no matter what; and by following the themes of the "I Have A Dream" speech.
As to your comment, CobraMan, about Wilson and WWI: had he jumped into WWI at the outset, he would have lost in 1916. That was politically unfeasible, and IMHO, not wise. Had the Germans left well enough alone, not sunk any of our vessels, not authored the Zimmerman Note, and otherwise allowed us to do business with whoever we wanted, we would have never got into the war. But they kept pushing the issue until war became inevitable. That is part of the reason the 20th Century would be the American, not the German, one.
The military was also preventing itself from using the best weapons available. The Army, for instance, was not sold on the virtues of the airplane and were late to the aviation game in the war (St. Mihiel, August 1918). It should be noted that this was the first big-time long range troop deployment, so there were bound to be problems. I can think of better examples where Wilson showed ineptitude as a CinC (such as the U.S. intervention in the Soviet civil war), but WWI isn't really one of them.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
JFK.....SRSLY?
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:27pm.
Let's dispense with the small talk.
Why not Clinton?
No wait.....let's just cut to the chase already.
How about......Marilyn Monroe and Monica Lewinsky?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Berlin 1961
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:50pm.
At this time I wish to plug Berlin 1961. It paints a very unflattering picture of JFK as a man in way over his head when dealing with foreign policy matters.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Khruschev sized up JFK rather well
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 10:21am.
At their Vienna summit, the wily Khruschev sensed weakness in young, novice statesman JFK. Perhaps JFK's wobbly commitment to the Bay of Pigs, resulting in a disaster, tipped Khruschev off as to his vulnerability. JFK later conceded that his performance at Vienna was a disaster.
Thanks in large part to Vienna, Khruschev and the East Germans erected the Berlain Wall, and the following year put nuclear-armed missiles into Cuba, triggering the crisis that brought us to the brink of nuclear war. Faced with a Soviet challenge on our very doorstep, JFK finally refused to back down and order a "quarantine" (blocakde) of Cuba, which is an act of war in international war. Lacking sufficient naval power to break the blocakde, Khruschev blinked first, but still got what he wanted: removal of similar US missiles from Turkey. What was tauted as a major victory for JFK was in fact a strategic standoff at best.
The assassination of JFK and the landing on the moon (as he promised) 6 years after his tragic death lionized him for at least two generations of Americans.
Matthews was part of the generation, then fresh out of college and off to serve in the Peace Corps, that can never accept that JFK was not a great President. Most of the mythical legacy they created for him -- civli rights, world peace, the New Frontier -- was mere sloganeering in the JFK White House, but ascribed by his worshippers to his "second Administration."
That's an unreasonable assessment, Galvanic...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 10:34am.
And frankly it's unfair to make ultimate judgments about a president who was in office less than three years. Neither Kennedy nor his presidency should be considered "great" [the Rushmore thing is silliness], but the suggestion of weakness, naivete` and failure is likewise inappropriate. There were miscalculations made on both sides at Vienna, and it is true Krushchev acted in accordance with perceptions formed then and there which heightened international tensions and ultimately led to the Cuban missile crisis in the fall of 1962.
But Kennedy was no callow, uninformed amateur in the field of foreign policy. And his abilities and sound judgment were clearly evident in his skillful navigation through that extraordinary and frightening challenge while the whole world watched and held its breath. The removal of Soviet IRBMs 90 miles from the coast of Florida was far more important to our security concerns than was our pulling obsolete missiles out of Italy of material consequence to Russia's. Our Polaris subs were the nuclear trump card.
What Kennedy would have done in other arenas--such as Vietnam--raises questions which will never be answered.
Jer
Good morning Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 10:57am.
Gal is absolutely correct. Kennedy was totally out of his league but was spared blame by the same liberal news media that exists today. He proved his ignorance by cancelling the air support for the Bay of Pigs invasion causing the loss of all the liberators' supplies and heavy equipment before they could be offloaded to the beach. The press gave him a free pass on everything just as they are giving Obabble.
You asked in a former post if I worked on the F86 Sabre. I did and it was one of the best.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good afternoon, cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 12:26pm.
No, you and Galvanic are both wrong. The Bay of Pigs was indeed a disaster for which Kennedy should have accepted responsibility--which he did, just as Reagan did likewise a couple of decades later after the terrorist bombing of the Marines in Beruit. But there was plenty of blame to go around in both cases.
Kennedy was presented with a flawed invasion plan formulated in the closing days of the previous administration and was assured the Cuban populace would rise up against Castro once it was executed. The plan was revised by the new administration, but the fundamental assumptions about Castro's supposedly tenuous political status and underlying unpopularity proved to be colossal misjudgments by the CIA, which became brutally evident not long after the landings commenced. Additional air support would not have saved the mission, but if it would have saved lives it should have been furnished.
The view of the press toward Kennedy was mixed initially. If I recall correctly, I believe Nixon received the endorsement of the majority of daily newspapers.
I asked you the question about Sabres months ago. But I appreciate the belated answer. When I was a youngster, I would lay in bed at night alternately pretending I was either a dashing Confederate cavalry officer or an F-86 jet pilot dogfighting in MiG Alley.
Jer
We'll have to agree to disagree, Jer
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 12:50pm.
JER: ". . . .But Kennedy was no callow, uninformed amateur in the field of foreign policy. And his abilities and sound judgment were clearly evident in his skillful navigation through that extraordinary and frightening challenge while the whole world watched and held its breath."
It was brinkmanship, clear and simple, His failures with the Bay of Pigs and the Vienna Summit -- which JFK admitted were mistakes -- progressed to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Where Khruschev miscalculated was at what point did JFK the Marginal Statesman end, and the JFK "Don't Get Mad, Bet Even" character kicked in.
The bottom line is that weak foreign policy set the stage for the missile crisis.
JER: "The removal of Soviet IRBMs 90 miles from the coast of Florida was far more important to our security concerns than was our pulling obsolete missiles out of Italy of material consequence to Russia's. Our Polaris subs were the nuclear trump card."
The fact that Khruschev got that far was the fruit of JFK's policies. The lesson learned for Kruschev is that he needed a blue-water Soviet Navy that could support such moves, and he launched ADM Gorshkov on that modernization mission.
JER: "What Kennedy would have done in other arenas--such as Vietnam--raises questions which will never be answered."
True, though some liberals like Oliver Stone insist that JFK would've withdrawn from Vietnam in the face a Communist build-up, which is contrary to JFK's post-missile crisis containment policy. In fact, to stave off the collapse of Diem's government in Saigon, JFK significantly increased the numbers of US Special Forces teams in country in 1962, temporarily saving Diem. In 1963, the resurgent NLF was on the rise again when Diem was assassinated in a military coup (apparently with CIA consent) and JFK was later assassinated.
Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 1:05pm.
The invasion plan was not flawed. Stevenson paniced in the UN and Kennedy stupidly cancelled the air support because he feared the threats coming from the Soviet Union. Without the air support the invasion was doomed. It was not additional air support, it was the air support that was going on from the beginning. The invasion was succeeding until it was cancelled. This cowardice led directly to the missile crisis that followed. Because of The Bay of Pigs Kruschev Thought he could bully us and he was correct.
I realised that you had asked me about the sabre when I was reading some of the old posts.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
It was seriously flawed, cocodrie..
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 1:25pm.
And had absolutely zero chance of success without a massive commitment of US force, which would have ultimately proved to be a strategic hemispheric calamity of monumental proportions.
Yes, Khrushchev thought he could bully us, and he was wrong. Otherwise, he wouldn't have pulled the missiles out of Cuba. His underestimation of Kennedy's resolve caused significant international embarrassment for the Soviet premier.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 1:33pm.
Can't see what you find flawed. The turning point was the cancellation of air support. I had friends that wer involved flying some of the missions and everything was going well until then.
Kenned bought the removal of the missiles with many concessions on our part. Liberal strategy - give them what they want, america will pay the price.The Soviets laughed all the way to the bank.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
"flawed invasion plan"?
Submitted by wingnut55 on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 1:30am.
The invasion of Cuba was planed by Eisenhower. Kennedy removed the air support from the plan and therefore guaranteed it's failure. Then when the Cuban missile crisis happened he back down by promising never to invade Cuba again from the USA. In doing so he gave the Cuban people a life under Castro and a life of poverty and pain. That is the legacy of John Kennedy.
cocodrie, F-86
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 5:54pm.
Even Jer liked this youtube clip, hay what's not to like....
You Didn't Build That.
Contradict yourself much, Jer?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 12:51pm.
"It's unfair to make ultimate judgments about a president who was in office less than three years."
"But Kennedy was no callow, uninformed amateur in the field of foreign policy."
Oh, I see, we can't "judge" JFK for things like his foreign policy decisions, like the Bay of Pigs decision, because he was "only" President for three years, but we can exult him for his expertise on foreign policy, right? Come on, Jer, that's a contradiction!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
And hence, my reference to JFK's second term
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 12:56pm.
The mythos of Camelot espoused by its serfs like Matthews is that Kennedy would've made everything perfect had he lived and been re-elected. This is based on JFK's lofty words, and not his performance in the first term.
When the Democrats balk about necessary reforms to Social Security and Medicare, I respond with "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
I try not to, Cobra...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 1:06pm.
You'll notice I said "ultimate" judgments. JFK's record was incomplete, and it would be unfair to conclude that he or his presidency was either "great" OR miserable--even adding a parenthetical note that the Rushmore talk was silliness. I thought my point was pretty clear.
Jer
About as clear as mud.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 1:50pm.
It's about as clear as mud, Jer. You said we shouldn't make "ultimate" judgments about JFK and then made an ultimate judgment about his foreign policy experience. That sure is a contradiction.
That "incomplete record" BS is just that, BS. JFK didn't just suddenly appear as President, he had years of politics behind him. He spent 6 years in the House and another 7 years in the Senate, for example. Should we just disregard those 13 years of federal politics prior to his Presidency, or should we refer to them when making "ultimate judgments" about the man and his contributions to American politics? JFK died in office, yes, but that doesn't mean that we don't have any information on which to base a judgment, "ultimate" or not. JFK was President only one year less than Lincoln, Jer!
Or do you believe that only those Presidents who, you know, finish out their terms qualify for "Ultimate Judgment?" If so, then you must disagree with "historians" who find Warren G. Harding one of the "worst Presidents in History", right? After all, he didn't finish his first term. Who are we to judge based upon HIS "incomplete record," right? And how about Garfield, or Taylor? Should we also reserve "ultimate judgment" on those not-so-complete-first-term Presidents, like you wish us to do for JFK?
The only President that you could reasonably make an "incomplete record" claim for is Harrison, who died a month after taking office. We can, however, make an "ultimate judgment" about Harrison's Presidency, and that is: only a fool would give a outdoor speech during a blizzard after your own aids tell you it's a bad idea!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Here's the truth, Jer.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 2:37pm.
Here's the truth, Jer. You don't want anyone to "ultimately" judge JFK because of what he MAY have accomplished IF ONLY he lived longer. But that's just nonsense! We don't judge people on what they MIGHT have done, IF ONLY something else happened. We "ultimately" judge them based on what they actually did. JFK's presidency was extensively documented, both in the official records and in the "press," especially the new medium of TV, so we know far more about JFK than, say, Lincoln. Thanks to that documentation, we can ultimately make better judgments as to JKF's accomplishments and contributions than those of Lincoln himself, or Washington, or just about any other President prior to JFK.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Democrats, apparently,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 5:14pm.
are to be judged only by Democrats if the real truth is to be presented.
That was sarcasm.
MD
JFK and Jer
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:22pm.
Read Frederick Kempe's Berlin 1961. Unfortunately I have to agree with the assessments that JFK pretty much sucked at foreign policy until he was forced into a corner in October 1962 - much of which was his own doing (like being owned by Khrushchev at Vienna in June 1961).
I know you have to vehemently defend every last act of JFK because he is from your party and is therefore infalliable, but just check it out sometime. I think that those of us who have no living memory of JFK or his untimely end have quite a different viewpoint of him, and the days of JFK getting nothing but sympathetic treatment are coming to an end.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I just want to say, Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 2:55am.
I know you have to vehemently defend every last act of JFK because he is from your party and is therefore infalliable...
that if I had a dollar for every time someone here has leveled the above or a similar charge against me over the last four years, there would be no more anxiety about my son's college tuition.
I'll comment on he rest of your post later. We don't disagree all that much.
Jer
If you never admitted...
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 12:32pm.
..."I am a Democrat", and also never carried yourself as a party hack, I'd have zero accusations to level as such. Do keep that in mind.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:52pm.
Although I have frequently voted for Republicans, the fact is, I am a registered Democrat. What am I supposed to do...lie? But your constant "party hack" accusation is nonsense, and tiresome and insulting as well. If you could put that card back in the deck, we probably could have some productive discussions.
Jer
Well...
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:20pm.
If the "party hack" accusation is in fact nonsense, why do you constantly rush to the aid of members of your party, no matter what, and no matter how badly you must contort yourself to make a defense?
As far as I am concerned, you're just whining on that score, rather than taking responsibility for your actions.
I think part of your problem is that you assume that because you are a member of a party, that all of us here at NB are as well. Sorry. In my case, I am an independent, and wouldn't know how to register for a party in TX other than voting for a given party's candidates in the primaries (and then you are only a member of a given party for the balance of the year). I'd be willing to bet that the far reaching majority of those here are independents as well.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 1:23am.
Do you just blow past the posts where I've criticized Obama, and Pelosi, and Reid, and Sharpton, and Jackson, and godonlyknows how many of the lib pundits?
It amazes me how often those will go unnoticed while every word of support for, or defense of, a Democrat--as well as any criticism of a Republican--is pounced upon and cited as irrefutable proof I'm an unwavering ideologue.
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 4:12pm.
I'm not been on here enough lately to see a lot of posts -- I missed those ones!
So could ya pretty please make a nice, lengthy post criticizing Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Sharpton, Jackson and misc. lib pundits? Pleeeeeeeeease?
Come on...for GG. I've had a crummy week. Please make my Friday! :)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Good evening Georgia
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 4:18pm.
If you're going to hold your breath I'll pray for your survival.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Coco~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 4:25pm.
I know Jer won't desert me!
Jer?...Jer?...
((((((^_^)))))))
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Georgia Girl...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 5:52pm.
Scroll to bottom of thread. It's getting a little skinny here.
Thanks,
Jer
*
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:57pm.
Sorry, double post.
Turkey
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:32pm.
Jer - That was 15 Jupiter missiles pulled out of Turkey, not Italy.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Both
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 2:17am.
Jer
Interesting
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:56pm.
Ain't it funny how the wet dreams of a liberal whacko translates into "most Americans"?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
i don't think that...
Submitted by i was just thinking on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 11:15pm.
...most Americans give a rat's butt about it.
no on JFK
Submitted by blakeNaustin on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 11:34pm.
Name one single accomplishment of Kennedy of any significance? Kennedy will be remembered for only three things. One, he was assassinated. Two, he was sex addict and unfaithful to his wife repeatedly. Three, he was the backup choice of his manipulative, elitist father to become president.
On JFK and Matthews
Submitted by cristo on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 12:13am.
You have to remember, Kennedy started the Peace Corps and that gave Matthews the opportunity to dodge the draft.
It also made Matthews a citizen of Camelot
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 2:35pm.
Matthews is enthralled with the image of JFK, and ignores the reality. Even when he acknowledges JFK's personal flaws, he dismissed them as insignificant to the Greater Jack.
It's an idolic image created in 1963, and it has been suspended in time.
Subsequent generations have difficulty accepting the Camelot image.
Very true
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:25pm.
"Subsequent generations have difficulty accepting the Camelot image".
I think this is going to be more and more obvious the more time passes and more people who can remember JFK's time pass away. My parents, for instance, liked him - not as much as other starry eyed media members, but they liked him all the same, and are shocked whenever I make any statement critical of him.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Actually, inclusion is relative
Submitted by gopcongress on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 3:31am.
Actually, inclusion is relative. For instance, I believe that FDR was one of the most DESTRUCTIVE presidents in our history with his socialist transformations that extended the depression by a decade, set the seeds for a dependent, centralized society, and, arguably, facilitated WW2 with the ensuing economic depression-era isolationist policy that decimated trade with Japan and Continental Europe (namely, Germany), leading to their warlike actions.
I truly believe that FDR will see his place in history rightfully downgraded, and in extension, Reagan will be judged the greatest president of the 20th century.
My five? Take out Teddy, add John Adams and Ronald Reagan. If left at four, then take out Teddy and put in Adams. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln in order I can agree with.
(Why John Adams? He was the sparkplug and promoter of the American Independence movement.)
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
If only...
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 7:14am.
If only we could put that much blame on FDR for WWII.
One, you have to remember that FDR did not come up with that roll of toilet paper called Versailles. That did much to drive the Japanese towards militarism and Germany of course was screwed by that document many different ways. Not to mention the whole notion of "the stab in the back". None of these things can be laid at the feet of FDR. Two, remember that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which essentially turned a serious recession into a very deep depression was signed into law by FDR's predecessor. This triggered a round of protectionism by other countries which, among other things, brought to life the Nazi policy of autarky.
Our isolationism back in the 1930s is one thing, the chicken-bleep behavior of the French and Brits towards aggressive Nazi actions is another. Had the French, for instance, bothered to challenge the reoccupation of the Rheinland by the Nazis in 1935 (at which the Nazis were horribly incompetent), this may have gone a LONG way to giving Hitler pause when considering further moves.
FDR can be rightly blamed for other things but the start of WWII is not one of them.
Adams was a spark plug and promoter of independence, but was not all that great as President.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Excellent post, Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 7:27am.
Perfectly summarized and correct in every respect.
Jer
Well of course it was, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 5:21pm.
as someone defended a Democrat.
Unsane knows his history; but had he been of a different frame of mind in this instance and bad mouthed FDR - you would have been all agog.
Even if the reverse were true.
MD
Incorrecto, Mr. Dean...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 6:01pm.
If I were to act in accordance with your now fossilized misconceptions about me, my agog would have been triggered the instant I encountered Unsane's assertion that FDR could be blamed for other things, and register a vigorous protest against such calumny. Instead, I agreed with him. Foiled again, my friend.
Jer
Never, ever, been foiled by a lib, Jer, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 12:05am.
though I have gigged, gogged, gegged, gugged, and no doubt gagged many liberals; and been disagreed with by all of them..
Well, most of them, anyway.
While limited, there are some things you and I agree on.
Scary, eh?
MD
Wilson #6 ??
Submitted by TxVet on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 5:58am.
I understand historians picking FDR as #2, even though I don't agree. He was the closest we ever had to a dictator. An elected one, but still close (trying to pack the Supreme Court comes to mind). But Woodrow Wilson #6? Please!
FDR is overrated in terms of his performance.
Submitted by virginia republican on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 4:59pm.
For example, he didn't end the Depression, WWII did. Many of the schemes he spent money on were ineffective and remind me of Obama's totally worthless stimulus programs. The one thing I would give FDR credit for is that he sought the unconditional surrender of our enemies and didn't micro-manage the war as many more modern Presidents do, especially LBJ in Vietnam. He would have to approve even minor tactical aspects of that war, like bombings of a particular trail where the NVA was transporting supplies or of a specific area in the North where trucks were parked. Not exactly a "big picture" type of commander-in-chief.
The two phases of FDR
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 9:50pm.
If you think about it, there are two FDRs. The first one, with his singular focus on the New Deal, sucked. All his federal spending and the most he could manage was to bring the unemployment rate to 14%.
The second one, who was confronted with WWII and responded admirably, is the great FDR, for all the reasons you outline.
How he handled the Soviet Union is a entirely different matter. I have been looking at that extensively and thus far I am not a fan.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Wilson #6 ??
Submitted by TxVet on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 5:58am.
I understand historians picking FDR as #2, even though I don't agree. He was the closest we ever had to a dictator. An elected one, but still close (trying to pack the Supreme Court comes to mind). But Woodrow Wilson #6? Please!
Why not...
Submitted by stage9 on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:06am.
John Adams or James Madison or John Quincy Adams? Oh! that's right, we have no idea who they were!
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." 1. -- John Adams (Signer of the Declaration; Judge; Diplomat; One of the Two Signers of the Bill of Rights, Second President of the United States)
"The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation." 2 -- John Adams (Signer of the Declaration; Judge; Diplomat; One of the Two Signers of the Bill of Rights, Second President of the United States)
"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws." (Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)
"In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." -- John Quincy Adams (Sixth President of the United States; Diplomat; Secretary of State; U.S. Senator; US Representative)
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
But that would ruin South
Submitted by wiwf on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 9:53am.
But that would ruin South Dakota's state quarter!
Reagan. Kennedy had too much
Submitted by jessieH on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 10:40am.
Reagan. Kennedy had too much baggage.
Geez leave it alone.
Submitted by kata on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 12:56pm.
This is insulting to the original architects and sculptor.
Kata~
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 1:24pm.
I agree. It took 14 years to complete...and a really touching story on the sculptor and son.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
we've actually visited a few times...
Submitted by kata on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 1:39pm.
Four times moving cross country, it always seemed to be on our route. I am a huge rock hound so SD is a favored place to stop and add to my collection.
Choice of presidents~
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 1:36pm.
I think I read somewhere that the sculptor and Coolidge chose the presidents. The presidents chosen all represented an American ideal. *** Gee, this would be a good place for me to list what each represented, so I will go hunt for that info. ^_^
This is an American icon. I think it would be sad to mess with it.
P.S. *** Not ideals -- sculptor's intent to represent the history of America: George Washington represented the birth of the United States. Thomas Jefferson represented the growth of the United States. Abraham Lincoln represented the preservation of the United States. Theodore Roosevelt represented the development of the nation.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Say it isn't so
Submitted by djm159 on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 2:52pm.
Are they starting to put whore mongers on Mount Rushmore. If that's the case there is still hope for Clinton.
Jimmy Carter
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 9:56pm.
I am aghast, mortified and just plain shocked that Tingles the Racer did not nominate his mentor in chief: Jimmy Carter. He has truly lost it. Then again maybe he never had anything to lose.
Just for you, GG.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 6:03pm.
I'll address this in a short series of posts.
I've slammed Reid and Pelosi on multiple occasions, but here is a typical one from a year ago:
"....However, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Pelosi was a miserable choice for House leader. The last thing Obama needed--or the majority of Americans wanted--was a San Francisco far left/liberal in charge of shaping and passing the Democratic agenda. As for Harry Reid, well...he's just a feckless buffoon...."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/11/02/dan-rather-compla...
Also, I have stated they both should be kicked out of their leadership positions because of incompetency.
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 6:20pm.
Seriously, you are cheering me up! ;)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
There's plenty more, GG. Where have you been???
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 6:36pm.
And there is hardly a lib pundit I haven't hammered--especially Schultz, Olbermann, Maddow. And of course Maher, whatever he is.
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 6:39pm.
I was mainly teasing you. But I really have been "out to lunch" lately. ^_^
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
More, GG...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 6:31pm.
Re Obama:
The following is from a lengthy, contentious thread about Rush and preoccupation with race:
"....If you had you would know that I have lamented the fact that Obama has not been the "transformative racial healer" that many, including myself, had hoped. It's been a major disappointment. His Reverend Wright speech during the campaign was a good starting point, but regrettably he never built on it. And his remarks in the aftermath of the Cambridge incident were inexcusable...."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/06/rachel-maddow-apol...
I've also criticized amateurism in the Obama WH, his deference to Reid and Pelosi in writing the stimulus bill, his lack of a coherent and consistent response to the mideast turmoil, his vendetta against Fox News, his failure to engage Mitch McConnell for 18 months. Those are jus a few examples off the top of my head.
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 6:33pm.
That's plenty -- you were a good sport about it. Thanks. ;)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Thanks, GG...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 6:40pm.
Jer