Difference between revisions of "Talk:Edward M. Kennedy"

Latest revision as of 12:52, September 1, 2009

Recommend

Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians - Myk 02:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

C'Mon

The unflattering images make the whole site look cheap. At least, if you can't agree with their stance, respect their position as public servants. Flippin 15:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

FBI file

For students of the subject of this article, just start reading FBI file v.2 p.2, scan the subheads on the next several pages numbered Perjuries 1-7. What a scumbag. A killer. Go ahead, Ted, sue me. Oh, you can't, you're dead. Rob Smith 23:37, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Joe Kennedy

RJJ, Joe was a conservative? Seymour Hersch calls him an anti-Semite; and his loose morality he passed onto his sons hardly would endear him to conservatives. Rob Smith 01:27, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Joe Kennedy in the 1950s was a leading conservative and the chief financial and political backer of Senator McCarthy. His sexy days were long over. RJJensen 01:56, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

It is revisionist thought, to take isolated incidences from the past and judge them against current thinking and definitions, and then come to silly conclusions. If one does away with benchmarks, it opens the door to historians to make whatever judgment they wish, and that is exactly why liberals love revisionism. It is yet another reason why our children are at such great risk attending universities, having such utter pap being fed to them by supposedly respected professors with an agenda of making-over history to suit their own preconceived notions and theories. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 07:24, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

well the benchmarks are clear: Joe Kennedy was a top conservative by 2009 standards in the 1950s and no serious conservative should bash him because his name is Kennedy. History has lots of facts--and indeed the main attack liberals made against JFK in 1960 was against his father Joe for being so pro-business and anti-Communist. RJJensen 07:58, 27 August 2009 (EDT).

One cannot interpret what happened fifty years ago by today's standards, Professor, for the simple reason today didn't yet exist. You might find drawing such comparisons, which are merely what we used to call "parlor tricks", useful for lecture hall soliloquies, I don't know, but I admit they can be entertaining, but hardly possess intellectual heft. Now, if the discussion is about how "liberalism" has changed, as opposed to conservatism, that is another matter all together. You and I both know that by today's standards, the moronic Daily Kos and Huffington Post crowds had the international or foreign policy ideals of some pretty giant liberals of 40 years ago described to them, without attaching their august liberal names, they would be derided and hooted down. JFK's "bear any burden, pay any price to defend freedom in the world"...speech would be taken by today's liberals as right-wing bomb throwing.

But in reality this is due to liberalism changing, changing to be more anti traditional American, anti-capitalism, more socialistic, insofar as foreign policy is concerned. Domestically liberals have not changed all that much, their panacea still being larger, more vigorous government intervention and/or control. A current example for Joe Kennedy could well be Warren Buffet, who in spite of accumulating huge wealth using the capitalist system, endorsed a socialist like Obama. The only way Buffet looks at politics is the same way Joe Kennedy did.....and that is what candidate will allow them to make more money, and not some altruistic idea(s) about good government. Back in Joe's day there were still moral absolutes. Not so today.

There is great danger in present day historians trying to interpret yesterday's events in light of current thinking, for the masses, instead of by the standards in existence back then. First among those dangers is stating such things as absolute facts to people lacking a background in history or politics, and thinking everyone possesses your tools, your knowledge of history, with which to add context to your conclusions. They don't. And they never will. FDR, faced with war protesters, what would he have done? Why he would have slapped them in irons and threw away the key. That doesn't make him a conservative, however. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 08:44, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

well TK's little history lecture has some deep flaws (no facts about Joe Kennedy, for example; Looking at Warren Buffet and assuming that Kennedy was somehow like him is poor research.). The Kennedy family was a center of conservatism while Joe was active--he was a leading supporter of South Vietnam and Joe McCarthy and a leading opponent of Communism and corrupt labor unions; led the fight that stopped Hubert Humphrey cold in 1960. Now the way to study this is to read Joe Kennedy's private letters--I have read hundreds of them--and look at his political activity, which I have also done. You will find that the liberals of those days (Eleanor Roosevelt for example) were Joe's bitter enemies because he was moving the Democratic party to the right. My basic point all along is that Joe Kennedy was an important conservative and should not be ridiculed on the basis of ignorance. The Kennedy brothers indeed moved to the left in the 1960s--after Joe left the scene (he was incapacitated by a very serious stroke in 1961)--but Joe Kennedy was a pretty good Joe for Conservapedia users. RJJensen 10:09, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Joe may have been more conservative than the communists on the left during his time. But I've never, ever heard a real conservative describe Joe Kennedy as conservative. For starters, didn't Joe Kennedy make his fortune bootlegging alcohol? I guess that could be called "pro-business", but that's not a conservative activity ....--Andy Schlafly 11:09, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

He never bootlegged liquor. That's the kind of lie that liberals used to attack him. (He bought brand name liquor in Scotland and as soon as prohibition officially ended in 1933 had a large supply to sell. he used the $$ to buy the Merchandise Mart in Chicago, which became the base of his real estate fortune.) he was one of the most-pro-business Democrats in the 1950s, and fought for lower taxes and less regulation. RJJensen 11:32, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

I have an open mind about this. But you're saying that Joe Kennedy "had a large supply to sell" (of liquor) when Prohibition ended??? Again, these not typically conservative activities.

I do agree that Joe Kennedy was pro-business, and JFK cut taxes. But there is far more to being a conservative than that. Many of Obama's today biggest supporters are extremely wealthy, pro-business people too, and they are not conservative.--Andy Schlafly 11:38, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Yes, he had gin and scotch in storage in Britain and shipped it as soon as prohibition ended. He was the US dealer for Gordon's Dry Gin and Dewar's Scotch--not the unbranded white lightning that bootleggers provided. Joe Kennedy was the #1 financial supporter of Joe McCarthy (and got Bobby his first job working for McCarthy). McCarthy was a frequent house guest and he apparently dated one of the Kennedy daughters (but McCarthy couldn't swim & never liked the Kennedy-style rough sports). Kennedy also was a major supporter of the Catholic Church, funding its Legion of Decency (which tried to keep smut out of the movies).RJJensen 11:46, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

RJ, you can't have your cake and eat it too. It is beneath a man of your letters to nit-pick on details I didn't introduce, when you know I was painting a broad brush. But if it makes you feel a bigger man, to ridicule me, go ahead. My point was, Kennedy and Buffet, like most of their kind, were amoral where politics was concerned. For you to state someone is or was a conservative 40 years ago, in light of revisions that have taken place in the intervening years, in what liberals now believe is silly. There is no difference between your saying Joe Kennedy was a "conservative", and misguided people today trying to paint Jesus Christ as a liberal, due to some aspects of his message. As for the other examples, I am pretty certain you know politics makes strange bedfellows on occasion, and McCarthy's and Joe Kennedy's apparent mutual interests (at times) do not a lifetime make. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 13:04, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

well I'm pretty serious about getting history right. I actually spend all my time on that goal and I really believe distortions and falsehoods do a serious disservice to our readers. In my judgment Joe Kennedy in the 1950s was a true conservative in 9 out of 10 major characteristics--based on my actual research. (he loses points on the matter of personal sexual immorality). That's what both conservatives and liberals at the time thought. The fallacy is assuming Kennedy = liberal (in 2009) implies Kennedy = liberal in 1955. False. RJJensen 14:00, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

RJ, I appreciate your comments and I've learned immensely from them. For example, I now understand for the first time why JFK cut taxes even though the Kennedy family is so liberal today.

That said, Joe Kennedy appears to have been a run-of-the-mill wealthy, elitist Democrat. That group DID support Joe McCarthy, their churches, and their personal fortunes. Even Hubert Humphrey was anti-communist during that era. None of this means they were conservatives.

The sine qua non of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. Making a fortune on liquor, acting to protect that fortune, manipulating the political process for personal gain, and acting in self-gratifying ways do not qualify.--Andy Schlafly 14:56, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Did I state somewhere that I believed that? Before 1964, politics pretty much stopped at the waters edge, as you well remember. Before taking a socialistic turn, ancillary to the Vietnam War/"Cultural Revolution", the liberal/conservative differences as to things international, were not so sharply defined as today. Aside from conservatives being far more leery of the Communists, we all pretty much agreed. The major differences were domestic policy, and what government's rightful role was. In those terms, Joe Kennedy was indeed a liberal.

While your opinion is your own, and you are entitled to it, it is wrong for you to position yourself as a "Historian", as if that fact alone somehow grants you some license in proclaiming what is false history. Everything has two sides. Was he altruistic in maneuvering around H.H.H., or was he merely selfish and proactive in his goal for having his son elected President? He had many direct ties to the Mob, clearly shown in Hoover's private papers, and those associations weren't exactly conservative either. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:03, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

RJJ, being anti-communist does not necessarily make one conservative. Let's review some of your own writings, John_Dewey#Anti-Communism reads, "true liberals have to reject cooperation with Communists became the dominant liberal position in the late 1930s;" this is certainly true of Whittaker Chambers, FDR appointee Adolf Berle, and FDR appointee Joe Kennedy, so much so Joe Kennedy supported the Munich pact and the policy of Appeasement opposed by the conservative Winston Churchill. I believe I've seen other references like this in the FDR article also. Despite Popular Front Liberalism you've never explained how anti-Communism became "the dominant liberal position."

As to McCarthy, all very true. Tailgunner Joe is former Virginia Democratic Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's Godfather in the Catholic faith (meaning he held the infant during the sacrament of baptism). That's how close the two Irish Catholic hard drinking buddies were. Prior to Tailgunner Joe's publicity going soar, Congressional Committtees had only one counsel; the situation was remedied by having both a Majority Counsel & Minority Counsel -- a precedent that persists on all Congressional Committees to this day -- so Bobby was able to keep his job and distance himself publicly from a close family friend. But it had more to do with being Irish Catholic, and anti-communist, than being conservative. Rob Smith 16:23, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Rosemary Kennedy

This is a tie in with George Obama; as George said, "I think most people understand that if you're not caring for your family, then you're probably not the kind of person who's going to be caring for other people." Newsmax says, "Within the family that posed as being so loyal, Rosemary had ceased to exist. Rose’s letters did not refer to her, and Eunice later said she had no idea where she was." [1] USA Today says, "Rosemary's retardation became public in 1960, just after her brother John was elected president. The National Association for Retarded Children mentioned in a publication that the president-elect "has a mentally retarded sister who is in an institution in Wisconsin." [2]

Charity begins at home. Case closed. Rob Smith 15:31, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

The placement of the information on Rose Marie Kennedy seems out of place. She has nothing to do with the Kennedys rise to power in the Democratic party. The way the sentence reads it sounds like the author is implying she or ehr position helped pave the way for Ted's "success". However, I agree that the information should be included becuase it gives incredible insight on the imorality and sinful nature of this horrible family. --IScott 15:32, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

She being put in an institution in 1941, and it was not revealled till after 1960 when her brother was elected president is in itself an issue. Especially regards Ted. This is a long running story, her being institutionalized and abandoned by the family because she was viewed as both an embarrassment & burden to the political ambitions of the brothers. Rob Smith 15:44, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

The actions of a political family, both public and private, are very relevant in helping others to judge their veracity, their honesty, IScott. Most members of the Kennedy family have something to do with their rise to power, if only because they treated it as a family business, and most all of them participated in campaign strategy to the betterment of whatever family member was running for office. It also goes to their morality, and certainly, once again, displays traits rarely associated with conservatism.

Also, it needs to be noted, leading liberals, including Ted Kennedy, agreed such tid-bits were very relevant in deciding the integrity and fitness for office of George W. Bush, when they repeated the lies of Dan Rather and CBS, about Bush's military service -- see Main Page news item about this. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:04, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

My problem was never with her inclusion (I want it in here) my problem was the way the sentence she is first mentioned was written. "The Kennedy Family has been a major part of the Democratic Party for a century, beginning with his grandfather as mayor of Boston, his older brothers President John F. Kennedy (assassinated in 1963) and Robert F. Kennedy (assassinated in 1968) and their special needs sister Rosemary". The sentence begins about the role the Kennedys played in politics and mentions the mayor of boston, JFK, Bobby, and then mentions Rosemary who was never in public office. She needs to be mentioned in this article, because Liberals are always going to hide her, or contort the reality to seem benign, and like I said before it gives incredible insight on the imorality and sinful nature of this horrible family.

In the future I think we all need to try a little harder to make sure we read someone's entire response, not just the first sentence or two, myself included. --IScott 18:46, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Yes. Go ahead and write a few sentences naming each prominent family mamber, Eunice Shricer included, founder of the Special Olympics for mentally handicapped people, then the forgotten Rosemary. Cut and paste that sentence out exactly as its written. Insert it near the top just after Ted's pertintent personal info. We'll get something to work along the lines you suggest. Rob Smith 20:34, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

As she was Ted's sister, i included her in the Life and career section, as part of the tragedies. I worked to find book sources, [3] and was informational in style.

I forgot to even see if CP had a page on lobotomy, but that - and its promoter Freeman - sure is creepy. [4] How Freeman, the procedure’s champion, could cut the brains of 3,500 people (once doing 25 in one day) during his reign alone, shows how much confidence both citizen and state had in doctors. And before the 50's drugs came along - and the abuse of them - the institutions offered plenty of supply and want. And slim chance Christians would be allowed in to pray for them, even if a few might be willing.Daniel1212 17:41, 29 August 2009 (EDT) (EDT)

Mass attendance

The comment that Kennedy once attended Mass on seven consecutive Fridays "and that's it" may need some elaboration. In his later years he sat near me during Sunday Mass at St. Joseph's on 2nd St. N.E. FOIA 16:23, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. I think it was merely one of those "human interest" sidelines, FOIA, rather than a sweeping generality that he never attended Mass ever again. I'll leave it to Rob to tweak it, or you. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:49, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Read the end of that section.Daniel1212 23:41, 27 August 2009 (EDT)