Talk:Edward M. Kennedy

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 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)