Opinion of John F. Kennedy (by party)

[TDAS04]

So?

[SWE]

The worst (sane, normal, etc.)

[Lambsbread]

Massive FF (D)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A pretty-faced do-nothing. Seriously, JFK did nothing on civil rights until he was absolutely forced to, got us into Vietnam, and accomplished almost nothing of note. Why he is so revered by the American public is beyond me.

[Sopranos Republican]

A pretty-faced do-nothing. Seriously, JFK did nothing on civil rights until he was absolutely forced to, got us into Vietnam, and accomplished almost nothing of note. Why he is so revered by the American public is beyond me.

You're thinking of LBJ there, buck rodgers.

[politicus]

Pretty low.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Overrated as hell.

[BaconBacon96]

FF.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The revisionism is entertaining. It seems hip on the left now to rubbish what was achieved.

[Oakvale]

One of the best (I/O, normal). A genuine liberal who understood how to stand up to both communism and the military establishment, a balance Johnson was too cowardly to strike. It's funny how it's fashionable to underrate Kennedy as much as it was to overrate him. He remains particularly great in contrast to his utterly lousy list of disastrous successors for the remainder of the century.

The revisionism is entertaining. It seems hip on the left now to rubbish what was achieved.

I know this won't be popular, but does anyone else think LBJ > JFK??

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

One of the best (I/O, normal). It's funny how it's fashionable to underrate Kennedy as much as it was to overrate him. He remains particularly great in contrast to his utterly lousy successor for the remainder of the century.

The revisionism is entertaining. It seems hip on the left now to rubbish what was achieved.

I know this won't be popular, but does anyone else think LBJ > JFK??

That's one of the problems with this place, too many people feel the need to operate on absolutes. Very Bush-like of them.

JFK was not a perfect president, human being etc etc... how many think the Vietnam conflict would have escalated to the extent it did under Johnson (yes, I know he would have been forced to make decisions on that front... )? How many think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have had the same ending with his successors or predecessors?

I know the majority of the Civil Rights achievements took place under Johnson... but Kennedy had submitted those Bills to Congress months before and the Dixiecrats that held his agenda to ransom ... held everything up. Kennedy also made the most significant comments on race relations in 1963 and stepped-in on his own bat in MS in 1962. He pushed measures to increase African American employment in the Federal Government and appointed five AA Federal Judges.

But at the same time, there were realistic political issues to consider. Kennedy was popular, but as a Democrat, he needed strong support in the South, particularly among Southern Whites, to win in 1964 (hence trips in Florida and finally Texas in November 1963). He believed that he would face Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, so he couldn't rely on the Northern states to deliver his victory.

So what I'm saying is, absolutely, he had flaws as a president and as a person, but to say he's overrated is a misunderstanding perhaps. Sure, many of the achievements came under Johnson, but many were still his measures, it took Johnson's political skill and Kennedy's death to bring them to fruition. A lot of the reason why he's revered, unfairly probably, is because of the sense of lost opportunity.

[Murica!]

One of the least bad (I/O, normal). A genuine liberal who understood how to stand up to both corporatism and the military establishment, a balance Johnson was too cowardly to strike. It's funny how it's fashionable to underrate Kennedy as much as it was to overrate him. He remains particularly great in contrast to his utterly lousy list of disastrous successors for the remainder of the century.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Imperialist warmongering manwhore.

[Murica!]

Imperialist warmongering manwhore.

Really? I thought at least you wouldn't judge him on that.

[Simfan34]

Imperialist warmongering manwhore.

Really? I thought at least you wouldn't judge him on that.

Degenerate hedonistic society.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Imperialist warmongering manwhore.

Please stop trying so hard.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A pretty-faced do-nothing. Seriously, JFK did nothing on civil rights until he was absolutely forced to, got us into Vietnam, and accomplished almost nothing of note. Why he is so revered by the American public is beyond me.

You're thinking of LBJ there, buck rodgers.

LBJ at least made significant progress on Civil Rights. Say what you will about Vietnam, the Voting Rights Act was a heck on an accomplishment, and I happen to support Medicaid.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A pretty-faced do-nothing. Seriously, JFK did nothing on civil rights until he was absolutely forced to, got us into Vietnam, and accomplished almost nothing of note. Why he is so revered by the American public is beyond me.

Actually, it was Eisenhower under whom U.S. involvement in Vietnam begun. Kennedy merely maintained this relatively limited (as compared to the latter escalation) involvement during his Presidency.

As of the civil rights, you're right (he also has a cowardly record on the issue as Senator).

However, I can't agree he accomplished "almost nothing of note". As Oakvale noted above, he was willing to stand up to the military establishment... and had the military establishment got their way during the Cuban Missile Crisis, consequences would have been utterly, utterly dreadful.

Aside everything else, his handling of the 1962 crisis was hell of an accomplishment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

One of the best (I/O, normal). It's funny how it's fashionable to underrate Kennedy as much as it was to overrate him. He remains particularly great in contrast to his utterly lousy successor for the remainder of the century.

The revisionism is entertaining. It seems hip on the left now to rubbish what was achieved.

I know this won't be popular, but does anyone else think LBJ > JFK??

That's one of the problems with this place, too many people feel the need to operate on absolutes. Very Bush-like of them.

JFK was not a perfect president, human being etc etc... how many think the Vietnam conflict would have escalated to the extent it did under Johnson (yes, I know he would have been forced to make decisions on that front... )? How many think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have had the same ending with his successors or predecessors?

I know the majority of the Civil Rights achievements took place under Johnson... but Kennedy had submitted those Bills to Congress months before and the Dixiecrats that held his agenda to ransom ... held everything up. Kennedy also made the most significant comments on race relations in 1963 and stepped-in on his own bat in MS in 1962. He pushed measures to increase African American employment in the Federal Government and appointed five AA Federal Judges.

But at the same time, there were realistic political issues to consider. Kennedy was popular, but as a Democrat, he needed strong support in the South, particularly among Southern Whites, to win in 1964 (hence trips in Florida and finally Texas in November 1963). He believed that he would face Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, so he couldn't rely on the Northern states to deliver his victory.

So what I'm saying is, absolutely, he had flaws as a president and as a person, but to say he's overrated is a misunderstanding perhaps. Sure, many of the achievements came under Johnson, but many were still his measures, it took Johnson's political skill and Kennedy's death to bring them to fruition. A lot of the reason why he's revered, unfairly probably, is because of the sense of lost opportunity.

I agree that JFK had positive qualities, and passing Civil Rights legislation was certainly no easy task. However, I think it's silly to laud a man to the extent that JFK is lauded by the general public when he accomplished, essentially, nothing. Making "significant comments" on race relations =/= actually doing anything about race relations. And to be honest, I doubt Kennedy would have been able to accomplish anything significant while trying the court the South, which as you said was crucial to his reelection.

[Mr. Smith]

FF (normal, sane, not a Anarchist)

[Rockefeller GOP]

Overrated as hell.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A fascinating man from a fascinating family. Like Polnut already said, he showed a lot of potential in the short period of time that he was President.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree that he had a conflicted position when it came to Civil Rights. But equally, you do need to consider what he was able to get done legislatively when his entire agenda was being held hostage by the Southern Democrats. Making comments about racial equality as a moral issue IS significant. But Kennedy knew that Southern Whites were never especially comfortable with him and going publicly aggressive on the issue would have had serious political repercussions. Pre-Civil Rights Act, no Democrat could win an election without sweeping the South. So, while not ideal, I completely understand his position.

Actually, without Humphrey being Johnson's chief head-kicker in the Senate... Johnson's record on Civil Rights might not have been as shiny as it appears. Johnson knew that as a Southern Democrat, he could deal with these people and they would listen to, for no other reason that he was going to win a landslide in 1964 and they needed to get on board with his agenda. But HHH did a hell of a lot of Johnson's leg-work for him.

Kennedy, obviously, should not be lauded for things he didn't do... but at the same time, his ROLE in what came after his death should not be discounted.

[IceSpear]

FF (normal)

[Murica!]

FF (normal, sane, not a Anarchist)

I'm the only Left Anarchist here(I think at least) and I voted FF.