Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John Simkin

The Camelot Myth and JFK Research

Recommended Posts

I believe that there is a danger that JFK researchers might be too influenced by the JFK Camelot myth. That the assassination robbed them of a great president. This is a view often held by the left of the Democratic Party. Some might argue that it does not matter if researchers want to believe the JFK Camelot myth. However, I think it does. The reason being that if we can accurately reconstruct JFK’s actions and beliefs, we can get some idea why he was assassinated.

This of course relates to the issue about whether he knew of the plot to assassinate Castro. Therefore, this is my analysis of JFK’s political career.

If we look at JFK’s career it reflects a fairly conservative view of the world. There is nothing in his career to suggest he was anything but a traditional Cold War warrior. He believed in the Domino Theory and was willing to support right-wing military dictators in order in order to prevent the spread of left-wing ideas or policies.

Domestically he was also very conservative. He showed no interest in the civil rights issue. Nor did he advocate any policies that would redistribute wealth in America.

This is not surprising. McCarthyism had taken its toll on American public opinion. People were scared to express left of centre political opinions in case they were denounced as communists or socialists. Adlai Stevenson had lost two presidential elections because he was seen as being too “left-wing”. It made sense for all Democratic candidates for the nomination to project an image that was to the right of Stevenson. Robert Kennedy was despatched into the Deep South to reassure leaders of the Democratic Party that JFK would not attempt to push through any civil rights legislation. He also was willing to make assurances that he would not advocate policies that favoured trade unions.

JFK was also willing to “buy” votes in the primaries. The most obvious example of this was in West Virginia but it also took place in other states. JFK also raised money by selling posts in his administration. He also bought votes in the presidential election, most notably in Illinois but it again took place in several states.

JFK’s supporters will no doubt argue that he had no choice in this as this was the way the American system worked. I have some sympathy with this argument, but it is important to acknowledge that such deals were done as it helps to explain his later behaviour.

In the first couple of years he acted the way you would expect any right-wing president would behave. The only surprise was that he did not give the necessary support for the invasion of Cuba. This raised issues about whether he could take the “tough” decisions. It did seem that he was unduly concerned with his “world image”. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that he was capable of standing up to the Soviets and he was able to recapture his image of the staunch Cold War warrior.

The issue of civil rights also gave JFK problems. For those wishing to fully understand this problem I would fully recommend reading the Robert Kennedy interviews that he gave as part of the John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Project (Robert Kennedy in his Own Words – 1988) and the autobiography of JFK’s Special Assistant for Civil Rights, Harris Wofford (Of Kennedy and Kings – 1980). JFK made some fine issues on this issue but was unable or unwilling to deliver the goods.

I don’t believe JFK was a great president. But I believe he had the potential to be the greatest president in American history. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to prove this.

The reason I saw he had the potential to be a great president was because he was very much like the other great president of the 20th century. Franklin D. Roosevelt. They were both intellectuals. They were both genuinely interested in new ideas. This enabled both men to surround themselves with bright people who were willing to challenge their views (only bright people have the confidence to do this).

JFK, like FDR, was also very wealthy. This meant he was not easily corrupted for financial reasons. I believe that by 1963 JFK was a changed man. By this stage in his career he genuinely believed in civil rights. He also realised that the American political system was corrupt to the core. His period in power had shown him how people like Johnson used the power of the Senate Committees to prevent progressive legislation from being passed. He knew how this power was used to protect things like the Oil Depreciation Allowance. JFK had also discovered the Cold War had the potential to destroy the planet.

I believe JFK had developed a strategy for dealing with all these problems. But first he had to be elected in 1964. As a result of his public success in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, his standing in the polls were high. Victory seemed certain. Only one thing could stop him. And it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that there is a danger that JFK researchers might be too influenced by the JFK Camelot myth.  That the assassination robbed them of a great president. This is a view often held by the left of the Democratic Party. Some might argue that it does not matter if researchers want to believe the JFK Camelot myth. However, I think it does. The reason being that if we can accurately reconstruct JFK’s actions and beliefs, we can get some idea why he was assassinated.

This of course relates to the issue about whether he knew of the plot to assassinate Castro. Therefore, this is my analysis of JFK’s political career.

If we look at JFK’s career it reflects a fairly conservative view of the world. There is nothing in his career to suggest he was anything but a traditional Cold War warrior. He believed in the Domino Theory and was willing to support right-wing military dictators in order in order to prevent the spread of left-wing ideas or policies.

Domestically he was also very conservative. He showed no interest in the civil rights issue. Nor did he advocate any policies that would redistribute wealth in America.

This is not surprising. McCarthyism had taken its toll on American public opinion. People were scared to express left of centre political opinions in case they were denounced as communists or socialists. Adlai Stevenson had lost two presidential elections because he was seen as being too “left-wing”. It made sense for all Democratic candidates for the nomination to project an image that was to the right of Stevenson. Robert Kennedy was despatched into the Deep South to reassure leaders of the Democratic Party that JFK would not attempt to push through any civil rights legislation. He also was willing to make assurances that he would not advocate policies that favoured trade unions.

JFK was also willing to “buy” votes in the primaries. The most obvious example of this was in West Virginia but it also took place in other states. JFK also raised money by selling posts in his administration. He also bought votes in the presidential election, most notably in Illinois but it again took place in several states.

JFK’s supporters will no doubt argue that he had no choice in this as this was the way the American system worked. I have some sympathy with this argument, but it is important to acknowledge that such deals were done as it helps to explain his later behaviour.

In the first couple of years he acted the way you would expect any right-wing president would behave. The only surprise was that he did not give the necessary support for the invasion of Cuba. This raised issues about whether he could take the “tough” decisions. It did seem that he was unduly concerned with his “world image”. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that he was capable of standing up to the Soviets and he was able to recapture his image of the staunch Cold War warrior.

The issue of civil rights also gave JFK problems. For those wishing to fully understand this problem I would fully recommend reading the Robert Kennedy interviews that he gave as part of the John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Project (Robert Kennedy in his Own Words – 1988) and the autobiography of JFK’s Special Assistant for Civil Rights, Harris Wofford (Of Kennedy and Kings – 1980). JFK made some fine issues on this issue but was unable or unwilling to deliver the goods.

I don’t believe JFK was a great president. But I believe he had the potential to be the greatest president in American history. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to prove this.

The reason I saw he had the potential to be a great president was because he was very much like the other great president of the 20th century. Franklin D. Roosevelt. They were both intellectuals. They were both genuinely interested in new ideas. This enabled both men to surround themselves with bright people who were willing to challenge their views (only bright people have the confidence to do this).

JFK, like FDR, was also very wealthy. This meant he was not easily corrupted for financial reasons. I believe that by 1963 JFK was a changed man. By this stage in his career he genuinely believed in civil rights. He also realised that the American political system was corrupt to the core. His period in power had shown him how people like Johnson used the power of the Senate Committees to prevent progressive legislation from being passed. He knew how this power was used to protect things like the Oil Depreciation Allowance. JFK had also discovered the Cold War had the potential to destroy the planet.

I believe JFK had developed a strategy for dealing with all these problems. But first he had to be elected in 1964. As a result of his public success in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, his standing in the polls were high. Victory seemed certain. Only one thing could stop him. And it did.

_____________________________________________

"I believe that by 1963 JFK was a changed man".

Agreed. I had been quite troubled by your "Kennedy myth" theme and how it seemed to contradict all your other writings on the man and the murder. This post now puts it toghther. We who loved JFK know that he came into power via out-coldwarrioring Nixon, that his father's money bought him votes in Chicago, Virginia, etc. BUT BY 1963 JFK WAS A CHANGED MAN. And it is this "changed man" that we love. That is not a myth, this is a fact and I, for one, am glad to see this thinking clarified in your post. Because to say he was insignificant (forget the exact word Andy used at Christmas, but you essentially agreed with this), then there was no reason TO kill him. That is what made no sense to me, having read all your other writings on this subject. I am posting this message as apposed to sending you a PM as I will be interested in other poster's response to what appeared to be a massive contradiction by you, now clarified by this new post.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this wacked out '70s flower-child belief that everyone has some good in them, and I can look at JFK and think, "That was a great man," regardless of his history and regardless that he cheated on his lovely wife. I've read both of the books you've mentioned and know what you say is true, but I still love this family.

Would JFK have been re-elected if he hadn't been shot? Probably not. Would he have been made into an icon like he has been? Definitely not. Was he a genuine specimen of a picture-perfect human being? No. Excluding the possibility of ( and the true end result of ) murder, would he have lived through a second term? Possibly, we can't really say for sure.

I'm fascinated by the Kennedy family, and have been for a few years, because even though they were extremely flawed people, they struggled to make themselves into something, even if that post, too, was marred by scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have this wacked out '70s flower-child belief that everyone has some good in them, and I can look at JFK and think, "That was a great man," regardless of his history and regardless that he cheated on his lovely wife. I've read both of the books you've mentioned and know what you say is true, but I still love this family.

Would JFK have been re-elected if he hadn't been shot? Probably not. Would he have been made into an icon like he has been? Definitely not. Was he a genuine specimen of a picture-perfect human being? No. Excluding the possibility of ( and the true end result of ) murder, would he have lived through a second term? Possibly, we can't really say for sure.

I'm fascinated by the Kennedy family, and have been for a few years, because even though they were extremely flawed people, they struggled to make themselves into something, even if that post, too, was marred by scandal.

_______________________

HI Nic,

I disagree, by 63 JFK was a much loved president and I think he would DEFINATELY have been reelected. That is why he had to be killed.

Otherwise, I agree with your other points.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have this wacked out '70s flower-child belief that everyone has some good in them, and I can look at JFK and think, "That was a great man," regardless of his history and regardless that he cheated on his lovely wife. I've read both of the books you've mentioned and know what you say is true, but I still love this family.

Would JFK have been re-elected if he hadn't been shot? Probably not. Would he have been made into an icon like he has been? Definitely not. Was he a genuine specimen of a picture-perfect human being? No. Excluding the possibility of ( and the true end result of ) murder, would he have lived through a second term? Possibly, we can't really say for sure.

I'm fascinated by the Kennedy family, and have been for a few years, because even though they were extremely flawed people, they struggled to make themselves into something, even if that post, too, was marred by scandal.

_______________________

HI Nic,

I disagree, by 63 JFK was a much loved president and I think he would DEFINATELY have been reelected. That is why he had to be killed.

Otherwise, I agree with your other points.

Dawn

Looking at the 1960 electoral map, JFK only won by carrying the "big" states, and as anti-Kennedy as Texas was, he could pretty much guarantee a loss right there. But, there's not much actual fact behind either statement, because there's no die-hard proof that I've ever seen about just how loved or hated he was. Whatever anyone says they remember it being, it's just how it was in their area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that there is a danger that JFK researchers might be too influenced by the JFK Camelot myth.  That the assassination robbed them of a great president. This is a view often held by the left of the Democratic Party. Some might argue that it does not matter if researchers want to believe the JFK Camelot myth. However, I think it does. The reason being that if we can accurately reconstruct JFK’s actions and beliefs, we can get some idea why he was assassinated.

This of course relates to the issue about whether he knew of the plot to assassinate Castro. Therefore, this is my analysis of JFK’s political career.

If we look at JFK’s career it reflects a fairly conservative view of the world. There is nothing in his career to suggest he was anything but a traditional Cold War warrior. He believed in the Domino Theory and was willing to support right-wing military dictators in order in order to prevent the spread of left-wing ideas or policies.

Domestically he was also very conservative. He showed no interest in the civil rights issue. Nor did he advocate any policies that would redistribute wealth in America.

This is not surprising. McCarthyism had taken its toll on American public opinion. People were scared to express left of centre political opinions in case they were denounced as communists or socialists. Adlai Stevenson had lost two presidential elections because he was seen as being too “left-wing”. It made sense for all Democratic candidates for the nomination to project an image that was to the right of Stevenson. Robert Kennedy was despatched into the Deep South to reassure leaders of the Democratic Party that JFK would not attempt to push through any civil rights legislation. He also was willing to make assurances that he would not advocate policies that favoured trade unions.

JFK was also willing to “buy” votes in the primaries. The most obvious example of this was in West Virginia but it also took place in other states. JFK also raised money by selling posts in his administration. He also bought votes in the presidential election, most notably in Illinois but it again took place in several states.

JFK’s supporters will no doubt argue that he had no choice in this as this was the way the American system worked. I have some sympathy with this argument, but it is important to acknowledge that such deals were done as it helps to explain his later behaviour.

In the first couple of years he acted the way you would expect any right-wing president would behave. The only surprise was that he did not give the necessary support for the invasion of Cuba. This raised issues about whether he could take the “tough” decisions. It did seem that he was unduly concerned with his “world image”. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that he was capable of standing up to the Soviets and he was able to recapture his image of the staunch Cold War warrior.

The issue of civil rights also gave JFK problems. For those wishing to fully understand this problem I would fully recommend reading the Robert Kennedy interviews that he gave as part of the John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Project (Robert Kennedy in his Own Words – 1988) and the autobiography of JFK’s Special Assistant for Civil Rights, Harris Wofford (Of Kennedy and Kings – 1980). JFK made some fine issues on this issue but was unable or unwilling to deliver the goods.

I don’t believe JFK was a great president. But I believe he had the potential to be the greatest president in American history. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to prove this.

The reason I saw he had the potential to be a great president was because he was very much like the other great president of the 20th century. Franklin D. Roosevelt. They were both intellectuals. They were both genuinely interested in new ideas. This enabled both men to surround themselves with bright people who were willing to challenge their views (only bright people have the confidence to do this).

JFK, like FDR, was also very wealthy. This meant he was not easily corrupted for financial reasons. I believe that by 1963 JFK was a changed man. By this stage in his career he genuinely believed in civil rights. He also realised that the American political system was corrupt to the core. His period in power had shown him how people like Johnson used the power of the Senate Committees to prevent progressive legislation from being passed. He knew how this power was used to protect things like the Oil Depreciation Allowance. JFK had also discovered the Cold War had the potential to destroy the planet.

I believe JFK had developed a strategy for dealing with all these problems. But first he had to be elected in 1964. As a result of his public success in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, his standing in the polls were high. Victory seemed certain. Only one thing could stop him. And it did.

John,

While I may agree that the vision of Camelot was and is blinding to some, I strongly disagree with many of your statements. It is true that during the campaign of 1960, JFK was a bigger hawk than Nixon. This changed immediately after the election. JFK talked the talk as politicians do to get elected. His reluctance to support the Bay of Pigs invasion less than 4 months after he took office, and his refusal to provide US military support was not the action of a typical cold warrior. His willingness to compromise with the Soviets really stuck the hawks in the administration and in the military. The decision to use a quarantine during the missile crisis was the least hawkish move he could have made, and did not stand well with the more rightist views of his advisors. In fact, Kruschev thought JFK was a pushover, and couldn't wait to meet with him to wipe the floor up with him. I also disagree with your civil rights comments. JFK not only had to play the political game, he was being unduly influenced by his father. Joe Sr was so afraid that JFK's stance on civil rights would doom his political career, his son listened enough to attempt to stall the efforts of Martin Luther King and others, simply to keep the peace. He changed significantly after seeing the water hoses and dogs in Birmingham Alabama. JFK didn't buy the votes in 1960, Joe Sr did. Generally speaking, Bobby was the one who convinced his brother to go against their father's wishes. If there was a boogeyman in the whole Camelot scenario, it was Joe Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would JFK have been re-elected if he hadn't been shot? Probably not. Would he have been made into an icon like he has been? Definitely not. Was he a genuine specimen of a picture-perfect human being? No. Excluding the possibility of ( and the true end result of ) murder, would he have lived through a second term? Possibly, we can't really say for sure.

Nic,

IMO there is no question JFK would have been re-elected in '64. He would have thrashed Goldwater as bad as LBJ did. I also think it's why JFK was hesitant about civil rights. He didn't want to turn the South against him in '64. Once re-elected, I think civil rights would have been his main focus. I seriously think a Kennedy dynasty was in the making. Bobby would have followed his brother, and more than likely, Teddy would have followed Bobby.

RJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would JFK have been re-elected if he hadn't been shot? Probably not. Would he have been made into an icon like he has been? Definitely not. Was he a genuine specimen of a picture-perfect human being? No. Excluding the possibility of ( and the true end result of ) murder, would he have lived through a second term? Possibly, we can't really say for sure.

Nic,

IMO there is no question JFK would have been re-elected in '64. He would have thrashed Goldwater as bad as LBJ did. I also think it's why JFK was hesitant about civil rights. He didn't want to turn the South against him in '64. Once re-elected, I think civil rights would have been his main focus. I seriously think a Kennedy dynasty was in the making. Bobby would have followed his brother, and more than likely, Teddy would have followed Bobby.

RJS

IMO, there was no chance for Ted after Chappaquiddick, but it took a pretty big pair to even TRY after that.

JFK, I think, had the intelligence to be a great President, but RFK, I believe, had the die-hard PASSION to change everything, which is why they couldn't risk him even getting the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my readings, JFK and RFK were going to "take out " Fidel before the 1964 election. That would have guaranteed his re-election.

I do not believe JFK's re-election was otherwise necessarily assured. Due to the civil rights turmoil, he probably would have had problems carrying at least some of the Southern states.

And Giancana and his buddies sure weren't going to steal Illinois for him in 1964.

I have not had the opportunity to post my summary of the historical evidence of the 1964 vote fraud and what it meant. There is evidence that the Mafia delivered a very substantial financial contribution to Joe, Sr. which was used in the all-important West Virginia primary. There is no evidence, from what I have read, that JFK was personally aware of what his father was doing, and I doubt his father would have told him ("plausible deniability") but he probably suspected his father was making deals he did not want to know about.

I also believe that it took more than the Mafia money to win the West Virginia primary. JFK was a great campaigner and RFK was a great campaign organizer.

I have said before that I believe Joe Sr promised the Mafia that if it helped elect JFK he (Joe Sr) would "take care of Bobby" (i.e. get Bobby off their backs) when his intention was always to do the reverse. From what I have read, however, part of the deal Joe Sr may have made with Giancana was that Joe Sr would help Giancana take control of the Cal-Nev Lodge (which promise Joe Sr did keep).

But in any event, I believe the historical record indicates that JFK was trusting RFK to organize either a coup or an invasion of Cuba that would guarantee his re-election. Only one thing kept Castro alive and in power in Cuba: the guns of November.

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that there is a danger that JFK researchers might be too influenced by the JFK Camelot myth.  That the assassination robbed them of a great president. This is a view often held by the left of the Democratic Party. Some might argue that it does not matter if researchers want to believe the JFK Camelot myth. However, I think it does. The reason being that if we can accurately reconstruct JFK’s actions and beliefs, we can get some idea why he was assassinated.

This of course relates to the issue about whether he knew of the plot to assassinate Castro. Therefore, this is my analysis of JFK’s political career.

If we look at JFK’s career it reflects a fairly conservative view of the world. There is nothing in his career to suggest he was anything but a traditional Cold War warrior. He believed in the Domino Theory and was willing to support right-wing military dictators in order in order to prevent the spread of left-wing ideas or policies.

Domestically he was also very conservative. He showed no interest in the civil rights issue. Nor did he advocate any policies that would redistribute wealth in America.

This is not surprising. McCarthyism had taken its toll on American public opinion. People were scared to express left of centre political opinions in case they were denounced as communists or socialists. Adlai Stevenson had lost two presidential elections because he was seen as being too “left-wing”. It made sense for all Democratic candidates for the nomination to project an image that was to the right of Stevenson. Robert Kennedy was despatched into the Deep South to reassure leaders of the Democratic Party that JFK would not attempt to push through any civil rights legislation. He also was willing to make assurances that he would not advocate policies that favoured trade unions.

JFK was also willing to “buy” votes in the primaries. The most obvious example of this was in West Virginia but it also took place in other states. JFK also raised money by selling posts in his administration. He also bought votes in the presidential election, most notably in Illinois but it again took place in several states.

JFK’s supporters will no doubt argue that he had no choice in this as this was the way the American system worked. I have some sympathy with this argument, but it is important to acknowledge that such deals were done as it helps to explain his later behaviour.

In the first couple of years he acted the way you would expect any right-wing president would behave. The only surprise was that he did not give the necessary support for the invasion of Cuba. This raised issues about whether he could take the “tough” decisions. It did seem that he was unduly concerned with his “world image”. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that he was capable of standing up to the Soviets and he was able to recapture his image of the staunch Cold War warrior.

The issue of civil rights also gave JFK problems. For those wishing to fully understand this problem I would fully recommend reading the Robert Kennedy interviews that he gave as part of the John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Project (Robert Kennedy in his Own Words – 1988) and the autobiography of JFK’s Special Assistant for Civil Rights, Harris Wofford (Of Kennedy and Kings – 1980). JFK made some fine issues on this issue but was unable or unwilling to deliver the goods.

I don’t believe JFK was a great president. But I believe he had the potential to be the greatest president in American history. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to prove this.

The reason I saw he had the potential to be a great president was because he was very much like the other great president of the 20th century. Franklin D. Roosevelt. They were both intellectuals. They were both genuinely interested in new ideas. This enabled both men to surround themselves with bright people who were willing to challenge their views (only bright people have the confidence to do this).

JFK, like FDR, was also very wealthy. This meant he was not easily corrupted for financial reasons. I believe that by 1963 JFK was a changed man. By this stage in his career he genuinely believed in civil rights. He also realised that the American political system was corrupt to the core. His period in power had shown him how people like Johnson used the power of the Senate Committees to prevent progressive legislation from being passed. He knew how this power was used to protect things like the Oil Depreciation Allowance. JFK had also discovered the Cold War had the potential to destroy the planet.

I believe JFK had developed a strategy for dealing with all these problems. But first he had to be elected in 1964. As a result of his public success in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, his standing in the polls were high. Victory seemed certain. Only one thing could stop him. And it did.

John,

While I may agree that the vision of Camelot was and is blinding to some, I strongly disagree with many of your statements. It is true that during the campaign of 1960, JFK was a bigger hawk than Nixon. This changed immediately after the election. JFK talked the talk as politicians do to get elected. His reluctance to support the Bay of Pigs invasion less than 4 months after he took office, and his refusal to provide US military support was not the action of a typical cold warrior. His willingness to compromise with the Soviets really stuck the hawks in the administration and in the military. The decision to use a quarantine during the missile crisis was the least hawkish move he could have made, and did not stand well with the more rightist views of his advisors. In fact, Kruschev thought JFK was a pushover, and couldn't wait to meet with him to wipe the floor up with him. I also disagree with your civil rights comments. JFK not only had to play the political game, he was being unduly influenced by his father. Joe Sr was so afraid that JFK's stance on civil rights would doom his political career, his son listened enough to attempt to stall the efforts of Martin Luther King and others, simply to keep the peace. He changed significantly after seeing the water hoses and dogs in Birmingham Alabama. JFK didn't buy the votes in 1960, Joe Sr did. Generally speaking, Bobby was the one who convinced his brother to go against their father's wishes. If there was a boogeyman in the whole Camelot scenario, it was Joe Sr.

_____________________________________

Richard: I concur 100% with this post and thank you for posting it. I assume it is ok to disagree with the administrator, or point out his/our contrdictions in posting. ANd point out each other's flaws in thinking, it makes us think more critically if done constructively as your post has just done.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I may agree that the vision of Camelot was and is blinding to some, I strongly disagree with many of your statements. It is true that during the campaign of 1960, JFK was a bigger hawk than Nixon. This changed immediately after the election. JFK talked the talk as politicians do to get elected. His reluctance to support the Bay of Pigs invasion less than 4 months after he took office, and his refusal to provide US military support was not the action of a typical cold warrior. His willingness to compromise with the Soviets really stuck the hawks in the administration and in the military. The decision to use a quarantine during the missile crisis was the least hawkish move he could have made, and did not stand well with the more rightist views of his advisors. In fact, Kruschev thought JFK was a pushover, and couldn't wait to meet with him to wipe the floor up with him. I also disagree with your civil rights comments. JFK not only had to play the political game, he was being unduly influenced by his father. Joe Sr was so afraid that JFK's stance on civil rights would doom his political career, his son listened enough to attempt to stall the efforts of Martin Luther King and others, simply to keep the peace. He changed significantly after seeing the water hoses and dogs in Birmingham Alabama. JFK didn't buy the votes in 1960, Joe Sr did. Generally speaking, Bobby was the one who convinced his brother to go against their father's wishes. If there was a boogeyman in the whole Camelot scenario, it was Joe Sr.

I will be looking in detail concerning JFK behaviour concerning the CIA and the Bay of Pigs. As Richard Bissell pointed out it was not only because of his anti-communism that they supported JFK. More importantly, he liked the way he intended to deal with it. Bissell told friends that JFK was “action-orientated” and “impatient with bureaucracy”. Bissell was convinced that a JFK presidency would get “quick results”. Bissell, who had supported Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, compared the two men. Whereas Stevenson was Cicero, JFK was Caesar.

You are of course wrong to suggest that this was all Joe’s doing. He purchased votes during 1960 from money donated from his own business contacts. Some of this money came via the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird. See the following for an explanation of the role that the CIA played in JFK election:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3021

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

You are of course wrong to suggest that this was all Joe’s doing. He purchased votes during 1960 from money donated from his own business contacts. Some of this money came via the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird. See the following for an explanation of the role that the CIA played in JFK election:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3021

Wrong of course? Can you be so positive? I noticed you didn't cite sources as to the CIA's connection to the 1960 election. Seems to me that the CIA would have wanted, indeed expected, Richard Nixon to be President.

RJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard: I concur 100% with this post and thank you for posting it.  I assume it is ok to disagree with the administrator, or point out his/our contrdictions in posting.  ANd point out each other's flaws in thinking, it makes us think more critically if done constructively as your post has just done.

Dawn

Thank you Dawn. While it may be OK to disagree with the administrator, John's response "of course you are wrong" was rather telling. Perhaps I should have tempered my response with "in my opinion...".

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

You are of course wrong to suggest that this was all Joe’s doing. He purchased votes during 1960 from money donated from his own business contacts. Some of this money came via the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird. See the following for an explanation of the role that the CIA played in JFK election:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3021

Wrong of course? Can you be so positive? I noticed you didn't cite sources as to the CIA's connection to the 1960 election. Seems to me that the CIA would have wanted, indeed expected, Richard Nixon to be President.

RJS

____________________________________

Given that the Bay of Pigs was planned by Richard Nixon, and that Nixon had ties to the Mob, who were in turn enlisted to kill Castro by the CIA, I concur with you once again Richard, that the CIA would have wanted Richard Nixon as President.

(INMO)

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...