Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why did/do the Kennedys remain silent?


John Dolva
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bernice:

Robert Parry is one of the few in the liberal blogosphere that publishes respectable material on the JFK case.

He printed an abridged version of my Family of Secrets review.

My take on the whole so-called New Media which is looking suspiciously like the Old Media.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/huffpo.html

thanks jim will read up on it and thanks for the uptodate history lesson...take care...b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to understand how much the media hates the notion of any Kennedy being elected to public office again, consider that, when Caroline was a shoo-in to be named Senator from New York a few years back, the powers that be rose up against her in a solid front. How else do you explain the articles which appeared everywhere, following her awkward interview, in which the transcript was published, complete with all her "uhs" and "you knows" intact? Kind of like when CBS aired that hit piece on Ted Kennedy back in 1980, after he decided to challenge Carter, and made certain to air all his "ers" and "uhs" for the audience to enjoy.

It wans't just the MSM, it was also the blogosphere which rose up against Caroline. This is what convinced me that the blogosphere was going to be little different than the MSM. The following column really ticked off Jane Hamsher. As it shoudl have.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html

Perhaps it was the fact she had absolutely no qualifications other than her pedigree.

That is bullcrap. She has a law degree. She has written books. She UNDERSTANDS the constitution. She has as much qualification, if not way more than most candidates. The media was horrendous. That's because they are- by choice- ignorant when it comes to the assassinations. In fact I'd go so far as to say that attacking her the way it did the CIA's Operation Mockingbird got rid of her and let her live. Unlike her brother, father and uncle.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above by Colby and Hall is almost funny. And it says that you didn't click through all the way. Its a three part article.

As per Colby's saying that Caroline had no political experince, well I wonder why? Quoitng my article:

Let me also try and answer the query as to why people choose to do the things they do in life. It's true that Caroline and her late brother, John Jr., did not enter the public square as far as political office went. But I think you overlook a rather important detail. If I was a young child who stood by and had to watch my father's brains being blown out -- and had to relive that moment every time someone showed the Zapruder film--I think I would have qualms about entering the public arena. But, as many know, after John Kennedy's murder, Bobby Kennedy then became a surrogate father to John and Caroline. And he ran for the presidency five years later. Something that Jackie Kennedy was not all that excited about. To then have your surrogate father have his brains also blown out in public ... Well, that might swear me off from political life also.

But further, the fact that Caroline had not held political office before is something that did not hold Hamsher back when she backed Ned Lamont. In fact, she never mentioned it. And it was held by some to be an attribute. Which, in some cases, it can be. The Senate is not an executive body. It is a deliberative one. And from her past history, we can see that her voting record would have been pretty solidly in the progressive camp.

One of the points of the article was that the newly minted blogosphere shockingly went along with the MSM on this issue, especiallly the NY TImes--which has always been anti Kennedy. To the point that they appear to have cooperated in a hoax letter the Times printed. Joshua Micah Marshall of TPM went out and hired an MSM hack journalist Matt Cooper, and Cooper went and wrote a couple of the stupidest columns for Josh, ones that could have appeared in TIme or Newsweek.

I also addressed the whole goofy argument about "dynasties" that Markos Moulitsas--Mr.Former CIA intern-brought up. Well yeah, there are some dynasties, like the Bushes, that are just unsupportable. But to throw the Kennedys in there is being undiscriminating and ahistorical. I mean some dynasties have done good things--like the Roosevelts, some have not. The Kennedys have not only done a ton of good things, they have probably set a standard for 1.) Doing good deeds over a period of time, and 2.) Being so extreme in that regard they get their heads blown off. This is why I then wrote:

It's strange, I think, that a member of the family that fought what turned out to be a fatal battle against the forces of conservatism and regression is now being persecuted by the new Liberal Establishment. It almost makes me think that you don't really wish to replace the MSM. But just to tweak it a bit.

Which,of course, looks like what is happening. I mean Huffpo just hired another hack MSM journalist, Howard FIneman.

The whole fiasco hoisted Moulitsas and Hamsher on their own petard ultimately. Drunk on their own newly found power, they and the bumbling Paterson brought us KIrsten Gilibrand, a Blue Dog. Just the kind of Democrat that the blogosphere had been railing against for years. So instead of a real progressive, they brought us a Rahm Emanuel type. And they were so blind about this that they covered up for the other true villian in the saga, Paterson, who manipulated and stretched out the process for his own political ends. Which ended up also backfiring on him.

In Part 2, be sure to click through to the New York Magazine piece, which was by far and away the best, and only, real piece of investigative journalism in the whole tawdry affair.

If Caroline wants to be the Senator from NY like her uncle, she can run for office.

What did the media say about her 2 years ago that was untrue?

People win elective office all the time even though the media uses its vast power of influence (which is presently decreasing, though) to oppose them.

I don't like political dynasties (and the presumption of entitlement which frequently accompanies the landed gentry), irrespective of which side of the aisle they line up on.

I didn't say that you don't sometimes get quality second generation politicos - I said they make me weary.

I like seeing candidates who have made their own reputations - not ones who have inherited them.

I admire a lot of qualities that JFK and RFK exhibited, but I certainly don't buy into the inherent nobility that some of you seem to see in all things Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above by Colby and Hall is almost funny. And it says that you didn't click through all the way. Its a three part article.

As per Colby's saying that Caroline had no political experince, well I wonder why? Quoitng my article:

Let me also try and answer the query as to why people choose to do the things they do in life. It's true that Caroline and her late brother, John Jr., did not enter the public square as far as political office went. But I think you overlook a rather important detail. If I was a young child who stood by and had to watch my father's brains being blown out -- and had to relive that moment every time someone showed the Zapruder film--I think I would have qualms about entering the public arena. But, as many know, after John Kennedy's murder, Bobby Kennedy then became a surrogate father to John and Caroline. And he ran for the presidency five years later. Something that Jackie Kennedy was not all that excited about. To then have your surrogate father have his brains also blown out in public ... Well, that might swear me off from political life also.

But further, the fact that Caroline had not held political office before is something that did not hold Hamsher back when she backed Ned Lamont. In fact, she never mentioned it. And it was held by some to be an attribute. Which, in some cases, it can be. The Senate is not an executive body. It is a deliberative one. And from her past history, we can see that her voting record would have been pretty solidly in the progressive camp.

One of the points of the article was that the newly minted blogosphere shockingly went along with the MSM on this issue, especiallly the NY TImes--which has always been anti Kennedy. To the point that they appear to have cooperated in a hoax letter the Times printed. Joshua Micah Marshall of TPM went out and hired an MSM hack journalist Matt Cooper, and Cooper went and wrote a couple of the stupidest columns for Josh, ones that could have appeared in TIme or Newsweek.

I also addressed the whole goofy argument about "dynasties" that Markos Moulitsas--Mr.Former CIA intern-brought up. Well yeah, there are some dynasties, like the Bushes, that are just unsupportable. But to throw the Kennedys in there is being undiscriminating and ahistorical. I mean some dynasties have done good things--like the Roosevelts, some have not. The Kennedys have not only done a ton of good things, they have probably set a standard for 1.) Doing good deeds over a period of time, and 2.) Being so extreme in that regard they get their heads blown off. This is why I then wrote:

It's strange, I think, that a member of the family that fought what turned out to be a fatal battle against the forces of conservatism and regression is now being persecuted by the new Liberal Establishment. It almost makes me think that you don't really wish to replace the MSM. But just to tweak it a bit.

Which,of course, looks like what is happening. I mean Huffpo just hired another hack MSM journalist, Howard FIneman.

The whole fiasco hoisted Moulitsas and Hamsher on their own petard ultimately. Drunk on their own newly found power, they and the bumbling Paterson brought us KIrsten Gilibrand, a Blue Dog. Just the kind of Democrat that the blogosphere had been railing against for years. So instead of a real progressive, they brought us a Rahm Emanuel type. And they were so blind about this that they covered up for the other true villian in the saga, Paterson, who manipulated and stretched out the process for his own political ends. Which ended up also backfiring on him.

In Part 2, be sure to click through to the New York Magazine piece, which was by far and away the best, and only, real piece of investigative journalism in the whole tawdry affair.

If Caroline wants to be the Senator from NY like her uncle, she can run for office.

Mr. Hall, it was an open seat when HC left for State. Jim, I am well aware of the circumstances leading to the appointment of an interim Senator from NY in 2008. It was by necessity an appointed office. Several people let Paterson know they were interested. It's an open seat this year and Caroline was free to run against the incumbent Gillibrand. Her uncle Teddy had no problems with running agains incumbent President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

What did the media say about her 2 years ago that was untrue?

I guess you didn't read my New Media v. Old Media article. It began like this:

"Readers of this site will recall that in 2008, around this time, I wrote a three part series entitled "An Open Letter to Jane Hamsher and Markos Moulitsas." In that article I lamented the criticisms of those two bloggers about Caroline Kennedy placing her name in nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as senator from New York. I wrote that their rather shallow, melodramatic and unfounded broadsides actually said more about them than it did her. (Click here to read that piece.) Kennedy eventually withdrew from consideration. Governor David Paterson then appointed the upstate Blue Dog Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the post. I pointed out that the two bloggers goofy outrage had resulted in the appointment of just the kind of GOP-Lite Democrat they were supposed to be opposed to.

Later, some sordid revelations surfaced about what the governor had done in the wake of Kennedy's withdrawal. Paterson told Judy Smith, a political hack on his staff, to start selectively leaking confidential material in order to smear Kennedy. Why? To make it appear that she withdrew because Paterson would not pick her because of ethical problems. When this happened, Hamsher actually used these manufactured smears to attack Kennedy and protect herself against my column! As more objective observers have written, Kennedy dropped out because she felt Paterson was using her to garner media attention for his re-election bid. Smith, a former GOP enforcer, was later forced to resign. Paterson became the subject of an ethics inquiry over the Kennedy smears. Which was later accused of covering up for him. (Click here for that story )

Paterson's handling of this episode was so bad that even Republican Mayor Bloomberg questioned why it had happened. In its aftermath a decline in Paterson's ratings began. It soon became a shocking downward spiral. Less than three months after Kennedy dropped out, Paterson's rating had dipped from 51% to 19% positive. His negatives soared to 78%. (New York Daily News, 3/23/09) Things have gotten so bad that the White House has tried to talk him out of running again. Not just because they think he will lose, but because they think he will bring Gillibrand down with him. And since the Blue Dog Gillibrand has been scarred, the White house has also tried to talk the more liberal Carolyn Maloney out of running against her in the primary. (ibid, 7/3/09) Which tells us that Rahm Emanuel is in charge.

Funny how the New Media's Hamsher and Moulitsas have been hesitant to detail the mess they did so much to cause. They sure flunked that test – all the way down to covering up for Paterson. (For the best article on the Caroline Kennedy affair, click here.)"

Further the whole up state New York trop was reported wrongly, if you read the Smith article. It was never her idea. Plus, Paterson then lied about whose idea it was to drop out of consideration. ANd the New Media accepted his lies. THat is in the Smith article also. So a couple of bloggers jumped on her and you think the NYT article was a hit piece? Do you expect to not have to contend with the media when someone runs for office? I read the NYT article when it came out, but I don't remember any incorrect assertions. Maybe I missed them.

I don't like political dynasties (and the presumption of entitlement which frequently accompanies the landed gentry), irrespective of which side of the aisle they line up on.

Ok, dump the Roosevelts, the Gores, and hey, why not the Grachi brothers. Jim- You obviously like wealthy political dynasties. I don't.

I didn't say that you don't sometimes get quality second generation politicos - I said they make me weary.

Good let us get a Blue Dog then.

I like seeing candidates who have made their own reputations - not ones who have inherited them.

Caroline Kennedy has done some good things on her own. Like graduated with a law degree from Columbia, written two books on the Constitution, and raised tens of millions for New York CIty pubic schools.

She has had the opportunities that her family's vast wealth affords to write books and do charitable work.

I admire a lot of qualities that JFK and RFK exhibited, but I certainly don't buy into the inherent nobility that some of you seem to see in all things Kennedy.

It wasn't "inherent", if Caroline Kennedy had not done a solitary thing with her life except party in Monaco, and take trips to Hawaii in her yacht then, yep, forget it. But she did not. No doubt that she stands in vivid contrast to several of her cousins in this regard. So she did not deserve the mugging she got from both the NYT, and the so called New Media, which turned out to be not so new.

As a matter of disclosure, Caroline and I are the same age and she was the object of my first crush at a very young age. I have always admired her quite a bit. I also liked her brother a lot, including his self-deprecating humor.

I respectfully disagree with those who seem to think that a family's gene pool gives rise to political entitlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Jim, gonna throw several things out in the hope you will respond to all of them...

The timing of this persuasive, Dec., 2008 piece, starting as it does by lumping Caroline Kennedy in with a large number of other examples of the dominance of nepotism in federal elected positions, and why it may not be good, supports your point that there seemed to be a coordinated, "progressive" new media blitz against Caroline. The supported points in this particular piece, I think, tend to show why it is detrimental, generally, due to the power of incumbancy, once the non, "self made" family successor, "inherits" the elected post. One central point is that the last name tends to "hook" uniformed voters who may still believe they are voting for the elder, incumbant, althought not in the case of Caroline Kennedy, or Hillary Clinton.

On another subject, Drew Pearson did a column relating that Dean Rusk, once installed in the JFK State Dept., complained that he was not permitted to make any of his own picks, but he insisted on keeping George McGhee over from the Eisenhower admin., as a key, Rusk undersecretary. Pearson said JFK took the advice and guidance of Carl Rowan in third world displomacy, especially in Africa, and specifically, in this example, in the Congo. Pearson related that, after Rowan, who had the job of State Dept. spokesperson, criticized Belgian mining interests in the Congo, McGhee asked Rowan to tone it down, and tipped the press to provide a lead in for McGhee to contradict Rowan the following Sunday on Meet the Press, and then to use the excuse, to Rowan, that the "surprise" question caused him to misspeak. JFK must have been irritated enough to insist that Rusk recall the Ambassador to Germany, Dowling, and that McGee be sent to Germany to take his place.

Why did JFK pick Rusk instead of Fulbright as Secrty of State, and set himself up for constant undermining of his intended policy direction? The same question applies at defense, as well. This is the crux of my comparison with what Obama did in keeping Gates and his team of flag officers, and appointing Rahm. I know Fulbright had a segregationist background, but his record in that regard was not cut and dry, he was a maverick and a politician who had to answer to his Arkansas constituency, as any other southern democrat had to do in that era.

Last, are you familiar with "Walton cable from Prague" details in Whittaker Chamber's 1952 book? Chambers wrote that he was a Time editor, and that William Walton had somehow ended up reporting for Life from Prague. He wrote that Walton sent a very long cable describing that a middle class "revolution" was taking place in Prague. Chambers wrote that Czechoslovakia was an extremely middle class country and that young and politically inexperienced Walton must have been duped by the Soviets. Walton himself reported in a July, 1945, Life article that there were no slums in Prague. Chambers said he did not fault Walton, he felt he had more insight and experience than Walton and that it would be a disservice to the American readership to print Walton's reporting on the political state of things. Chambers described several ways that Walton came after him, and that this was the reason Walton left Time for the New Republic.:

http://www.archive.org/stream/hearingsregardin1948unit/hearingsregardin1948unit_djvu.txt

August 1948:

Testimony of Alger Hiss (Whittaker Chambers) 975

....Mr. Nixon. And, Mr. Johnston told you that a member of the press

had told him

Mr. Hiss. Just what I have told you.

Mr. Nixon. What you have just told me?

Mr. Hiss. That is correct.

Mr. Nixon. And on the basis of that statement, which is hearsay

twice removed, you are leaving the implication that Mr. Crosley has

been in a mental institution.

Mr. Hiss. Mr. Nixon, you say I am leaving an implication.

Mr. NixoN. Well, I cannot gather anything else from your state-

ment.

Mr. Hiss. There have been other reports made to me.

Mr. Nixon. What other reports ?

Mr. Hiss. That an individual who formerly worked on Time said

that Chambers had been to a mental institution.

Mr. Nixon. Who told you that ?

Mr. Hiss. This also came to me from a second-hand source. The

name of the individual who was supposed to have made the state-

ment — I do not like to bring names in unnecessarily, however, if you

insist

Mr. Nixon. I insist.

Mr. Hiss. The name is of a person named Walton, who, I under-

stand, formerly worked on Time, and who, I do not know that Walton,

he said definitely that Chambers had been to a mental institution in

194G. Tlie statement was made that Walton understood that or

thought that.

Mr. Nixon. Now, who else?

Mr. Hiss. I do not recall any other specific information because I

have not personally been attempting to go into it....

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22*I+was+not+questioining+walton%27s+integrity%22&btnG=Search+Books

Witness Whittaker Chambers - 1952 - 808 pages - Snippet view

It took courage in those days for Time to run a piece like The Ghosts on the Roof. XXIV A Hiss Case ghost also brushed me at Time not long afterwards. Among Time's war correspondents was a young man named William Walton, who was once pointed out to me, but whom I do not recall ever having met. I knew only that he was personable and well thought of. Everyone spoke highly of his courage in parachuting into Normandy on or around D-Day.

After the collapse of Germany, Walton, for some reason, got to Prague.

From there, he filed a ten- or twelve-page cable describing how, under Soviet occupation, 'a middle-class revolution' or a 'white-collar revolution' had taken place in Czechoslovakia. I read the long cable over several times with astonishment. I had no first-hand facts about the situation in Prague. But I knew something about how Communists could be expected to mask their control there.

Above all, I knew that, in a country as intensely middle class as Czechoslovakia, a "middle-class revolution" is a contradiction in terms. Whatever Walton thought that he had seen, it could not be a "middle-class revolution.

I was not questioning Walton's integrity at all, of course. I was questioning the political discernment of a war correspondent. I thought that Walton was an inexperienced young American who had been sold a bill of goods, and that is what I said. There was never any question of firing Walton. I believe it was two or three years later that he subsequently left Time entirely under his own steam. Testifying in public session before the House Committee on Un- American Activities, on August 25, 1948, Alger Hiss said that a newspaperman had told him that a man on Time had told him that Whittaker Chambers was mentally unstable. Hiss was reluctant to name his ultimate Time source, but under pressure he did so. The source was William Walton. Hiss also testified that he had heard a year or two before from someone that "a man at Time" was calling him a Communist. One wonders who that "someone" was, for he is nowhere identified. To me the conclusion is inescapable that Alger Hiss had long known that the "man at Time" was his old friend Carl; that, in fact, Hiss was able to keep a rather close and that he knew a great deal about me at a time when I knew almost nothing about him....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=life+%22by+william+walton%22+no+slums&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

People of Pilsen - Jun 25, 1945 - Page 13

LIFE - Vol. 18, No. 26 - 108 pages - Magazine - Full view

THE PEOPLE OF PILSEN Czechs are already rebuilding their republic by WILLIAM WALTON Pilsen, Czechoslovakia Ella Malec, ... it was the poor who were hungry, though in Czechoslovakia, a nation without slums, there was little starvation.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22Sarah+Bradford%22+*47+Jackie+and+Bobby+had+instructed+Bill+Walton&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

America's queen: the life of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

Sarah Bradford - 2000 - 690 pages -

47 Jackie and Bobby had instructed Bill Walton to go ahead with his prearranged trip to Moscow, ostensibly to meet Soviet artists (in his position as head of the Fine Arts Commission). He left on 29 November.

Selected Letters of Martha Gellhorn - Page 176

Caroline Moorehead - 2007 - 544 pages - Preview

... she started an affair with William Walton, who had parachuted into Holland with the 82nd Airborne, covering the war

Time: Volume 45

Briton Hadden, Henry Robinson Luce - 1945 - Snippet view

Walton will spend the next few weeks in Jacksonville, Illinois, resting up and getting reacquainted with his wife Emily Ann and the two children he hasn't seen in almost two years. But come March he hopes to be back in uniform and off ...

Hemingway: a biography - Page 395

Jeffrey Meyers - 1999 - 644 pages - Preview

the University of Wisconsin, worked on his family paper and on PM in New York (with the ubiquitous Leicester) before joining Time in Europe. Walton, trained to parachute into Normandy with General Ridgway on D-Day, .

The Kennedy White House: Family Life and Pictures, 1961-1963 - Page 97

Carl Sferrazza Anthony - 2002 - 304 pages - Preview

One person had spent more time with Jack and probably knew his mind better than any other male intimate. "Lem Billings," Jackie told Mr. West, "has been a houseguest every weekend of my married life." Although Billings, an advertising ...

books.google.com - More editions - Add to My Library▼

Brothers: the hidden history of the Kennedy years - Page 26

David Talbot - 2007 - 478 pages - Preview

were totally intimate. I think he was deeply fond of me. I was of him. I haven't had many male friends as close as he ... Walton also enjoyed a “sweet and safe” friendship with Jackie Kennedy. He met her in Washington before she was ...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/12/03/aristocracy/

By Glenn Greenwald

...Family succession is hardly unheard of in U.S. political history, but what was once quite rare has now become pervasive. As The Washington Post's Dana Milbank put it in 2005:

With at least 18 senators, dozens of House members and several administration officials boosted by family legacies, modern-day Washington sometimes resembles the court of Louis XIV without the powdered wigs.

Illustrating that radical change, here's a revealing 1929 article from Time Magazine expressing some mild disapproval for what was, back then, the rare occurrence of a son who was elected to succeed his father in a Minnesota Congressional seat after the father was killed in a tragic fire (the new son-Congressman, the article noted, was "an engaging young man, thoroughly Nordic in appearance"). About this single familial succession, Time sternly intoned: "Primogeniture and hereditary public office have no place in U. S. tradition."

That is clearly no longer true. One of the most encouraging aspects of Barack Obama's success -- and, for that matter, the ascension of someone like Sarah Palin or Bill Clinton -- is the pure self-sufficiency and lack of family connection behind it. But even pointing that out demonstrates how meritocratic self-sufficiency has almost become the exception rather than the rule. That we now treat Presidents like Kings and expect them to exercise similar powers is consistent with the broader trend whereby we are ruled by a Versailles on the Potomac, with all the bloated, decadent insularity that implies....

Jim, I guess my main point is that things are possibly murkier than you want them to be. Who was Bill Walton? He "picked out" Glen Ora for Jackie, he knew the owner, Gladys Byfield Tartiere, mother-in-law of McNamara's later, second wife, and the mother of Ernie, Jr., the former OSS officer at the center of a Braga, Hoy, Crown, General Dynamics set of relationships. Walton was gay, but had no gay, adult background, he was expected by JFK and RFK to be savvy with the Soviets, but hadn't been in his past. He had worked for PM...Ralph Ingersoll was his editor, and Ralph was best friends with Roland Mather Hooker, the father of Bush's room mate and Dimitri Von Mohrenschildt's step son.

How are you so adept as to what to leave in, and what to discount/dismiss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim

Your tendency to ascribe alterior motives to people just because they disagree you’re your is quite obnoxious and in the case of members here a violation of forum rules and etiquette. Leave such tactic to the lives of Fetzer and White, you're better then that or at least I hope so.

Ned Lamont is not analogous for a few reasons:

1) He was the only person willing to challenge Lieberman for the nomination so it was him or a quasi-Republican. Patterson on the other hand had various candidates to choose from.

2) Related to 1) he was running for office not seeking appointment.

3) Though like Caroline he was born to wealth he made his own way in the world he was a successful businessman. Caroline on the other hand worked as an intern at the Metropolitan Museum and part time unpaid fund raiser for the NYC school system

4) Right or wrong one of her points was that as a Kennedy she would face added scrutiny:

“We have absolutely no idea if she’s qualified, or whether she can take the heat of being a Kennedy in public life. She’s certainly shown no appetite for it in the past. She’ll have a target on her back and if she can’t take it, if she crumbles, she will become a rallying point that the right will easily organize around.”

5) Meager as it Lamont DID have some political experience:

“Before running for the U.S. Senate, Lamont was elected and served as selectman in the town of Greenwich, Connecticut, for eight years (two terms), chaired the state investment advisory council, and served on many civic boards. Lamont unsuccessfully ran for a state Senate seat in 1990, finishing in third place.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Lamont#cite_ref-taxreturn_9-0

Your point about the Roosevelt and Kennedys versus the Bushes is taken but I don’t think that just because someone has one of the two former last names they are entitled to hold political office

You falsely framed the possibilities as between Kennedy and Gillibrand, Wikipedia has a list of 19 people who were mentioned (all with citations), what makes you think Kennedy was a better choice then Andrew Cuomo or his dad or several liberal members of the state’s House delegation such as Nadler or Maloney?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_New_York,_2010#Potential_candidates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to understand how much the media hates the notion of any Kennedy being elected to public office again, consider that, when Caroline was a shoo-in to be named Senator from New York a few years back, the powers that be rose up against her in a solid front. How else do you explain the articles which appeared everywhere, following her awkward interview, in which the transcript was published, complete with all her "uhs" and "you knows" intact? Kind of like when CBS aired that hit piece on Ted Kennedy back in 1980, after he decided to challenge Carter, and made certain to air all his "ers" and "uhs" for the audience to enjoy.

It wans't just the MSM, it was also the blogosphere which rose up against Caroline. This is what convinced me that the blogosphere was going to be little different than the MSM. The following column really ticked off Jane Hamsher. As it shoudl have.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html

Perhaps it was the fact she had absolutely no qualifications other than her pedigree.

That is bullcrap. She has a law degree. She has written books. She UNDERSTANDS the constitution. She has as much qualification, if not way more than most candidates. The media was horrendous. That's because they are- by choice- ignorant when it comes to the assassinations. In fact I'd go so far as to say that attacking her the way it did the CIA's Operation Mockingbird got rid of her and let her live. Unlike her brother, father and uncle.

Dawn

So Dawn thinks anyone with a law degree who co-authored a couple of books is qualified to be a senator? I imagine that only applies to members of the Kennedy family. As for John-John he killed himself and the others on the plane. He is yet more evidence that being a Kennedy does guarantee good judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did the media say about her 2 years ago that was untrue?

The media did get some stuff wrong but they frequently do. That doesn't mean she was the right choice nor that there was anything wrong Marcos' or Hamsher's blog posts that so ruffled Jim's feathers.

The case of Lisa Murkowski is instructive, the people of Alaska were so incensed by her father appointing her to the senate that he became one of the only incumbent governors ever to be defeated in a primary. And she was more qualified that Kennedy having served a couple of terms in the Alaska house and 24 years as the daughter of a Senator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who determines if a candidate is "qualified" or not? Let's be honest, except for a handful of notable exceptions, the vast majority of our elected leaders come from, and have always come from, the same kinds of backgrounds. Disproportionately Ivy League grads. Virtually all lawyers. Most of them with a claim to have been "successful" in the corporate world.

Oddly, most of the exceptions to this rule are ex-athletes, like Jim Bunning, J.C. Watts, Steve Largent, etc. or ex-actors, such as Fred Grandy and the guy from "Dukes of Hazard." So, I guess you have to be a lawyer to be "qualified," unless you played professional sports (or, in the case of Watts, high profile college football) or played a character on a television show. Frankly, it's ridiculous that average, working class citizens aren't considered "qualified" for public office. Until Congress gets some true working class people as representatives, who have experienced the kind of real problems the vast majority of the public faces, then public policy will never change. Our representatives are all wealthy, and they will continue to look after their interests.

My point about Caroline was that the media stressed her lack of articulation, which probably was the result of plain nervousness, in an interview. We all know that lots of less articulate candidates have given interviews just as awkward, or more awkward, than this, but the media doesn't usually see fit to publish a transcript with all those ugly errors intact, for all the world to notice. The same thing happened to Ted Kennedy, when Roger Mudd's interview was used as a real hatchet piece by CBS, in what turned out to be a successful effort to undermine his campaign.

The powers that be fear any Kennedy who runs for public office. I don't think it's an accident that when Joe Kennedy III was rumored to be running for Governor of Mass. some years ago, the story of his marriage annulment, which had happened years before, became a big issue. Robert Kennedy, Jr. was rumored to be running for Lt. Governor a few years back, and the day after the story about him running broke, another one appeared that he'd decided not to. The mainstream media (except Fox News) normally has a bias in favor of "liberal" Democrats, unless they're truly progressive, like a Cynthia McKinney or a Dennis Kucinich, or....unless they're a member of the Kennedy family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger involved with Meyer Lansky and the Bronfman gang. He got the distribution rights to Dewars, Haig, etc. from the British. His acquisition of RKO studios also came from British aristocracy. Then the old boy married his daughter into the "Cecil" family. You can't find a more oligarchical clan then the Cecil's.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850493,00.html

What evidence do you have other that your furhrer's or elderly mobsters's declarations that Kennedy was a bootlegger or that the "British aristocracy" financed "his acquisition of RKO studios" ?

The same guy that told me your old man effectively ended his career at RJ Reynolds when he stole all the incriminating files and ran them up to New York law firm offices for safe keeping.

Do you think he was telling me the truth?

In other words you don't have any valid evidence but rather than admit it you slip in an obnoxios attack against my dad. He "ended his career at RJ Reynolds" with his retirement after working there for 30 years. Got evidence he stole files or is that just another vile attempt at libel?

Once again, got any evidence against Joe Sr. not from LaDouche or statements made by mobsters decades after the fact?

I slipped in an obnoxious attack? Isnt that exactly what you did or am I to believe it was an honest inquiry? I guess you're bored with your open letter to Eric Margolis thread? Now that's a real nail biter.

The book Dope Inc. went through three printings and 600,000 copies distributed. Read it yourself.

You could say your dad ended his career when he took off with sensitive documents and stored them at the office of Jacob, Medinger and Finnegan law firm. This was established beyond doubt in a court of law. His answer to this question was he really didnt steal anything because there were copies of the document on microfiche. Classic.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to understand how much the media hates the notion of any Kennedy being elected to public office again, consider that, when Caroline was a shoo-in to be named Senator from New York a few years back, the powers that be rose up against her in a solid front. How else do you explain the articles which appeared everywhere, following her awkward interview, in which the transcript was published, complete with all her "uhs" and "you knows" intact? Kind of like when CBS aired that hit piece on Ted Kennedy back in 1980, after he decided to challenge Carter, and made certain to air all his "ers" and "uhs" for the audience to enjoy.

It wans't just the MSM, it was also the blogosphere which rose up against Caroline. This is what convinced me that the blogosphere was going to be little different than the MSM. The following column really ticked off Jane Hamsher. As it shoudl have.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html

That is an excellent column, Jim. Great info about JFK not being on the side of the colonialists; most do NOT know this. A lot of the "young" folks don't know much about John Kennedy. I wonder when the MSM will start talking honestly about the JFK assassination. Just last night I heard Chris Matthews on Hardball pushing the Big Lie about Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone nut killer of John Kennedy. [btw, Chris Matthews a friend of Richard Haass, head of CFR, and Haass' wife is an editor of Chris Matthews' book ...]

A lot of the "young folks" don't know much about Lyndon Johnson either. They think he was some "great" man who gave black folks civil rights in 1964-1965 and was some sort of innocent bystander in the JFK assassination and cover up. They need to read LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination by Phillip Nelson: http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/ .

This was after Lyndon Johnson had done practically nothing for civil rights under JFK and was sabotaging the Kennedy's policy agenda on all fronts, domestic and foreign.

Then, in my opinion, Lyndon Johnson and the CIA (and the shadow government) murdered John Kennedy. And the first thing Lyndon Johnson did, to pacify the Left who was so deeply suspicious of his possible role in the JFK assassination, was to come out for civil rights out of the blue.

Didnt LBJ sign the Voting Rights Act into law? You really have to do better Robert.

You wonder when main stream media will start talking honestly about the assassination? You mean when will they blame LBJ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby was coming apart at the seams after the death of his brother.But rallied later on when going for the presidency.this being cut short by the same horror .Teddy had his hands tied by chappaquidick(which I think was an attempt on him)Then just to put a cap on it John Junior dies in a suspicious way .I believe the family that was left made a decision to accept defeat and leave things well alone .Here in the U.K. we have the Guinness family another very rich but unforunate family who suffered tragedy after tragedy they now seem to just shrunk back into the countryside and live peacefully .Our own royal family has suffered through terrorism but as they are the face of the country they maintain the stiff upper lip and carry on I guess this is what dynasties do they survive maybe one day to attempt to put right the wrongs of the past.

Ian,

Your's is a simplistic view--but NOT that far off base at all, IMHO. Very good post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...