Bernice Moore Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Ambitious miniseries was set to air this spring; stars Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes, and producer Joel Surnow were told today of cancellation. In a surprise move, A&E Television Networks has canceled plans to broadcast The Kennedys, the ambitious and much-anticipated miniseries about the American political family that was set to air this spring on the History Channel. “Upon completion of the production of The Kennedys, History has decided not to air the 8-part miniseries on the network,” a rep for the network tells The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. “While the film is produced and acted with the highest quality, after viewing the final product in its totality, we have concluded this dramatic interpretation is not a fit for the History brand.” The multi-million dollar project—History and Lifetime president and general manager Nancy Dubuc's first scripted miniseries at the network and its most expensive program ever—has been embroiled in controversy since it was announced in December 2009. Developed by Joel Surnow, the conservative co-creator of 24, along with production companies Asylum Entertainment and Muse Entertainment and writer Stephen Kronish, the project drew fire from the political left and some Kennedy historians. Even before cameras rolled, a front-page New York Times story last February included a sharp attack from former John F. Kennedy adviser Theodore Sorenson, who called an early version of the script “vindictive” and “malicious.” History and parent A&E said at the time that the script had been revised and that the final version had been vetted by experts. Indeed, the script used in production had passed muster with History historians for accuracy. Despite the controversy, History was able to recruit a big-ticket cast to the project, announcing in April that Greg Kinnear (John F. Kennedy), Katie Holmes (Jackie Kennedy), Barry Pepper (Robert F. Kennedy) and Tom Wilkinson (Joe Kennedy) would co-star. The actors and CAA, which reps both Kinnear and Holmes, were told this afternoon of the cancellation. Surnow also was told today. No advertisers had registered complaints or concerns with the miniseries, confirms an A&E spokesperson, but the content was not considered historically accurate enough for the network’s rigorous standards. So an air date, which had not been announced but was planned for spring, was scrapped. “We recognize historical fiction is an important medium for storytelling and commend all the hard work and passion that has gone into the making of the series, but ultimately deem this as the right programming decision for our network,” a rep tells THR in the statement. The miniseries is still scheduled to air in Canada on March 6, and will still be broadcast internationally. But the U.S. cancellation no doubt is a disappointment in an otherwise blockbuster era for AETN president and CEO Abbe Raven and Dubuc, both of whom championed the project. AETN, owned by a consortium comprised of Hearst, Disney-ABC Television Group and NBC Universal, enjoyed its most-watched year ever in 2010, with its six Nielsen-rated networks posting combined year-over-year viewership growth in each quarter. In addition, History is now a Top 5 cable network in all demos, fueled by hit original series such as Pawn Stars and Ice Road Truckers. The Kennedys cancellation somewhat mirrors the fate of The Reagans, a miniseries that was to air on CBS in 2003 but was scrapped when advertisers threatened to boycott after conservatives raised concerns about depictions of former president Ronald Reagan being insensitive to AIDS victims. The Reagans later aired on Showtime. THR has learned that producers of The Kennedys might make a similar move to bring the miniseries to a pay cable channel. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...dys-last-69529 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Bravo! Indeed. Now if HBO would just do the same. I wonder why the change of heart. Perhaps they decided that accuracy is more important than ratings. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) Here is my email to my friend about this: John F. Kennedy was a Sex Freak - and the liberals can't handle the ugly truth about him. But the Big Lie about Kennedy is not that he was a Sex Freak - which he DEFINITELY was - but that he was some sort of a war hawk and cold warrior who wanted to go into Vietnam, invade Cuba, or that he was running a "Murder, Inc." in the Caribean which he was not (the last being Lyndon Johnson's line, who was running Murder, Inc. in Texas). http://www.cwporter.com/jfksex.htm In fact, I have been getting in huge fights with Kennedy groupies on the discussion boards who are engaged when I point out the ugly truth that JFK was an out of control Sex Freak. Being a Sex Freak, cost John Kennedy his life because there is no way in hell that Lyndon Johnson would have been on the 1960 Democratic ticket except for sexual blackmail of JFK. I highly recommend the book The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh: http://bztv.typepad.com/Winter/DarkSideSummary.pdf Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary, reports that Johnson, with J. Edgar Hoover’s dark help, got on the 1960 Democratic ticket by using BLACKMAIL on the Kennedys “During the 1960 campaign, according to Mrs. Lincoln, Kennedy discovered how vulnerable his womanizing had made him. Sexual blackmail, she said, had long been part of Lyndon Johnson's modus operandi—abetted by Edgar. "J. Edgar Hoover," Lincoln said, "gave Johnson the information about various congressmen and senators so that Johnson could go to X senator and say, `How about this little deal you have with this woman?' and so forth. That's how he kept them in line. He used his IOUs with them as what he hoped was his road to the presidency. He had this trivia to use, because he had Hoover in his corner. And he thought that the members of Congress would go out there and put him over at the Convention. But then Kennedy beat him at the Convention. And well, after that Hoover and Johnson and their group were able to push Johnson on Kennedy."LBJ," said Lincoln, "had been using all the information Hoover could find on Kennedy—during the campaign, even before the Convention. And Hoover was in on the pressure on Kennedy at the Convention." (Summers, Official and Confidential, p. 272). According to Lincoln, Kennedy had definite plans to drop Johnson for the Vice Presidency in 1964, and replace him with Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. In 1964, new President Lyndon Johnson gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover a lifetime waiver from the mandatory retirement age of 70 that Hoover would hit on 1/1/65! In other words, Hoover could live to age 120 and still be head of the FBI. In my opinion, both LBJ and Hoover were conspirators, along with the CIA, in the JFK assassination. LBJ’s and Hoover’s jobs were to cover up the murder. More on how Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn blackmailed and threatened John Kennedy to get Lyndon Johnson on the Democratic ticket in 1960 The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. Through Seymour Hersh, you get the voices of the CIA people and perhaps Secret Service people who hated John Kennedy. JFK was not murdered because he was a reckless and prolific womanizer. But it gave JFK's killers one more justification to kill someone they did not respect ... and actually hated for reasons both personal and ideological. Seymour Hersh really does a fantastic job detailing how the psychopathic serial killer LYNDON JOHNSON BLACKMAILED HIS WAY ONTO THE 1960 DEMOCRATIC TICKET ... with last minute threats and blackmails issued by him and Sam Rayburn late in the night of July 13th, 1960 at the Democratic convention in Los Angeles. By the morning of July 14th, Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn (using Hoover's blackmail info on Kennedy) had TWISTED THE ARM of John Kennedy enough to force him to break his deal with Symington and INSTEAD put the homicidal maniac and Kennedy-hater Lyndon Johnson on the 1960 Demo ticket. That my friends, was a FATAL decision. Because Johnson works like this: blackmail you today, kill you tomorrow. Like Jack Ruby famously said, if John Kennedy had picked Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy would still be alive... or at least would not have been shot like a dog in the streets of Dallas. In reality John Kennedy was all set to pick Sen. Stuart Symington of Missouri who was very popular in California, which had a whopping 35 electoral votes at that time. With Johnson on the ticket, Kennedy lost California by a razer close 1/2 of a percent. It is very likely that a Kennedy/Symington ticket would have WON California. Read the Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh, p.124-129: Close JFK friend Hy Raskin: “Johnson was not being given the slightest bit of consideration by any of the Kennedys… On the stuff I saw it was always Symington who was going to be the vice president. The Kennedy family had approved Symington.” [Hersh, p. 124] John Kennedy to Clark Clifford on July 13, 1960: “We’ve talked it out – me, dad, Bobby – and we’ve selected Symington as the vice president.” Kennedy asked Clark Clifford to relay that message to Symington “and find out if he’d run.” …”I and Stuart went to bed believing that we had a solid, unequivocal deal with Jack.” [Hersh, p.125] Hy Raskin: “It was obvious to them that something extraordinary had taken place, as it was to me,” Raskin wrote. “During my entire association with the Kennedys, I could not recall any situation where a decision of major significance had been reversed in such a short period of time…. Bob [Kennedy] had always been involved in every major decision; why not this one, I pondered… I slept little that night.” [Hersh, p. 125] John Kennedy to Clark Clifford in the morning of July 14, 1960: “I must do something that I have never done before. I made a serious deal and now I have to go back on it. I have no alternative.” Symington was out and Johnson was in. Clifford recalled observing that Kennedy looked as if he’d been up all night.” [Hersh, p. 126] John Kennedy to Hy Raskin: “You know we had never considered Lyndon, but I was left with no choice. He and Sam Rayburn made it damn clear to me that Lyndon had to be the candidate. Those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don’t need more problems. I’m going to have enough problems with Nixon.” [Hersh, p. 126] Raskin “The substance of this revelation was so astonishing that if it had been revealed to me by another other than Jack or Bob, I would have had trouble accepting it. Why he decided to tell me was still very mysterious, but flattering nonetheless.” [Hersh, p. 126] Edited January 8, 2011 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) Hi Robert; quote ''In fact, I have been getting in huge fights with Kennedy groupies on the discussion boards who are engaged when I point out the ugly truth that JFK was an out of control Sex Freak. Being a Sex Freak, cost John Kennedy his life'' quote ''The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh is an excellent book and I highly recommend it.'' Robert Will you Please consider taking a deep breath a step back and a minute and begin keeping in mind, that your words within your post are your opinion, one opinion, and is not necessarily others, and no matter how right you believe your theories to be, others have the same right to their own opinions as you believe you do,without being brow beaten in any way, the way your words read, makes it clearly sound imo, that they do not, and that is taking away their rights..which you do not have the right to do, no one has....thank you..take care...b Edited January 8, 2011 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Laughable that anyone would believe this "project" was canceled because "the left" objected to the details and the historical point of view it was presenting. About the only part of the announcement that seems reliable is that there were no objections to any of the content raised by potential advertisers of the eight part series. Objections or "pressure" exerted from "the left" should have almost no influence on a project intended to distort history from its inception. This project was of the extreme right, for the extreme right, so "the left" whoever they are, were never part of the equation. It is equally farfetched to believe that the interests of historical accuracy have prevailed in preventing a high profile distribution of this propaganda media production. I suspect the most likely reason that this is postponed is because it did not poll well with test audiences set up to view it, and no timely and inexpensive editing or limited re-do was proposed to solve the weaknesses identified in the polling results. The publicly stated reasons this is indefinitely postponed read like a fairytale. The "left" suddenly has the clout to stop some wingers from making money distribution their winger misinformation? Tell me more, please! Where is this alterantive universe where stuff like that happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Laughable that anyone would believe this "project" was canceled because "the left" objected to the details and the historical point of view it was presenting. About the only part of the announcement that seems reliable is that there were no objections to any of the content raised by potential advertisers of the eight part series. Objections or "pressure" exerted from "the left" should have almost no influence on a project intended to distort history from its inception. This project was of the extreme right, for the extreme right, so "the left" whoever they are, were never part of the equation. It is equally farfetched to believe that the interests of historical accuracy have prevailed in preventing a high profile distribution of this propaganda media production. I suspect the most likely reason that this is postponed is because it did not poll well with test audiences set up to view it, and no timely and inexpensive editing or limited re-do was proposed to solve the weaknesses identified in the polling results. The publicly stated reasons this is indefinitely postponed read like a fairytale. The "left" suddenly has the clout to stop some wingers from making money distribution their winger misinformation? Tell me more, please! Where is this alterantive universe where stuff like that happens? How Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver Helped Kill 'Kennedys' Miniseries The Hollywood Reporter 8:11 PM 1/9/2011 by Matthew Belloni http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/caroline-kennedy-maria-shriver-helped-69764 Pressure from the Kennedy family played a key role in the History channel's decision to pull the plug on its controversial miniseries The Kennedys. As The Hollywood Reporter first reported, the eight-part miniseries, starring Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes and masterminded by conservative 24 co-creator Joel Surnow, was abruptly yanked from the History schedule Jan. 7 before a planned airdate in the spring. In a statement to THR, a rep for History parent A&E Television Networks said that "after viewing the final product in its totality, we have concluded this dramatic interpretation is not a fit for the History brand." None of History's advertisers or sponsors complained about the miniseries. But behind the scenes, members of the Kennedy family strongly lobbied AETN to kill the project since it was announced in December 2009, according to a source close to the situation. In recent weeks, those efforts intensified. AETN is owned by a consortium including the Walt Disney Co., NBC Universal and Hearst. The source said that Disney/ABC Television Group topper Anne Sweeney, who serves on the AETN board and is said to hold tremendous sway over its decisions, was personally lobbied by Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of John F. Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy. Caroline Kennedy has a book deal with Disney's Hyperion publishing division, which announced in April 2010 that it will publish a collection of previously unreleased interviews with the late Jackie Kennedy timed to the 50th anniversary of the first year of JFK's presidency this fall. Caroline has agreed to edit the untitled book, write an introduction and to help promote it, including making an appearance on Disney/ABC's Good Morning America, among other outlets.As part of the promotion for the book, Caroline is expected to reveal some of the 6.5 hours of previously unheard audiotapes of the former First Lady that form the basis of the book. But that level of cooperation might have been unlikely if History had gone ahead with the Kennedys project, which was championed by AETN president and CEO Abbe Raven and History and Lifetime president and general manager Nancy Dubuc. Kennedy scion Maria Shriver also has close ties to NBC Universal, where she worked for years as an employee in its news division. She is said to have voiced her displeasure with the project to outgoing NBCU execs Jeff Zucker and Jeff Gaspin. Gaspin serves on the AETN board, as does Scott Sassa for Hearst. Shriver also is a friend of Sweeney, who serves on the board of the Special Olympics, founded by Shriver's mother, Eunice Kennedy Shriver. Sweeney and Shriver both attend the same church in the Los Angeles area, and a source said Shriver criticized the Kennedysproject to Sweeney after a leaked early script was attacked in the New York Timesas "vindictive" and "malicious" by a former JFK aide (though the final shooting script is said to have been vetted for accuracy by History's in-house historians). A rep for Sweeney referred THR to the AETN statement. AETN declined to comment further. The Kennedys is still scheduled to be broadcast in Canada on March 6 and will air in foreign countries as well. AETN has allowed producers Asylum Entertainment and Muse Entertainment to shop the miniseries to another U.S. network. Producers have targeted Showtime, which in 2003 broadcast the controversial presidential project The Reagansafter CBS refused to air it. Showtime topper David Nevins, who worked on 24 when he ran Imagine Television and is close with Surnow, is said to be watching the miniseries this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Today's Herald Tribune http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/arts/television/18kennedy.html?hpw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) Regardless of whether it is premiered on US TV, a big financial deal with expensive stars in it has to make back money somehow, so it will go to DVD in this country. Because it will, that will lead to...eventual US premium cable network TV showings, only without any network taking it under its PR aegis. Thus, showings through licensing, not purchase of the series rights, once the heat simmers down and the legal requisites prohibiting a broadcast "event" are obeyed. Look for the DVD in stores by fall. Edited January 19, 2011 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Its pretty obvious now that Joel Surnow could not control his Herhsian mania to place every piece of weakly sourced and discredited piece of tripe that Kennedy's enemies have manufactured in this pile of trash. What is so interesting is that History Channel hired fact checkers and were going to reward them if they approved the film! THey could not do so even for money. That is how over the top Surnow is in this regard. And this fact checking process started with the script, and then went to a rough cut. So knowing that History Channel was watching him all the way, Surnow still could not contain himself. RIchard Reeves, I believe, is not a really good historian--especially when it comes to JFK's foreign policy ideas. But the fact that even he could not swallow this anti Kennedy, Rush Limbaugh inspired farrago says a lot. BTW, there is no source or details given in the story quoted by Caddy. I doubt it happened. For the simple reasons that 1.) the Kennedy clan does not usually do this stuff, it is a ploy used by the anti Kennedy manufacturers to play up interest in their work e.g. Hersh used it when he was on his CIA based JFK mission. ( he works for them a lot.) 2.) If the History Channel hired Limbaugh's buddy Surnow to begin with, they knew approximately what they were going to get. Therefore, the movers and shakers were not going to give Caroline face time if they liked Surnow. But its clear that Surnow had no interest in facts or history. He just wanted to recycle Horowitz, Davis, the Blairs, Thomas Reeves and Hersh's nutty book. This was not going to be history at all. It was a political statement all the way. When was the last time Caroline Kennedy or Maria Shriver used any of their CLOUT to speak up about truth in the 1963 Coup d'Etat? All they seemed to be concerned about is covering up for John Kennedy's life as a sex addict. George Smathers said that if John Kennedy was around, your mother, your wife or your daughter was not safe from his sexual advances. And THAT is not thinly sourced at all. I will agree that Kennedy-haters love to bring up JFK's dysfunctional and highly promiscous sex life as a way of darkening his image ... and indirectly justifying to themselves that the 1963 Coup d'Etat was somehow justified. But just because the Kennedy-haters bring up the "sex stuff" on JFK, does not mean that a HUGE chunk of it is not true. You can call it smearing someone with the ugly truth. Ditto Bill Clinton and his wildly promiscous life: just because the "rightwingers" thought they had discovered a gold mine and were using it for political gain, does not mean it's not true. Back to the Kennedys. When is this group FINALLY going to take a stand for truth in the JFK assassination and start confronting the ugly reality of a coup d'etat and what that means, not just for one family, but for the American public? I think they need to quit worrying about "daddy's image" and start educating folks (and themselves) on what he really stood for and WHO murdered him and WHY he was murdered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 ... When was the last time Caroline Kennedy or Maria Shriver used any of their CLOUT to speak up about truth in the 1963 Coup d'Etat? All they seemed to be concerned about is covering up for John Kennedy's life as a sex addict. ... You're sounding suspiciously like an alt.conspiracy.jfk mega xxxxx, cdddraftsman (whom is obsessed with jfk's sex life). He can't bait CT's on that (non-moderated) board-forum either... So, perhaps you shpould file a lawsuit, maybe you can get traction in that venue! You're from Texas, why NOT? Perhaps picketing in front of the 6th floor museum will aid your cause.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Robert, Is this subject really going to be your claim to fame? Is it your area of pseudo-expertise really going to be: "JFK's Sex Life and How the Rockefeller-ization of America's Military/Industrial Complex Exploited It" ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) Robert, Is this subject really going to be your claim to fame? Is it your area of pseudo-expertise really going to be: "JFK's Sex Life and How the Rockefeller-ization of America's Military/Industrial Complex Exploited It" ?? Lyndon Johnson's exploitation of JFK's sex addiction in order to blackmail his way onto the 1960 Democratic ticket as well as Lyndon Johnson's alliance with the Rockefeller business/intelligence/politics complex are both critical to understanding the 1963 Coup d'Etat. In summer 1963, John J. McCloy (CFR chairman, former head of Chase bank, Rockefeller man, US intelligence) went doving hunt on Clint Murchison's ranch in Mexico. The odds are 99.9% plus they had some harsh words to say about John Kennedy on that visit. It was not just Texas oil who JFK had offended. The Rockefellers and the Eastern business/intelligence establishment were his enemies as well. The business elite of BOTH the Western "Cowboys" and the Eastern "Yankees" hated John Kennedy. Here is an absolutely critical passage: Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the "New York establishment": "In particular, he was little acquainted with the New York financial and legal community-- that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady supply of always orthodox and often able people to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the American Establishment. Its household deities were Henry Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs."[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations Edited January 19, 2011 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Robert Do you like JFK? Just answer Yes or No first before you go off to me about how JFK was a "Sex Freak" Guess what Robert? Im sure JFK cheated on Jackie many times Im sure JFK had many woman through out his life Im sure that JFK ventured outside of what you consider "normal" sex After knowing all thse things I still like and greatly admire JFK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) Robert Do you like JFK? Just answer Yes or No first before you go off to me about how JFK was a "Sex Freak" Guess what Robert? Im sure JFK cheated on Jackie many times Im sure JFK had many woman through out his life Im sure that JFK ventured outside of what you consider "normal" sex After knowing all thse things I still like and greatly admire JFK Dean, how do you think this happened to John Kennedy? Meaning: how Lyndon Johnson was able to BULLY his way onto the 1960 Democratic ticket. And another thing happened, too. The offices of of John Kennedy's doctor were burglarized a few scant weeks before the July Democratic convention and JFK's medical files were stolen. Then on the first day of the convention Lyndon Johnson's campaign manager John Connally is saying that Kennedy had Addison's disease. That break-in could very well have been a typical "black bag" operation by J. Edgar Hoover's men. Former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen participated in many of these illegal break-in operations: http://www.amazon.com/Kill-President-Finally-Ex-FBI-secrecy/dp/1419693824/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295411293&sr=1-2 John Kennedy to Clark Clifford in the morning of July 14, 1960: I must do something that I have never done before. I made a serious deal and now I have to go back on it. I have no alternative. Symington was out and Johnson was in. Clifford recalled observing that Kennedy looked as if hed been up all night. [Hersh, p. 126] John Kennedy to Hy Raskin: You know we had never considered Lyndon, but I was left with no choice. He and Sam Rayburn made it damn clear to me that Lyndon had to be the candidate. Those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I dont need more problems. Im going to have enough problems with Nixon. [Hersh, p. 126] Raskin The substance of this revelation was so astonishing that if it had been revealed to me by another other than Jack or Bob, I would have had trouble accepting it. Why he decided to tell me was still very mysterious, but flattering nonetheless. [Hersh, p. 126] Edited January 19, 2011 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Robert Do you like JFK? Just answer Yes or No first before you go off to me about how JFK was a "Sex Freak" Guess what Robert? Im sure JFK cheated on Jackie many times Im sure JFK had many woman through out his life Im sure that JFK ventured outside of what you consider "normal" sex After knowing all thse things I still like and greatly admire JFK Dean, how do you think this happened to John Kennedy? Meaning: how Lyndon Johnson was able to BULLY his way onto the 1960 Democratic ticket. And another thing happened, too. The offices of of John Kennedy's doctor were burgarized a few scant weeks before the July Democratic convention and JFK's medical files were stolen. Then on the first day of the convention Lyndon Johnson's campaign manager John Connally is saying that Kennedy had Addison's disease. That break-in could very well have been a typical "black bag" operation by J. Edgar Hoover's men. Former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen participated in many of these illegal break-in operations: http://www.amazon.com/Kill-President-Finally-Ex-FBI-secrecy/dp/1419693824/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295411293&sr=1-2 John Kennedy to Clark Clifford in the morning of July 14, 1960: “I must do something that I have never done before. I made a serious deal and now I have to go back on it. I have no alternative.” Symington was out and Johnson was in. Clifford recalled observing that Kennedy looked as if he’d been up all night.” [Hersh, p. 126] John Kennedy to Hy Raskin: “You know we had never considered Lyndon, but I was left with no choice. He and Sam Rayburn made it damn clear to me that Lyndon had to be the candidate. Those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don’t need more problems. I’m going to have enough problems with Nixon.” [Hersh, p. 126] Raskin “The substance of this revelation was so astonishing that if it had been revealed to me by another other than Jack or Bob, I would have had trouble accepting it. Why he decided to tell me was still very mysterious, but flattering nonetheless.” [Hersh, p. 126] Robert I knew that you would not answer my question How does that post answer my very easy question to you in any way? One more time just reply with a Yes or No Thats it, no explanation, no page long reply about LBJ and the 1960 Democratic Ticket Do you like JFK Yes or No? Please give me a reply, I have read all of your posts Robert, give me the respect of a simple answer Robert Yes or No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now