JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It was pretty good I think.  Thanks Ron.

 

BTW, this is really rich from CV "Lamont was running for the seat, not seeking an appointment."

This is a distinction without a difference.  See, no one would have been running for Clinton's seat.

Ned Lamont put his name before the electorate; Caroline Kennedy S. put her name before the governor.

How do you draw a false equivalency between the two?

Quote

 And several people sent Paterson letters saying they were interested. Ned Lamont had been something like a local alderman before.  But Hamsher went absolutely batty about him.  I don't know, maybe she thought he was cute or something. 

You don't know the depth of FDL's contempt for Joe Lieberman.

Quote

But returning to the latest, I think I am correct about the liberal blogosphere being a real disappointment.

I know the feeling.

The JFK Assassination Critical Master Class is a savage disappointment.

How many JFK experts can answer the question -- Where and when was JFK shot in the back?

How many?  In Vegas the over/under total is 3 1/2 -- tap off on the unders.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Kirk Gallaway]

1.)  Does Kirk ever get anything correct about what I write?  This is what I said:

"Hannity must have been giggling the whole time.  He probably called up Stone and said, "Hey Roger, it worked.  That idiot GIlibrand fell for it." "

   This is the passage  you wrote in full. And you provided only the last sentence.

 

Jim di wrote: GIlibrand then helped Roger Stone and Hannity scheme to get rid of the guy who was the most progressive senator in the whole chamber, Al Franken. To me, there is no excuse for something like that which is more or less trading with the enemy. And since Moore lost, there was no strategic advantage to it anyway.

Hannity must have been giggling the whole time.  He probably called up Stone and said, "Hey Roger, it worked.  That idiot GIlibrand fell for it."

Then Cliff wrote:

Gillibrand conspired with Roger Stone and Sean Hannity?

Prove it.

Then I said:  That's Jim conspiracy talk. I think he just means that all of them ended up in their own pursuits bringing Franken down.

I was trying to help you out.  Since you really can't prove any of these 3 people conspired with each other at all!

"I think he just means that all of them ended up in their own pursuits bringing Franken down."

Now isn't that 1)more accurate? 2) less histrionics",  What did Gildebrand fall for exactly???? Is that because she's an unwitting woman who fell for Stone and Hannity's trap?  No, She wasn't fooled into anything!  She made a calculated political move to shame Al Franken and it lead to remove him from office, and that happens to aid a  general Republican goal to unseat Democrats , and Stone and Hannity are Republicans. Period!  Do we really need the dramatization with  phone prop?

Jim, Did you say you're from Jersey?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

23 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Btw, the ultra-conservative Freedom Works gives Gillibrand a 12% life-time rating -- they give Bernie Sanders 11%.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- 5%

Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- 17%

Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy -- 17%

Sen. Cory Booker -- 18%

Sen. Kamala Harris -- 23%

http://congress.freedomworks.org/

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Gillibrand/Kennedy 2020...

[Ron Bulman]

Jim, just re reading your article.  Another thing it alludes to is JFK's lack of standing in the East Coast Establishment.  They were Old world money from Europe or backed by it, e.g. the Rockefeller's.  His daddy's lesser amount of newer money was looked down on by them.  Just my take on what I've read.  

[Robert Harper]

On 2/9/2018 at 9:40 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

 trying to over-throw an election by criminalizing adultery.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. the other way is that they were criminalizing what already is a crime --lying under oath.  He could have fessed up; he didn't; he forced the government to come to the White House and take blood rather than fess up. The advisers around him blamed the victim; he lied to his VP and Secretary of State. If Ms. Gillibrand was so concerned about issues of sexual harassment, she shouldn't have had to wait until 2016 to voice it. She relied on Clinton connections and money for advancement and when they no longer factors, she found a feminist voice.

 

On 2/9/2018 at 9:40 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Bill Clinton didn't run in '08.

Thanks for that info Cliff. His wife did; he traveled the country campaigning for her. She lost. Gillibrand could have spoken up during this time and called HRC an "enable" but she didn't, did she?

 

On 2/9/2018 at 9:40 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Sexual harassment is a hot topic these days.

I'm sure you've heard about it -- it's been in all the papers...

Oh really? Thanks for that also, Cliff. Without you I might not know anything.

[Cliff Varnell]

 

[Cliff Varnell]

http://congress.freedomworks.org/

Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- 5%

Sen. Mark Warner -- 6%

Sen. Chuck Schumer -- 6%

Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- 6% (wtf?)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal -- 8%

Sen. Patty Murray -- 9%

Sen. Bernie Sanders -- 11%

Sen. Jeff Merkley -- 11%

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand -- 12%

Rep. Nancy Pelosi -- 12%

Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- 17%

Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy -- 17%

Sen. Cory Booker -- 18%

Rep Joaquin Castro -- 19% (he's not running for prez but his brother Julian Castro is)

Sen. Kamala Harris -- 23%

Edited February 13, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Don Jeffries]

As I showed in Hidden History, the establishment Left has always despised the Kennedys. The liberal blogosphere is thus no different in this regard. I have known several loyal Democrats, for instance, who vote the party line every time. Except when a Kennedy runs, that is. Then they actually vote for the Republican opponent. 

[James DiEugenio]

On February 11, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Jim, just re reading your article.  Another thing it alludes to is JFK's lack of standing in the East Coast Establishment.  They were Old world money from Europe or backed by it, e.g. the Rockefeller's.  His daddy's lesser amount of newer money was looked down on by them.  Just my take on what I've read.  

Ron,

The Rockefeller-Morgan fortunes were yes, much larger than Joe Kennedys, but they were not really that much older.  They came about in the Robber Baron era, or the Gilded Age which was around the 1890's.  

But the difference is that those two groups were much more active in infiltrating the government and creating bodies that influenced government policy than Joe Kennedy was.

For instance, the establishment of the Federal Reserve Board, if you look at the original signees, its the Rockefellers, Morgans, and Warburgs.  If I recall correctly, the Rockefellers had the largest percentage.  Then, the CFR was first set up with a deed of gift for their headquarters from a Standard Oil heir.  It was very strongly influenced by the Rockefeller and Morgan empires, which is how Allen Dulles and John McCloy became so influential on it.  And, btw, this is how Kissinger first rose to fame.  It was his work on nuclear policy for the CFR, which they funded, and they turned it into a book.  Which sold very well.  

You cannot make those kinds of parallels with Joe Kennedy.  He never had that kind of overwhelming influence within the Power Elite.   He was not part of the Astor/Cabot  Boston Brahmins.  To take one example, take a look at how far Bradlee's family went back at Harvard. If I recall correctly, it was five generations. And Bradlee always liked to steer away from his middle name which was Crowninshield, that part of his family went back to New England in the 1600's!  And was Boston Brahmin all the way.  

See, JFK never joined the CFR.  He never joined any secret societies, as did people like Kerry and the Bushes.  He did not like working intelligence.  He transferred out to those suicide missions in the South Pacific with those Joe SIxpack guys.  And then be brought a couple of them back to the White House with him.  

Another important point to recall in all this is really central: Kennedy was Irish.  Which is another point that made him an outsider to the Brahmins.  But even more important is this: Some people, a good example being Nixon, forget where they came from once they become successful.  JFK never forgot.  When he was talking to Nehru and the Indian leader was trying to lecture him on the evils of colonialism, Kennedy raised his hand and stopped him in mid sentence.  He then said something like:  No one has to lecture me about colonialism.  I come from a people who suffered under that for eight centuries, and in some ways it was worse than what they did in India.

He never forgot he was an Irish Catholic.  That is why he told RFK after he was confirmed in the senate to get out and start working on court cases for civil rights.

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ron,

The Rockefeller-Morgan fortunes were yes, much larger than Joe Kennedys, but they were not really that much older.  They came about in the Robber Baron era, or the Gilded Age which was around the 1890's.  

But the difference is that those two groups were much more active in infiltrating the government and creating bodies that influenced government policy than Joe Kennedy was.

For instance, the establishment of the Federal Reserve Board, if you look at the original signees, its the Rockefellers, Morgans, and Warburgs.  If I recall correctly, the Rockefellers had the largest percentage.  Then, the CFR was first set up with a deed of gift for their headquarters from a Standard Oil heir.  It was very strongly influenced by the Rockefeller and Morgan empires, which is how Allen Dulles and John McCloy became so influential on it.  And, btw, this is how Kissinger first rose to fame.  It was his work on nuclear policy for the CFR, which they funded, and they turned it into a book.  Which sold very well.  

You cannot make those kinds of parallels with Joe Kennedy.  He never had that kind of overwhelming influence within the Power Elite.   He was not part of the Astor/Cabot  Boston Brahmins.  To take one example, take a look at how far Bradlee's family went back at Harvard. If I recall correctly, it was five generations. And Bradlee always liked to steer away from his middle name which was Crowninshield, that part of his family went back to New England in the 1600's!  And was Boston Brahmin all the way.  

See, JFK never joined the CFR.  He never joined any secret societies, as did people like Kerry and the Bushes.  He did not like working intelligence.  He transferred out to those suicide missions in the South Pacific with those Joe SIxpack guys.  And then be brought a couple of them back to the White House with him.  

Another important point to recall in all this is really central: Kennedy was Irish.  Which is another point that made him an outsider to the Brahmins.  But even more important is this: Some people, a good example being Nixon, forget where they came from once they become successful.  JFK never forgot.  When he was talking to Nehru and the Indian leader was trying to lecture him on the evils of colonialism, Kennedy raised his hand and stopped him in mid sentence.  He then said something like:  No one has to lecture me about colonialism.  I come from a people who suffered under that for eight centuries, and in some ways it was worse than what they did in India.

He never forgot he was an Irish Catholic.  That is why he told RFK after he was confirmed in the senate to get out and start working on court cases for civil rights.

 

I guess the publicity of his trip to Ireland as President didn't help his standing with these people.

[Ron Bulman]

I have to admit I have heard the term Boston Brahmin but only thought it had something to do with upper class and/or elite.  It does, and more.  I found this.  Though they eschew publicity.

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Boston Brahmin 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Ron Bulman

[James DiEugenio]

Yes, that it what I mean about the Cabots and Lowells, and God.

They were British Protestants .  

Another thing, Kennedy always used to bring up the signs his parents talked about, "Irish need not apply."  And he used to jab Bradlee with it.  Meaning it was Bradlee's class of people who put the signs out.

Edited February 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

Yes, the Bluebloods didn't like Joe and his boys. But the great majority of Democrats now living, largely because of the martyrdom of the JFK and RFK assassinations and what they've gleaned about "Camelot" and seen enacted in modern media, would readily welcome a Kennedy candidacy. There just hasn't been anybody in the following generation who really stood out. 

Times are changing, whereas, my first response to  Joe Kennedy lll is that he is a bit touchy, feely for me and might get eaten alive. Maybe with the bubble of emerging millennials, All candidates are becoming more superhero caricatures of their policies now. If a completely self obsessed narcissist can be a candidate who convincingly emphasizes self interest in one's personal life and an America First policy abroad, why not have a counterpart candidate whose  a classic bleeding heart liberal and emphasizes the collective and a positive role of government for nurturing the greater majority of people.

 

[Paul Brancato]

52 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Yes, the Bluebloods didn't like Joe and his boys. But the great majority of Democrats now living, largely because of the martyrdom of the JFK and RFK assassinations and what they've gleaned about "Camelot" and seen enacted in modern media, would readily welcome a Kennedy candidacy. There just hasn't been anybody in the following generation who really stood out. 

Times are changing, whereas, my first response to  Joe Kennedy lll is that he is a bit touchy, feely for me and might get eaten alive. Maybe with the bubble of emerging millennials, All candidates are becoming more superhero caricatures of their policies now. If a completely self obsessed narcissist can be a candidate who convincingly emphasizes self interest in one's personal life and an America First policy abroad, why not have a counterpart candidate whose  a classic bleeding heart liberal and emphasizes the collective and a positive role of government for nurturing the greater majority of people.

 

If we are able to maintain a civil society with more voter participation that is exactly what will happen.