COUP IN DALLAS

[Ray Mitcham]

Great comments, Sandy, with , which I totally agree.Well said.

[Kirk Gallaway]

I think there are true things said on both sides.

 

I've mentioned this before, but I take issue on the commentary we've heard for years ,largely from Jim that JFK was a great liberal hope "hence Destiny Betrayed" but JFK was always primarily a centrist for his time. He was a popular president who was going to face an easy reelection, largely for the hawkish reason that he  stood up to Khrushchev, so he combined the social progress outlook of the day with a strong cold war stance. Even so there wasn't a great groundswell for JFK in 1964. His policies were measured, all Democrats talked unabashedly like liberals back then, (unlike the 50 years following the 70's!) and Michael's right, the liberal party was was an automatic endorsement.

 

Michael:JFK was determined to do all he could to save South Vietnam but that he did not want to introduce combat troops, that he had every intention of providing South Vietnam with all the weapons and supplies they needed, and possibly air support, even if he eventually decided to withdraw all American troops.

 

I think Micheal's  right here. But he seems to downplay it as if not wanting to introduce combat troops is something small, when in reality, that's a lot! When LBJ did aggressively introduce combat troops,  we went into an almost 10 year war where we lost 55,000 people and wreaked destruction on millions!. The difference between them would have been monumental!

 

Michael:However, in his 1964 oral interview, Bobby allowed that JFK may have decided to introduce combat troops if South Vietnam had been on the verge of collapse.

 

Yeah, I personally think that's just Bobby cold war posturing. I think when the reality presented itself, JFK would have ducked out, and taken some heat for it. I don't think that would have happened.

 

But because no one would have known what the outcome of fighting the Viet Nam War  turned out to be.  JFK wouldn't have been given the historical credit he would have deserved for not introducing huge numbers of ground troops. So he wouldn't have been riding a great peace wave. And it's hard to believe that JFK's charisma. alone  would have been enough to stop the race riots of the 60's.  That was just inevitable.

 

Conversely, Jim never has given LBJ any credit for his civil rights legislation even though it was greater than anything a Northeasterner like JFK could accomplish. It's true Bobby was important to the JFK administration taking out the arms length between JFK and MLK, and he would have been in a great position to do more if he were to be elected President.

 

The JFK Presidency arc could have been good, but not overwhelming. Any idea that the JFK Presidency could have a strong effect on our present history inevitably has to include the idea of RFK being elected for another 8 years. I think he would have been a much greater activist.

 

The greatest, perhaps naive hope anyone could have was that Bobby could have so zealously gone after social justice, and lived to tell about it, while bigotry was backing up a little bit, and perhaps we could have won a messy battle and come out more to the other side than we did 100 years earlier under Reconstruction and we wouldn't have to deal so much now with people who have been causing us trouble for the last 150 years. At least that's my opinion. But perhaps too much had to go right to make that a realistic possibility.

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

Where do you get this stuff? Breitbart?

Kennedy did not oversee one of the biggest defense build ups in history.

Not even close. The two biggest were under Reagan and Bush 2.  https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

 

Kennedy was endorsing Universal Health Care in 1963.  Manchin does not even like Obama care. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/27/manchin-obamacare-subsidies-catastrophe/)

And JFK was extremely friendly to unions.  One labor leader once said that they almost lived in the White House.  (Of course, the Teamsters would be an exception. ) It was Kennedy who first allowed federal employees collective bargaining rights. (Irving Bernstein, Promises Kept, pp.212-16)

Kennedy was a nationalist as anyone can see by studying his career.  Both for the USA and for the Third World. (He was writing about the Palestinians in 1939.)  And that is what separated him from the Cold War liberals and its what shocked everyone when he made that stunning Algeria speech in 1957.  He now became a hero throughout Africa.  Africans put his picture up on the walls of their domiciles.  When he wrote his long article  for Foreign Policy  in 1958, that essentially  defined a new approach to European colonialism and the Cold War. Under Eisenhower, the USA did not vote against Europe at the UN in these disputes, now the USA did.  In his three years, Kennedy hosted over 20 leaders from Africa, and he met some of them at the airport. Eisenhower met less than half that.  

So when you compare JFK with Manchin, please let me know how many native Africans have Manchin's photo up in their village homes.

Edited August 27, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Michael:JFK was determined to do all he could to save South Vietnam but that he did not want to introduce combat troops, that he had every intention of providing South Vietnam with all the weapons and supplies they needed, and possibly air support, even if he eventually decided to withdraw all American troops.

 

I think Micheal's  right here. But he seems to downplay it as if not wanting to introduce combat troops is something small, when in reality, that's a lot! When LBJ did aggressively introduce combat troops, we went into an almost 10 year war where we lost 55,000 people and wreaked destruction on millions!. The difference between them would have been monumental!

 

Michael:However, in his 1964 oral interview, Bobby allowed that JFK may have decided to introduce combat troops if South Vietnam had been on the verge of collapse.

 

Yeah, I personally think that's just Bobby cold war posturing. I think when the reality presented itself, JFK would have ducked out, and taken some heat for it. I don't think that would have happened.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about Bobby's motives for saying what he said. I don't think he was posturing. I would note that even when Bobby turned against LBJ's handling of the war, he never once said that JFK intended to withdraw all troops, much less that he intended to completely disengage from South Vietnam. 

I think it is a very big deal that JFK did not want to introduce ground troops (aka combat troops). I think JFK would have handled the Vietnam War much more competently than LBJ did. However, I think Arthur Schlesinger put it best when he said "it is impossible to say with assurance" what JFK would have done about Vietnam.

This is one reason it is problematic and discrediting when conspiracy theorists insist that JFK absolutely, positively would have completely withdrawn and disengaged from Vietnam no matter what. Aside from a handful of second-hand anecdotes given many years after the fact, there is simply no evidence for such a position.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Chuck Schwartz]

I think John Newman, in his book " JFK and Vietnam" does show that JFK was disengaging from Vietnam.  

[Joe Bauer]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Kennedy did not oversee one of the biggest defense build ups in history.

Not even close. The two biggest were under Reagan and Bush 2.  

Kennedy was endorsing Universal Health Care in 1963.  Manchin does not even like Obama care. 

And JFK was extremely friendly to unions.  One labor leader once said that they almost lived in the White House.  (Of course, the Teamsters would be an exception.)

Kennedy was a nationalist as anyone can see by studying his career.  Both for the USA and for the Third World. (He was writing about the Palestinians in 1939.)  And that is what separated him from the Cold War liberals and its what shocked everyone when he made that stunning Algeria speech in 1957.  He now became a hero throughout Africa.  Africans put his picture up on the walls of their domiciles.  When he wrote his long article  for Foreign Policy  in 1958, that essentially  defined a new approach to European colonialism and the Cold War. Under Eisenhower, the USA did not vote against Europe at the UN in these disputes, now the USA did.  In his three years, Kennedy hosted over 20 leaders from Africa, and he met some of them at the airport. Eisenhower met less than half that.  

So when you compare JFK with Manchin, please let me know how many native Africans have Manchin's photo up in their village homes.

Right on Jim Di.

Demographically and economically things were so different in the 1950's and early sixties.

We had poverty, yet we also had a huge and thriving middle class with the cost of basics including food, gas, rent, home prices, college, medical care etc. reasonable enough that middle class workers could afford these. The American dream was being realized.

Young people getting started and starting families had much to be hopeful about.

Unions were strong. At their peak. Many ( not all of course ) American workers were seeing benefits like never before.

10's of millions of good American jobs hadn't been shipped out to 3rd world countries so the owners/stock holders of these companies could make a cheap labor killing in profits they couldn't believe themselves.

We were a working class respecting and protecting nation.

I think most Americans were just happy to be working and being able to afford ( even with manual labor jobs ) not just the basics but American Dream extras.

The word and label "Liberal" hadn't yet been demonized by massive 24/7 right wing radio and Fox News propaganda and taken hold in the mainstream lexicon. 

The aggressive efforts of black Americans for more equal rights and benefits started in the late 50's and was steam rolling by the 60's.

This movement was polarizing no doubt with white America for the reasons we all know.

JFK was becoming the object of raging hate and anger by 10's of millions of Americans who felt threatened by the aggressive black movement and felt JFK was sympathetic to it.

Forward to 2,000 and beyond. 

The cost of living along with millions of lost benefited jobs, unchecked immigration with 50 million from Central America flooding in, extreme far right demagoguery taking hold of half our country, along with many other factors ( social correctness ) has totally polarized us.

So called Christian organizations with tens of millions of followers have accepted this new extreme far right wing ideology. Liberals/democrats are agents of the devil.

The Corona virus has stressed us to degrees beyond anything we ever imagined.

Where do we go from here?

 

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Mike, does it matter how often I prove you wrong, as above on defense spending, and unions?

Because now you are starting to sound like McAdams and his tricks.

There were no troops in Vietnam on the day Kennedy was killed.  

There were only advisors.  And Kennedy was withdrawing them at the time of his murder. LBJ consciously and knowingly reversed that, built up more advisors, and then sent the first combat troops to Vietnam.

In 1967, RFK said that his brother would have never committed combat troops to Vietnam. "He was determined not to send troops.  If the South Vietnamese could not do it, the United States could not win it for them." (Mathews, Bobby Kennedy: A Raging Spirit, pp.304-05)

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

And when you say there is no documentary evidence for Kennedy's withdrawal of advisors, that is also not true. There is the Sec Def meeting of May of 1963.  That was so powerful even the NY Times admitted Kennedy was exiting Vietnam at the time of his death. There is also the McNamara/Taylor report which said that all advisors would be out by the fall of 1965.  And, as John Newman notes, as I referenced  above, Kennedy was determined to keep that in.

If you refuse to commit combat troops and you are withdrawing the advisors around the election, that means you are getting out. 

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mike:

Where do you get this stuff? Breitbart?

Kennedy did not oversee one of the biggest defense build ups in history.

Not even close. The two biggest were under Reagan and Bush 2.  https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

 

Kennedy was endorsing Universal Health Care in 1963.  Manchin does not even like Obama care. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/27/manchin-obamacare-subsidies-catastrophe/)

And JFK was extremely friendly to unions.  One labor leader once said that they almost lived in the White House.  (Of course, the Teamsters would be an exception. ) It was Kennedy who first allowed federal employees collective bargaining rights. (Irving Bernstein, Promises Kept, pp.212-16)

Kennedy was a nationalist as anyone can see by studying his career.  Both for the USA and for the Third World. (He was writing about the Palestinians in 1939.)  And that is what separated him from the Cold War liberals and its what shocked everyone when he made that stunning Algeria speech in 1957.  He now became a hero throughout Africa.  Africans put his picture up on the walls of their domiciles.  When he wrote his long article  for Foreign Policy  in 1958, that essentially  defined a new approach to European colonialism and the Cold War. Under Eisenhower, the USA did not vote against Europe at the UN in these disputes, now the USA did.  In his three years, Kennedy hosted over 20 leaders from Africa, and he met some of them at the airport. Eisenhower met less than half that.  

So when you compare JFK with Manchin, please let me know how many native Africans have Manchin's photo up in their village homes.

Alright, so it's obvious that you are a diehard, very partisan liberal who has read very few non-liberal sources. And that's fine. When it comes to the JFK case, we agree about 80% of the time, as far as I can tell, and that's really all I care about when it comes to JFK.

JFK's defense buildup was in fact one of the biggest in American history, a point that JFK himself made on a few occasions. JFK increased defense spending by $8 billion in his first defense budget (Sorenson, Kennedy, pp. 417-418). Kennedy:

* More than doubled the acquisition rate of Polaris submarines.

* Doubled the production capacity for Minuteman missiles.

* Increased by fifty percent the number of manned bombers standing ready on fifteen-minute alert.

* Doubled the number of ready combat divisions in the Army's strategic reserve.

* Expanded U.S. tactical air power by nearly a dozen wings.

* Increased the active naval fleet by more than seventy vessels.

JFK was "extremely friendly to labor unions"? Well, many labor leaders certainly didn't think so. JFK was definitely pro-labor, pro-working class, but his relationship with unions varied greatly. Many union leaders angrily condemned RFK's prosecution of labor leaders and his public comments about Mafia influence in labor unions.

Joe Manchin doesn't like Obamacare? Well, when the Republicans tried to undo it early in Trump's presidency, Manchin voted with the Democrats to preserve it. It's a good thing he did so, because the Republicans only needed one more vote to undo Obamacare. Manchin also voted for the two-year extension of the Obamacare subsidy boost.  

I'm not sure what your point is about JFK being a nationalist. I didn't say he wasn't. He was most certainly a nationalist, where many liberals today spit on America's heritage and view themselves as citizens of the world.

 

[James DiEugenio]

I challenge anyone to look at this chart and say that Kennedy oversaw one of the biggest defense build ups in American history.   I am repostng it.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

Anyone with eyes can see the two biggest were under Reagan and Bush 2.  The fact is that they both knocked the budget completely out of whack. When Clinton left, there was a surplus.  That disappeared very fast into an endless Bushian black hole.

And if you want to cherry pick, I will also.  Kennedy and McNamara were actually trying to cut Pentagon costs, something Kennedy talked about in his inauguration speech. 

Maybe you did not read this: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/was-the-tfx-case-a-scandal

And you certainly did not read that article about Manchin and the current status of Obama care. 

My point about JFK and nationalism is that he was trying to change American policy in the Third World.  That is what the whole Algeria speech was about. That speech was too liberal for the liberals, like Stevenson. Some though it was radical.

Can we stick to the facts and the record instead of using those stupid liberal/conservative tags you like to throw around so much?  

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mike, does it matter how often I prove you wrong, as above on defense spending, and unions?

Because now you are starting to sound like McAdams and his tricks.

There were no troops in Vietnam on the day Kennedy was killed.  

There were only advisors.  And Kennedy was withdrawing them at the time of his murder. LBJ consciously and knowingly reversed that, built up more advisors, and then sent the first combat troops to Vietnam.

In 1967, RFK said that his brother would have never committed combat troops to Vietnam. "He was determined not to send troops.  If the South Vietnamese could not do it, the United States could not win it for them." (Mathews, Bobby Kennedy: A Raging Spirit, pp.304-05)

 

You haven't proven me wrong on defense spending and unions. I did not say JFK's defense buildup was the biggest in our history--I said it was one of the biggest, which it in fact was. Rarely in our history have we added so many new divisions, submarines, etc., in such a short period of time. Spending alone does not tell the whole story, because JFK forced the Pentagon to be spend money more wisely, which enabled large savings on some programs that were then invested in weapons and troops. 

As for unions, you keep ignoring my points and repeating general claims. In two major strikes, JFK supported arbitration instead of intervening on the side of the unions, and when asked about the strikes in news conferences, he was very even-handed in his answers. It is a matter of record that some union leaders were very upset with JFK's war on organized crime and over Bobby's going public with Mafia influence in the unions. You do realize that Jimmy Hoffa was a labor leader, right?  

"There were no troops in Vietnam on the day Kennedy was killed. There were only advisors."

I'm sorry, but this is a downright silly argument. Most of those "advisors" were Special Forces troops, who were far better trained than regular troops and were heavily armed. Also, it has been known for at least 58 years that those "advisors" often times took part in combat operations with ARVN forces against the communists. Anyone who has done any serious reading on the Vietnam War knows this. Even some ultra-leftist authors have acknowledged this documented fact. 

Bobby's 1967 statement does not say JFK would have "NEVER" sent in combat troops. He said JFK "was determined" not to do so. Bobby said the same thing in his April 1964 interview, and then he went on to explain that if South Vietnam were on the verge of collapse, sending in ground troops was not absolutely off the table with JFK. He also specified that JFK would have at least provided air support.

Again, you would have a solid case if you limited your argument to saying that JFK was determined to avoid sending in ground troops, and that he was in the process of withdrawing some of the U.S. forces that were already there. But when you jump from that point and then claim that JFK would have completely withdrawn and completely disengaged from South Vietnam, you are going well beyond what the evidence supports.

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Bill Fite]

37 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

But when you jump from that point and then claim that JFK would have completely withdrawn and completely disengaged from South Vietnam, you are going well beyond what the evidence supports.

 

Here's the evidence right here -- a memo from the head of the JCS on Oct 4, 1963:

Quote

* The precise instructions for withdrawal delivered by Maxwell Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to his fellow Chiefs on October 4, 1963, in a memorandum that remained classified until 1997.

Taylor wrote:

“On 2 October the President approved recommendations on military matters contained in the report of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The following actions derived from these recommendations are directed: … all planning will be directed toward preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all US special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. The US Comprehensive Plan, Vietnam, will be revised to bring it into consonance with these objectives, and to reduce planned residual (post-1965) MAAG strengths to approximately pre-insurgency levels… Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 US military personnel by the end of 1963…”

Link to article w more evidence

[Michael Griffith]

Let's just put it this way: Anyone who denies that JFK would be unwelcome in today's Democratic Party needs to name a single prominent Democrat who would support the following:

-- JFK's tax cut proposal included a provision to cut the top marginal tax rate 91% to 65%, a staggering reduction of 28%. Name me one current prominent Democrat would who support such a thing.

-- In 1962, JFK used an investment tax credit and an increase in depreciation allowances to give corporations a 10% reduction in their income taxes. Name me a current Democrat who would support such a thing, other than Manchin and perhaps Sinema. 

-- JFK repeatedly made the argument that lower tax rates would not lead to less federal revenue but to more federal revenue. Liberal Democrats have ridiculed this idea for years. If you think JFK never would have said this, read his December 1962 speech to the Economic Club of New York when he was making the case for his proposed tax cut bill:

American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Address to the Economic Club of New York

-- JFK said he was willing to support certain kinds of federal loans, scholarships, and/or grants to private religious colleges. Such an idea has been taboo among liberal Democrats for a very long time. In fact, some liberals have even attempted to deny Pell Grant money to religious colleges that do not allow same-sex couples to live together in campus dorms or that teach that homosexuality is morally wrong. 

-- JFK, through RFK, was willing to publicly call out labor unions that were under Mafia influence or control. The Teamsters union, led by Jimmy Hoffa, was furious with JFK and RFK. As a senator, one of JFK's main efforts was a campaign against “the cancer of labor racketeering.” He criticized union leaders who engaged in "extortion, shakedowns, and bribery.” Please, name me one liberal Democrat who will go within 100 feet of the issue of labor union corruption. Give me a name.

-- JFK initiated one of the largest and most rapid peacetime defense buildups in American history. He more than doubled the acquisition rate of Polaris submarines, doubled the production capacity for Minuteman missiles, increased by 50% the number of bombers standing ready on 15-minute alert, doubled the number of combat divisions in the Army's strategic reserve, increased U.S. air power by a staggering 12 wings (each wing has three or four squadrons, and each squadron has around 18 to 24 planes), and increased the U.S. Navy's size by a whopping 70 ships--all in barely two years. Name me one current Democrat who would support such an enormous peacetime military expansion.

-- JFK appointed many centrists to the federal courts. One of the two dissenters in Roe v. Wade was a JFK nominee (Justice Byron White). He appointed such centrists/moderate conservatives as Griffen Bell, Paul Hays, Irving Kaufman, and J. Spencer Bell. I'd bet good money that if judges identical to these men were nominated today, they would have a very hard time getting confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Senate. 

-- JFK called abortion "repugnant." In the early 1960s, abortion was not a big issue, but population control was. When JFK was asked about this, he replied, "“Now, on the question of limiting population: As you know the Japanese have been doing it very vigorously, through abortion, which I think would be repugnant to all Americans.” As any politically aware person knows, the vast majority of Democrats in Congress would angrily condemn such a comment if a Republican (or Joe Manchin) made it.

-- JFK was a budget hawk. His budget deficits were lower than Eisenhower's 1959 budget deficit. None other than Ted Sorenson, his close aide and speech writer, said, “Kennedy was a fiscal conservative. Most of us and the press and historians have, for one reason or another, treated Kennedy as being much more liberal than he so regarded himself at the time… In fiscal matters, he was extremely conservative, very cautious about the size of the budget.” Needless to say, liberal Democrats have blocked every effort to pass a federal balanced budget amendment. Name me a single current liberal Democrat who is even remotely as hawkish on the budget as JFK was.

-- JFK ended Ike's disgraceful embargo on arms sales to Israel and sold Israel surface-to-air missiles. He sold the Hawk missile system to Israel. There are still some traditional liberal Democrats who would applaud this policy, but the anti-Israeli (and anti-Semitic) AOC-Ilhan Omar-Rashida Tlaib wing of the party would condemn it. 

I could go on for another page or two. Again, JFK would be aghast at how far left the Democratic Party has lurched. If he were alive right now, he would either be a Joe Manchin Democrat or a Larry Hogan/John Kasich Republican. Most liberal Democrats would view him with suspicion, if not hostility.

[Paul Brancato]

21 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Let's just put it this way: Anyone who denies that JFK would be unwelcome in today's Democratic Party needs to name a single prominent Democrat who would support the following:

-- JFK's tax cut proposal included a provision to cut the top marginal tax rate 91% to 65%, a staggering reduction of 28%. Name me one current prominent Democrat would who support such a thing.

-- In 1962, JFK used an investment tax credit and an increase in depreciation allowances to give corporations a 10% reduction in their income taxes. Name me a current Democrat who would support such a thing, other than Manchin and perhaps Sinema. 

-- JFK repeatedly made the argument that lower tax rates would not lead to less federal revenue but to more federal revenue. Liberal Democrats have ridiculed this idea for years. If you think JFK never would have said this, read his December 1962 speech to the Economic Club of New York when he was making the case for his proposed tax cut bill:

American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Address to the Economic Club of New York

-- JFK said he was willing to support certain kinds of federal loans, scholarships, and/or grants to private religious colleges. Such an idea has been taboo among liberal Democrats for a very long time. In fact, some liberals have even attempted to deny Pell Grant money to religious colleges that do not allow same-sex couples to live together in campus dorms or that teach that homosexuality is morally wrong. 

-- JFK, through RFK, was willing to publicly call out labor unions that were under Mafia influence or control. The Teamsters union, led by Jimmy Hoffa, was furious with JFK and RFK. As a senator, one of JFK's main efforts was a campaign against “the cancer of labor racketeering.” He criticized union leaders who engaged in "extortion, shakedowns, and bribery.” Please, name me one liberal Democrat who will go within 100 feet of the issue of labor union corruption. Give me a name.

-- JFK initiated one of the largest and most rapid peacetime defense buildups in American history. He more than doubled the acquisition rate of Polaris submarines, doubled the production capacity for Minuteman missiles, increased by 50% the number of bombers standing ready on 15-minute alert, doubled the number of combat divisions in the Army's strategic reserve, increased U.S. air power by a staggering 12 wings (each wing has three or four squadrons, and each squadron has around 18 to 24 planes), and increased the U.S. Navy's size by a whopping 70 ships--all in barely two years. Name me one current Democrat who would support such an enormous peacetime military expansion.

-- JFK appointed many centrists to the federal courts. One of the two dissenters in Roe v. Wade was a JFK nominee (Justice Byron White). He appointed such centrists/moderate conservatives as Griffen Bell, Paul Hays, Irving Kaufman, and J. Spencer Bell. I'd bet good money that if judges identical to these men were nominated today, they would have a very hard time getting confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Senate. 

-- JFK called abortion "repugnant." In the early 1960s, abortion was not a big issue, but population control was. When JFK was asked about this, he replied, "“Now, on the question of limiting population: As you know the Japanese have been doing it very vigorously, through abortion, which I think would be repugnant to all Americans.” As any politically aware person knows, the vast majority of Democrats in Congress would angrily condemn such a comment if a Republican (or Joe Manchin) made it.

-- JFK was a budget hawk. His budget deficits were lower than Eisenhower's 1959 budget deficit. None other than Ted Sorenson, his close aide and speech writer, said, “Kennedy was a fiscal conservative. Most of us and the press and historians have, for one reason or another, treated Kennedy as being much more liberal than he so regarded himself at the time… In fiscal matters, he was extremely conservative, very cautious about the size of the budget.” Needless to say, liberal Democrats have blocked every effort to pass a federal balanced budget amendment. Name me a single current liberal Democrat who is even remotely as hawkish on the budget as JFK was.

-- JFK ended Ike's disgraceful embargo on arms sales to Israel and sold Israel surface-to-air missiles. He sold the Hawk missile system to Israel. There are still some traditional liberal Democrats who would applaud this policy, but the anti-Israeli (and anti-Semitic) AOC-Ilhan Omar-Rashida Tlaib wing of the party would condemn it. 

I could go on for another page or two. Again, JFK would be aghast at how far left the Democratic Party has lurched. If he were alive right now, he would either be a Joe Manchin Democrat or a Larry Hogan/John Kasich Republican. Most liberal Democrats would view him with suspicion, if not hostility.

I’m having trouble understanding what your point is. First of all, comparisons from 1963 and 2022 are useless without context and history, so why are you trying to deduce what JFK would do today ? As for Israel, are you in disagreement with JFK’s opposition to making Israel a nuclear power? You cherry pick something RFK says to a reporter in 1964, when so much pressure was on him both publicly and privately, and ignore all research by people you lambast as ‘liberals’ or leftists like Jim, Talbot, etc, who have dug up so much info over the years. 
you completely ignored my post - your right of course but still I would appreciate knowing your reaction to it - about us ‘liberals’ not being concerned with what the pro-military Vietnam side has to say, not being upset with authors who clearly see the truth, which is that JFK’s enemies were rightists. 

[Bill Fite]

58 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

 

-- JFK's tax cut proposal included a provision to cut the top marginal tax rate 91% to 65%, a staggering reduction of 28%. Name me one current prominent Democrat would who support such a thing.

-- In 1962, JFK used an investment tax credit and an increase in depreciation allowances to give corporations a 10% reduction in their income taxes. Name me a current Democrat who would support such a thing, other than Manchin and perhaps Sinema. 

-

You're ignoring what the tax rates were and what they are now.

Why don't you post them?