[RC one]

JFK...he committed adultery on a regular basis and he got put on the 50 cent piece.

[Darkwolf377]

So that’s our standard now—a democrat did it, so what’s the big problem?

Do we stand for ANYTHING, or are we just on the other side of certain issues?

This is depressing...

[AmericanInTokyo]

Just goes to show. Serial adulterers with a sex addiction, mistresses etc. should not hold positions of high power. They become blackmailable and could be potential security risks. No thanks. We are not Europe. I think we should stand for more. This is the traditional CONSERVATIVE position...has been for years.

[Venturer]

JFK
had money lots of it.

Anyone with money and Power is bound to be set upon by women who want to be close to it. Turning down sex is not as easy as those who never had to turn any down believes it is.

Certainly living a loose life is not the moral thing to do, but it happens. Does it mean that person is unfit for office? If it does then most people in office are unfit.

We can usually afford to make some moral judgements about who we vote for.Not sure that is possible this time.

[urbanpovertylawcenter]

“Not all monkeys live in the zoo.” Mother Maybolt, 1929-2008

[mainevet]

That gives him two things in common with Ben Franklin.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

From the article - “All in all, the Kennedys come across as a horrible, spoilt bunch..”

That's because by and large they are. I don't want to sit in judgement of anyone, but that's not the major point here. I don't care that they have money. I just don't like the deification with which the left, and society in general treat people like the Kennedy clan.

What I think is important is for society to stop glorifying public figures and making celebrities out of politicians. A good rule of thumb is that politicians are not to be trusted. Any of them. That doesn't mean they are all untrustworthy, but it really doesn't matter. The stakes are too high.

[csvset]

Harry Mount? Sounds like a Porno name.

[AD from SpringBay]

Ahh - Camelot, American royality, liberal wet-dreams, so on, and so forth.

[nathanbedford]

John F. Kennedy, the myth, stands as one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated on any culture in modern times. We conservatives ought to step back and look at the history of the Kennedy myth to learn the lessons to save us from the electoral damage caused by the utterly predictable mythologizing of leftist candidates and the equally predictable demonizing of conservative candidates.

I am referring for these purposes not so much to the sentimental inflation of his reputation after his assassination but to the carefully contrived myth which got Kennedy elected and would likely have gotten him reelected in 1964. By the time of his assassination, John F. Kennedy was a drug addict, a sex addict and terminally ill. None of this was made known to the American people yet much of it was current among intimate members of the elite media.

The parallels to the election of Barack Obama are so obvious that they do not need to be recounted here. Essentially Barack Obama's radical Marxist/terrorist associations would have debarred him from the presidency had they become generally known. This knowledge was not nearly as closely guarded as Kennedy's liabilities, they were known to the conservative media and in the blogosphere and well-known, of course, on FreeRepublic. Yet, the elite media spiked any investigation into the radical associations of Barack Obama.

In other words, the media engaged in the hagiography of Barack Obama just as they had mythologized John F. Kennedy. Except in the case of Barack Obama the media could no longer plead ignorance of the facts, they were known to those who sought them out. The media, unable to plead ignorance, is guilty of willfully slanting coverage to advance a candidate. At best they did so believing that they were making history by supporting the first black president, more likely that rationalization is but an excuse enabling them once again to push the country to the left.

If in 1960 the elite media believed that it was advancing the first Roman Catholic president while saving America from a demagogue named Richard Nixon, it is clear that the media ever since has arrogated unto itself the God-playing moral right to determine what is best for America and the power to feed America the myths calculated to manipulate the electorate.

We conservatives must understand that we have been the victims of this scenario time after time after time. The treatment of Martin Luther King Jr. is but one more illustration of the rule.

In this context the significance of Newt Gingrich's stunning victory in South Carolina becomes plain: Republicans, at least, do in fact understand how they have been victimized in this process and they are not going to stand for any longer. I can recall in the run-up to the 2008 election screaming on these threads that John McCain was certainly destined to lose the election if he did not morally destroy Barak Obama. As we know, McCain did not even attempt to do so.

Now Gingrich has done so. He has done so brilliantly and in a stroke he has catapulted himself to the head of the pack. He has done so by attacking the mythologizing and demonizing excesses of the elite media. That alone is a sweet irony.

But there is a greater irony here, Gingrich has done so as the man who stands in the shoes of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Junior, Robert Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson all of whom have been mythologized by an elite media which ignored their sexual peccadilloes. The media has certainly not ignored Gingrich's shortcomings but they have been prevented from driving him from the field.

It is a sign of Gingrich's political genius that he has converted this liability into a masterstroke.

To those conservatives who have doubts about Gingrich's ability to beat Obama take note of the fact that he just beat the combined efforts of the Republican establishment and the Democrat media in a stroke. You are not dealing with a candidate who will campaign back on his heels defending his "baggage." You are dealing with a candidate who can do, and will do, what John McCain could not do, or would not do.

You are looking at a candidate who just kicked over the table and declared that the game will not be dictated by any establishment. He will set the rules of the game which he can win.

While we ponder this sweet irony and the power it implies to win the election, we might also consider why Gingrich is the only choice for someone who will actually kick over the table and really restore our Constitution and our government to us.

[AU72]

I’d like to know what kind of sex he had with a back problem so bad he had to have it braced up so much that when he got shot in the neck in Dallas he couldn’t duck down to avoid the coup de grace.

[Vaduz]

It’s because it was what the women were worth.

[Savage Beast]

Wait now...tell me once again... What were they saying about an open marriage?

[metesky]

The verdicts Dallek returns on those decisions are the conventional ones: Bay of Pigs - unmitigated disaster;

Correct. Stabbed the men on shore right in the back.

civil rights - cautious progress, which wasn't surprising in a man who had only met blacks as chauffeurs or valets;

Saint Jack was dragged kicking and screaming to the civil rights movement. His brother and Hoover were set to put the political shiv to MLK before Papa Joe discovered the benifits of being on the right side of history.

domestic reform initiatives - limited, because none of them became law, although several came to fruition under Lyndon Johnson;

Yeah, thanks Lyndon you POS.

Vietnam - not his fault;

Bwahaha!

handling of the Cuban missile crisis and US-Russia relations - masterly;

Pure BS! We had tactical nukes in Turkey and Saint Jack made a deal to remove them in return for the Ruskies taking theirs out of Cuba. IOW, we had the middle east and the Russians surrounded fifty years ago.

his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech and the inauguration address ("Ask not what your country can do for you…") - triumphs.

"Ask not..." one of the great socialist statements of our time.

Funny how these authors and historians keep finding their myth still basically intact.

Phooey!

[blueunicorn6]

Evidently Camelot was really came-a-lot.