Skip to comments.Why is LBJ's name NEVER mentioned by liberals?
Posted on 07/11/2006 6:14:32 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Why is the father of The Great Society ignored? Sure, he messed up with Viet Nam, but that's blamed on W anyway, but he made sure to transfer zillions of dollar$$$ from your back pockets to the back pockets of other people. What's up with that?
Good question... perhaps because he was a corrupt uncooth Texican? A necessary evil on the ticket of Camelot-Boy?
LBJ isn't mentioned because they want to pretend that the Vietnam War was thought up by Nixon.
I've always believed it was Vietnam.
As much as the Dems wanted everyone to believe that Vietnam was "Nixon's War", it really wasn't. It was Johnson's.
Liberals like to blame Nixon, and, they will never face reality if facing reality causes them to give up a beloved fantasy. Mentioning LBJ would take them too close to reality, so they avoid him.
Simple as that.
Also, becuae his Presidency was short and ended almost 40 years ago. He is long dead and his term was sorounded by other significant Presidencies (Roosevelt to Reagan). He was also a crude Texan which Lib's don't like (they prefer crude manhattanites). Hard to believe but his term of office was as far back as Coolidge's was then, and Keennedy's as far back as Harding's.
Because it's "common knowledge" that he was behind the JFK assassination?
And if he wasn't, he was the one who benefitted the most from his death.
Kennedy and Johnson.
Yes, that's true.
I neglected to mention Kennedy.
He and his wife where, and his children are the biggest founding stock owners.
-He isn't FDR
-He isn't a Yankee
-He took over from JFK (through no fault of his own)
-He is a Southerner (Texans may dispute that tag - fair enough)
-He waged and escalated a huge war
-He remained an adult during the everyone-back-to-their-childhood 1960s
-He didn't give it the bit-lip, wipe-a-tear routine when talking about poverty, even though he wrote some huge gummint checks.
Same reason we don't often mention Nixon.
Compare to today's liberals where they are rejecting Lieberman for his strong national defense stance.
Reminds me of one of the old stories about LBJ(there were many and who knows which ones were true).
He's tooling around the Johnson Ranch in his station wagon with a host of Secret Service agents in pursuit. Finally, he stops, gets out and proceeds to unzip his fly to relieve himself. Instinctively, the agents circle around the president while he's making his bladder gladder. The wind kicks up and moves his stream against the leg of an agent. The agent says "Mr. President, you're peeing on me!" The president replies, "son, that's my privilege."
"I have a "progressive" friend that truly believes that Nixon started the war."
Your progressive friend is an idiot. But then, aren't most of them?
Sometimes they mention his name to pay tribute to Medicare, Voting Rights Act, etc., but they hold him at arm's length because they're scared of his many failures in Vietnam and the so-called "War on Poverty".
You couldn't be more right about this & it's an excellent question, because he did more to advance the reach of the all-powerful nanny-state so near & dear to the heart of those who call themselves "liberal", although there's nothing remotely liberal about the idea that average citizens' lives have to forcibly managed from cradle to grave by those who fancy themselves more enlightened, than anybody. But I think Tijeras Slim is on to something: there seems to be the taint of sainted Kennedy blood on the man, at least in their eyes.
And if he wasn't, he was the one who benefitted the most from his death.
Libs are combatting that one with Nixon was behind JFK's assasination. A book is coming out saying that Nixon knew about JFK being on the mafia hit list for his war on organized crime. Oh brother!!
|Because he said we were going to war over dominoes and it turned out they play cribbage instead.|
Ike and Kennedy also have some responsibility. Was it not Kennedy who approved the assination of the President of South Vietnam? However, it was LBJ who dramatically increased troop numbers and I believe McNamara who thought the war "unwinable". Once Nixon was elected the moonbats took over the Democratic party and engineered the surrender.
Ye cats and little kittens, even FDR (the man) wasn't the FDR (the legend) liberals have created. The same can be said -- the man vs. the myth -- re: Kennedy and Jefferson as well.
Who you callin "uncouth"? LBJ was couth as Hell.
Back in the day, the hippies used to holler: "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?". Now that's all down the memory hole.
It's all about VW. That's why he didn't run in 1968.
He was the last Democrat who loved his country. He was a bastard, but he wasn't willing to sell out the US. To be a good Liberal nowadays who have to hate America. No matter what you think about his policies LBJ thought America was the best damn country on the planet (and he was right.)
LBJ's use of the Tonkin Gulf incident to escalate the US's involvement in Vietnam was his way of saying 'don't look behind the curtain' re his role in the JFK hit. Same goes for the civil rights legislation. He didn't give a whit about anything other than making it to the Oval Office.
Lyndon's daughters had a guest column in the Houston Chronicle the other day. They had the nerve to use his name in the same sentence with the Voting Rights Act. LOL!! Think of the rigged elections he was involved with!! And they want to bring up his name and voting rights!
If I'm correct (and I need to verify this), Eisenhower supplied only weapons and logistical support to the French.
Eisenhower hadn't yet committed US troops to act as advisors for the South Vietnamese army - or did he? Didn't the use of US advisors start with Kennedy?
"Walk upright, boy! Like a New Mexican!" :)
Johnson was on the ticket in 1960 to bring in Texas. His style and beliefs were very different from JFK but the Dems had no value system even back then. When JFK was assassinated, the Dems were stuck with LBJ. It was kind of like when they got Clinton after he emerged from the pack of nobodies in 1992 to get the nomination and then Perot's presence in the race handed him the presidency. Do you think Liberals would have chosen the governor of a rube state like Arkansas? They hate the South, Nascar, etc. How well did Clinton's welfare reform sit with the party leadership and the liberals... Their true heros are people like Kerry and Dean...
"NASS President and Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed nominated Johnson for the award and expressed his admiration for the former presidents political courage."
Sam Reed is WA states RINO (he might as well be a Democrat) Secretary of State.
"He was the last Democrat who loved his country."
I'd urinate on his grave.
Of course it was Nixom's fault! The 20 years prior to his taking office was an era or piece and prop-scarcity. We need only look at Korea, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Greece, Turkey, Isreal and Cuba to name just a few places where "Truth, Justice and "All that stuff" could be found!
Nixon said "If we bomb Hanoi and block Haiphong Harbor, we'll bring them to their knees."
Well, we did, until we brought the Commies to the negotiating table. Then, what had worked, was stopped, and further negotiations were crippled.
Wonder, who stopped our military from winning the war in Vietnam? Hmmmmm?
I have long contended that LBJ was one of the absolute worst presidents. I'm too recently returned to the world of the wakeful to go through a list of reasons, but suffice it to say it can be very well summed up in one word: Vietnam. Or two words, depending on your dictionary: Viet Nam. He lurched through his presidency before he crashed and burned, taking our nation to new depths of ignominy.
The libs never mention him because LBJ was a liability in every way. His excesses could make bubba's seem juvenile. He was JFK's biggest mistake.
Whatever you call those poor benighted souls living so close to New Mexico. ;)
"In 1954, the French implored Eisenhower to send the U.S. Navy to rescue Vietnam. Eisenhower refused. He acquiesced in the division of Vietnam into a Communist North and a South informally allied with the United States and sent a few hundred advisors."
If you can believe Wikipedia
Hell, Truman bears some responsibility, too, for not giving Uncle Ho his due after fighting the Japs along with us.
1. The 'Rats try to blame Vietnam on Nixon, but they know that there are too many people who won't go along with that and remember chanting things like, "Hey, Hey LBJ how many boys did you kill today?" They also realize that if history were to be assessed accurately, that the initial blame for Vietnam would have to be put on JFK and the WILL NEVER allow that, so they let LBJ be the fall guy.
2. The civil rights movement and Great Society hurt the 'Rats more than it helped them. They alienated the Southern politicians and furthered the notion of the elite Northeast liberal. Nixon won in 1968 because he won the South and the 'Rats will never forget this. They realize today that they have lost the South and that their only success on the national level has been to run Southerners (Carter and Clinton) and pretend they are moderates. By the time 2000 came around they realized that they couldn't even pull that charade off anymore. Were it not for LBJ, they think they would still have the South and with it total control of the country.
Ladybird owned Fruhoff (which was the exclusive contracted transporter of military stuff) and much of Bell Helicopter (Huey's--the disposable vehicle of Viet Nam).
How true. For liberals, history is always being rewritten.
But as the old saying goes, Democrats start wars, Republicans end them.
A Ho Ho for Uncle Ho or maybe just a Ho. We should have also given Castro a job playing baseball.
LBJ gave dems every liberal program they ever wanted, but as a southerner from Texas he was never accepted. To the NE liberal intellectuals, LBJ was common, maybe even crass... sooooooo not a Kennedy.