Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

JFK? Why is he the "presidential "ideal"

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Sometimes a saying is just a saying.

    I think JFK is basically loved by the Democrats becasue he WAS a Democrat, and respected today by Republicans becasue he ACTED like a Republican. Nothing more, nothing less.


  • Options
    #33
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,297 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    So would you say he governed from the middle? I would think thats what a good president is meant to be doing: leave the partisanship to the House and Senate where all the debating goes on. Bush was governing from somewhere but I don't think it was the middle, left or right. He was somewhere off in upsidedownface? I dont know. I havent lived through and watched enough presidencies to know.


  • Options
    #34
    Bob Z
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Bob Z


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    Could it be that the national grief over JFK may also have been subtly compounded by the later assassination of his brother Senator Bobby Kennedy, when he was running for president?

    Yes i think so. And also because look back on that era with a certain romantic nostalgia. They see it as America 'growing up'


  • Options
    #35
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    I think Kennedy was aware that his razor-thin presidential victory had narrowed his options, and he therefore decided to govern from the middle for the betterment of the nation.

    So did Bush for the most part. The more Bush moved to the middle, the more his ratings dropped. And from were he ended up in ratings, I’d say he was pretty much in the center. ;)


  • Options
    #36
    Running Bing
    Registered Users Posts: 3,841 ✭✭✭Running Bing


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Sometimes a saying is just a saying.

    I think JFK is basically loved by the Democrats becasue he WAS a Democrat, and respected today by Republicans becasue he ACTED like a Republican. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I think that sums it up perfectly tbh.
    So would you say he governed from the middle? I would think thats what a good president is meant to be doing: leave the partisanship to the House and Senate where all the debating goes on.

    Amen
    Bush was governing from somewhere but I don't think it was the middle, left or right. He was somewhere off in upsidedownface? I dont know. I havent lived through and watched enough presidencies to know.

    Finally we can get around to analysing the Bush presidency.;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Running Bing
    Registered Users Posts: 3,841 ✭✭✭Running Bing


    I think Kennedy was aware that his razor-thin presidential victory had narrowed his options, and he therefore decided to govern from the middle for the betterment of the nation.

    Dont think I would agree with that. Kennedy was a man of very strong convictions and he prided himself on his courage and doing what he felt was correct rather than what would get the most votes.

    No doubt he always had one eye on the 64 election but I think the majority of his big decisions were made simply because thats what he thought was the right thing to do.
    So did Bush for the most part. The more Bush moved to the middle, the more his ratings dropped. And from were he ended up in ratings, I’d say he was pretty much in the center.

    You know we have all heard of Godwin's Law, "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."....there must be a similar law that states "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of the discussion veering of topic to discus George W Bush approaches one."

    If there's not I hear by claim it as my own. Call it Bings Law;)


  • Options
    #38
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,297 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    nah the thing about Godwins law is it can apply to any topic if left long enough. George Bush is an almost strictly political image, whereas Nazi's have universal (un)appeal.

    /OT


  • Options
    #39
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Bob Z wrote: »
    Yes i think so. And also because look back on that era with a certain romantic nostalgia. They see it as America 'growing up'
    Oh I agree! The late 60s and early 70s romantic nostalgia of the Baby Boom generation "growing up" my Da told me about, where they thought anything was possible... The Beatles, the Beach Boys, Woodstock, Moon walks, getting stoned, free love with the pill, going to anti-war protests as an alternative to partying, draft dodgers fleeing to Canada in droves, and liberating songs of the time. The GW Bush Era seems so boring in comparison.

    Maybe the attempt by some to cast Obama with the mystique of JFK is the doings of the Baby Boomlet coming of age, wishing for that romantic bygone era in American history they heard about from their Baby Boom parents, or from listening to the oldies from that era?
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Yesterday's Democrats are today’s Republicans, and today’s Democrats are yesterday's Socialists.
    Huh?
    Given time: Socialists => Democrats => Republicans?
    If many Republicans (and their sympathizers) believe this, then why do they rant so much about socialism?


  • Options
    #40
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,297 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    Oh I agree! The late 60s and early 70s romantic nostalgia of the Baby Boom generation "growing up" my Da told me about, where they thought anything was possible... The Beatles, the Beach Boys, Woodstock, Moon walks, getting stoned, free love with the pill, going to anti-war protests as an alternative to partying, draft dodgers fleeing to Canada in droves, and liberating songs of the time. The GW Bush Era seems so boring in comparison.
    Reading this back, I feel very depressed about how my adolescence turned out.


  • Options
    #41
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    Bob Z wrote: »
    Yes i think so. And also because look back on that era with a certain romantic nostalgia. They see it as America 'growing up'
    Yet 22/11/63 is also referred to as the day America lost it's innocence .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Bob Z
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Bob Z


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    Oh I agree! The late 60s and early 70s romantic nostalgia of the Baby Boom generation "growing up" my Da told me about, where they thought anything was possible... The Beatles, the Beach Boys, Woodstock, Moon walks, getting stoned, free love with the pill, going to anti-war protests as an alternative to partying, draft dodgers fleeing to Canada in droves, and liberating songs of the time. The GW Bush Era seems so boring in comparison.

    They seemed like exciting times but its hard to know how much it was really like that and how much is just image. For example when you watch a lot of movies set in the 60s and news footage there is always antiwar protests but there was actually a lot more antiwar protests during the Invasion of Iraq


  • Options
    #43
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Bob Z wrote: »
    They seemed like exciting times but its hard to know how much it was really like that and how much is just image.
    Fair enough! The same can be said about the JFK mystique.


  • Options
    #44
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    I went to Woodstock, was discriminated against for being a hippie, participated in anti-war protests, devoted quite a bit of time helping others less fortunate, traveled and lived on a commune, amongst other things associated with the era:cool:. Everything I just mentioned had both its good and bad points. It’s far easier and less painful to remember the good. But there was also a lot of pain... people just don’t like to discuss them as much.


Advertisement