John F. Kennedy

[Formaldehyde]

Ok, so, wait, did we have a Congress under Reagan? Or was he supreme dictator and we didn't get a Congress until Bill Clinton (the only other dem pres since) came in and returned the country to proper working order?

If a Repub is in power - the buck stops there
If a Dem is in power - the buck stops wherever we can find Repubs

Nice standard.

Only I never stated anything like that.

I was merely pointing out that you can't very well blame Obama for the deficit during the past 4 years. The vast majority of those decisions were made long before he took office by a bipartisan Congress to fight the recession. Obama is only personally responsible for modest increases which were quite effective in saving much of the US auto industry, along with many other jobs that would have otherwise been lost. Those measures were also passed by Congress.

 

[kochman]

Only I never stated anything like that.

I was merely pointing out that you can't very well blame Obama for the deficit during the past 4 years. The vast majority of those decisions were made long before he took office by a bipartisan Congress to fight the recession. Obama is only personally responsible for modest increases which were quite effective in saving much of the US auto industry, along with many other jobs that would have otherwise been lost. Those measures were also passed by Congress.

So, Obama walked into a problem which isn' his fault...
Reagan didn't?

Again, double standard. Carter had made a terrible mess before Reagan...
Which president did a better job growing the economy? Reagan? Or Obama?

 

[Leoreth]

I'm genuinely tired of these comparisons.

 

[kochman]

I'm genuinely tired of these comparisons.

Yes, calling out double standards gets tiresome on this side of the equation as well.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Which president did a better job growing the economy? Reagan? Or Obama?

Which president ever has much impact on the international economy? That is, besides helping to cause its failure by deregulating banks and other financial institutions?

 

[Glassfan]

John F. Kennedy's favorable reputation was not only helped my his martyrdom in Dallas in 1963, but also by the activities of his close friends and advisor's - often referred to as the "Irish Mafia". These included men like Kenneth O'Donnell, David Francis Powers, Mathew McClosky, Larry O'Brien and Ted Sorenson. Powers and O'Donnell co-wrote the glowing, "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye: Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy", 1972. Ted Sorensen was Special Counsel and speech writer to the President, responsible for the famous inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Sorensen wrote the best-selling biography, "Kennedy" (1965). The "Mafia" spent the next decade as apologists for the administration, explaining away the Bay of Pigs and arguing that JFK would have pulled out of Viet Nam had he lived.

Others besides the Mafia were also active. Pierre Salinger, Press Secretary to JFK wrote, "A Tribute to John F. Kennedy", 1964, and, "With Kennedy", 1966.

Arthur M Schlesinger, 'Court Historian' to the Kennedy Administration, wrote a memoir/history of JFK called, "A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House", which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1965.

The Kennedy administration also took on the aura of a popular musical of the decade, "Camelot". Kennedy's assassination was compared to at the time with the Fall of King Arthur. And Jacqueline Kennedy was widely quoted as saying, "There'll be Great Presidents again... but there'll never be another Camelot..."

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, calling out double standards gets tiresome on this side of the equation as well.

It's not an inherent double standard. It seems you're reducing this to the equation of "crisis + president = result", when in fact the crises are not the same, and so the presidents are not comparable simply on the results of their tenure.

I don't say this because I want to support Cutlass' attack on Reagan, but I don't think you can refute it only by pointing out the results of their presidencies.

 

[Veles]

Oddly enough, he was quite liked by the common folk in USSR.

 

[kochman]

It's not an inherent double standard. It seems you're reducing this to the equation of "crisis + president = result", when in fact the crises are not the same, and so the presidents are not comparable simply on the results of their tenure.

I don't say this because I want to support Cutlass' attack on Reagan, but I don't think you can refute it only by pointing out the results of their presidencies.

Cutlass and Formy were both engaging in double standards... for the record...

And, I agree... that's part of why the criticism of Reagan is foolish, he helped America, and the West, in a deeper way than just finances.
Not saying Obama doesn't. One thing I like about Obama is he does get deeper, and has appeared to learn his lesson about throwing the race card (Cambridge Police incident vs Martin killing reactions are worlds apart, thankfully).

 

[Antilogic]

Some people need to see it again.

Couldn't find them all, but this one is fairly relevant:

Here, for example, is the % change in GDP each year from the Federal Reserve Economic Database (FRED). The 1980's are not exceptional compared to the 1990's or even the 1960's. If you use this data to calculate 25-year average growth rates, the Reagan era hovers around 3%, vs. the 40's, 50's, and early 60's 3.5%, late 60's and early 70's had around 3% as well. It wasn't exceptional.

It's clever you used GDP per capita, which given the slowing American population growth rate, artificially makes recent decades look better. After all, fewer people are being born, but the baby boomers were still working and thus producing wealth and demanding goods. The 50's look terrible, because all those infants and toddlers are upping the population but aren't working yet. Plot that data again vs. number of households and not total population, and you'll get a different picture. The average household in the post-WW2 era more than doubled their income.

The graph in the link (for the link-averse), is here:

 

[Cutlass]

Cutlass and Formy were both engaging in double standards... for the record...

And, I agree... that's part of why the criticism of Reagan is foolish, he helped America, and the West, in a deeper way than just finances.
Not saying Obama doesn't. One thing I like about Obama is he does get deeper, and has appeared to learn his lesson about throwing the race card (Cambridge Police incident vs Martin killing reactions are worlds apart, thankfully).

I have NEVER engaged in double standards on the subject. You just refuse to look at it objectively because anything a Republican says is to you as if god screamed it directly in your ear.

 

[kochman]

I have NEVER engaged in double standards on the subject. You just refuse to look at it objectively because anything a Republican says is to you as if god screamed it directly in your ear.

Uh, ok dude.
Because I say Reagan was good, I'm a partisan hack...
But you're objective...
Right, got it.

 

[Glassfan]

JFK disingenuously withheld important personal health information from the press and public before and during his presidency. While projecting a false image of youth and vigor, he was actually a very sick man, secretly taking numerous drugs and seeing multiple doctors. Had his true state of health been understood by the public, he likely would not have been elected president in 1960.

Kennedy suffered from colitis, prostatitis, and a disorder called Addison's disease, which affects the body's ability to regulate blood sugar and sodium. He also had osteoporosis of the lower back, causing pain so severe that he was unable to perform many simple everyday tasks. To fight the pain, Kennedy took as many as twelve medications at a time, taking more during times of stress. Medical records reveal that JFK variously took codeine, Demerol and methadone for pain; Ritalin, meprobamate and Librium for anxiety; barbiturates for sleep; thyroid hormone; and injections of a blood derivative, gamma globulin, a medicine that combats infection.

During the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, Kennedy was taking steroids for his Addison's disease, painkillers for his back, anti-spasmodics for his colitis, antibiotics for urinary tract infection, antihistamines for his allergies, and on at least one occasion, an antipsycotic drug to treat a severe mood change.

The secret details of Kennedy's medical history were buried in old boxes of records the JFK Presidential Library had held for forty years. Past requests for access to these materials had always been refused by a committee of loyalists including one of Kennedy's closest advisors, Ted Sorensen (see "Irish Mafia" above). Only with the eventual deaths of these gatekeepers have the records come to light in 2002.

While JFK lied by omission to the American people, he flat out denied his Addison's to running mate Lyndon Johnson, fearing that the truth would get out and harm his chances against Nixon in the 1960 Presidential campaign.

 

[Leoreth]

Just realized that the MS subplot in The West Wing is probably an allusion to JFK's illnesses.

And seriously, can you blame him for hiding his weaknesses, given how irrationally high voters value this?

 

[Glassfan]

...And seriously, can you blame him for hiding his weaknesses, given how irrationally high voters value this?

We now expect our Presidential candidates to be frank and honest about their state of health. In the last election, 2008, 2,768 medical doctors called on McCain and Obama to release their medical records to the public. McCain had a history of skin cancer. It is now routine for the Press to publish health information on politicals, such as Dick Cheneys' recent heart transplant.

 

[Antilogic]

We now expect our Presidential candidates to be frank and honest about their state of health. In the last election, 2008, 2,768 medical doctors called on McCain and Obama to release their medical records to the public. McCain had a history of skin cancer. It is now routine for the Press to publish health information on politicals, such as Dick Cheneys' recent heart transplant.

Was it routine at the time?

We never placed the unusual emphasis we do now on presidential candidates' personal health back in the good ol' days, except maybe right after William Henry Harrison set his record for shortest term. Or maybe when old Horace Greeley died during the election cycle.

 

[Leoreth]

Presidential candidates simply cannot afford to look weak in any way, no matter if their condition really relates to their ability to lead a country.

 

[Glassfan]

Was it routine at the time?

We never placed the unusual emphasis we do now on presidential candidates' personal health back in the good ol' days, except maybe right after William Henry Harrison set his record for shortest term. Or maybe when old Horace Greeley died during the election cycle.

Of course you're aware of Woodrow Wilson's stroke. He was hardly even the chief executive in his last months in office. FDR was crippled due to his polio, and reporters conspired to cover it up - though it obviously didn't impair his leadership. There was much speculation about the state of Cheney's heart in 2000 and 2004. And remember Carter's hemorrhoids?

The problem I see with JFK is he pretended to be what he wasn't. In the Nuclear age, I would hope we have higher standards. With the intense pressures on today's leadership, good health is important.

 

[Antilogic]

Of course you're aware of Woodrow Wilson's stroke. He was hardly even the chief executive in his last months in office. FDR was crippled due to his polio, and reporters conspired to cover it up - though it obviously didn't impair his leadership. There was much speculation about the state of Cheney's heart in 2000 and 2004.

The problem I see with JFK is he pretended to be what he wasn't. In the Nuclear age, I would hope we have higher standards. With the intense pressures on today's leadership, good health is important.

Yeah, I missed a couple presidential illnesses, it happens with a quick response. FDR wasn't as crippled as people made him out to be--he was strong enough to hold himself upright at a lectern and deliver campaign speeches.

Point is: we didn't care as much about the candidate's health back then, and while we exaggerate recent crises as the greatest in our nation's history I'm certain the leaders in the pre-Nuclear Age were under intense pressure too.

 

[Glassfan]

...Point is: we didn't care as much about the candidate's health back then, and while we exaggerate recent crises as the greatest in our nation's history I'm certain the leaders in the pre-Nuclear Age were under intense pressure too.

Largely agree. But a personal question - are you old enough to remember JFK, on TV perhaps? After elderly old Ike, Kennedy was a breath of fresh air - young, handsome, vigorous, with a hotty wife. A little like Clinton after Grampas Reagan/Bush. But recent research proves he was none of these things. He was sick, and cheating on his wife. I suppose that kind of thing doesn't bother the youngsters here.