ancient primitives remember Kennedy's cabinet picks

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4705628

Oh my.

Joe Fields (1000+ posts)        Tue Dec-23-08 01:57 AM
Original message
 
Older DUers; Did Kennedy's cabinet choices draw a lot of flack?

I can only look back at some of JFK's choices, since I was 4 years old when he ran for president, and was in the 2nd grade when he was assassinated. Of course, there wasn't the 24/7 "news" (propaganda) cycle that we have had for the last four or five presidents, but were JFK's picks considered controversial at the time?

some of JFK's cabinet choices:

Dean Rusk; Secretary of State. Career diplomat, given most of the credit or blame for dividing up Korea and pushing for war, then pushing for a longterm presence there.

C. Douglas Dillon; Treasury Secretary. On top of being a Wall Street investment banker (sound familiar?) and a close personal friend of the Rockefellers, Dillon was also a Republican.

Robert McNamara; Secretary of Defense. Ex-president of Ford Motor Company, McNamara was wholly unqualified to be Secetary of Defense. We all know his influence, concerning Vietnam.

So, I'm just thinking out loud, because although I'm not happy with some of Obama's choices, I feel it necessary to give the man a chance. It's strange to be discussing so much of a man who hasn't stepped foot into office yet, hasn't officially unfurled his agenda yet, and all we have to go by are his choices for cabinet and staff.

Kennedy appointed a Wall Street republican. Was much made about that?

Was there any emphasis about the "career politician" "beltway insider" tag back then, anywhere like there is today?

Dean Rusk was a career politician and a beltway insider. Was much made about Kennedy choosing him for Secretary of State? Was Rusk a controversial figure back then, or just recently?

Anyone who remembers any of this first hand please let us know what it was like back then. I'm thinking if those same choices were made in todays environment, we'd be screaming for Kennedy's head.

I dunno.  The W.C. Fields primitive could check the history books, I suppose.

pnwmom  (1000+ posts)      Tue Dec-23-08 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. Back then, the parties were less divided along ideological lines than they are now. There were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. So I'm guessing that the Cabinets reflected that.

I think people like Newt Gingrich spearheaded the current divisions. And he and politicians like Reagan pushed the "inside the beltway" meme at a time when the Democrats had had a House majority for decades. Inside the Beltway meant "incumbant Democrat."

I dunno again.

I suspect it was angy bitter Hate-filled Democrats upset that the Incompetent One had lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan in 1980, that "spearheaded" the current divisions.  Newt Gingrich was an unknown in 1980.

I suspect it was the foul mean old drunk Tipsy O'Neill that "spearheaded" the current divisions, because of his wilful malicious obstruction of everything Ronald Reagan wanted to do.

And George Mitchell was no shining beacon of nonpartisanship.

Whatever.

Hekate  (1000+ posts)        Tue Dec-23-08 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
 
9. That's how I remember it. "Compromise" was a word of respect. You cld also respect your Rep neighbor

If a person of the opposite party won an election, you felt like you could live with that.

Newt Gingrich, with the backing of Grover Norquist et al., embarked on a program of divide and conquer. They were responsible for demonizing their opponents -- in this case, Democrats. Over time I watched "Democrat" become an epithet, a dirty word in their mouths -- like "Jew" in the mouths of anti-Semites.

But that was long after JFK was in the ground.

OHdem10 (1000+ posts)       Tue Dec-23-08 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
 
2. As I remember, there were not complaints at the time.

Remember there were many more moderate Republicans (Conservatives were
such a minority-the term was not used). Believe it or not our party
had more trouble with Conservative Democrats than Republicans at times.

I think the state our country is in has influenced the Cabinet selections.

napi21  (1000+ posts)        Tue Dec-23-08 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
 
3. The only complaint I remember is Jack picking his brother to be AG.

A lot of people really didn't like that. I think Bobby did a good job, but if a similar pick would happen today, I can just imagine the turmoil. Imagine if Shrub would have picked Jeb for AG!!!!!

I think you just can't compare the two eras of history. Way too much has changed.

Yeah, Robert Kennedy did a good job, a really good job, spying on civil rights activists and labor-union leaders.  He did a really great job, doing that.

Joe Fields (1000+ posts)        Tue Dec-23-08 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
 
4. Wow. Hard to imagine a Jeb AG!

napi21  (1000+ posts)        Tue Dec-23-08 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
 
5. I don't even WANT to think of that! Just saying that if a current Prez picked his brother for any cabinet post, all hell would break lose!

Obama doesn't have the opportunity AFAIK. I don't think he has any brothers, and his sister isn't into politics.

Joe Fields (1000+ posts)        Tue Dec-23-08 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
 
6. Oh I hear you. I don't think anyone could ever get away with such a thing now.

nothingtoofear (1000+ posts)        Tue Dec-23-08 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
 
7. OH NO! There is NO comparison!

Tell me you did not just compare RFK to Jeb Bush!

Uh-huh.

Comparing Robert Kennedy with Jeb Bush is like comparing Charles "Lucky" Luciano with Cardinal Francis Spellman.

napi21  (1000+ posts)        Tue Dec-23-08 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
 
8. Like it or not, they are/were both brothers of the President.

I agree that's the ONLY comparison, but it's fact.

Uh-huh.

Comparing Robert Kennedy with Jeb Bush is like comparing Charles Manson with Billy Graham.

sfexpat2000  (1000+ posts)        Tue Dec-23-08 05:15 AM
Response to Original message
 
10. I was too young to remember but isn't the story that JFK brought a lot of new cocky guys with him? That would have created a lot of resentment, wouldn't it?

Oh yeah, I forgot.

I'm 22 days late here, but happy birthday! to Doug's ex-wife.

[Carl]

Hekate  (1000+ posts)        Tue Dec-23-08 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
 
9. That's how I remember it. "Compromise" was a word of respect. You cld also respect your Rep neighbor

If a person of the opposite party won an election, you felt like you could live with that.

Newt Gingrich, with the backing of Grover Norquist et al., embarked on a program of divide and conquer. They were responsible for demonizing their opponents -- in this case, Democrats. Over time I watched "Democrat" become an epithet, a dirty word in their mouths -- like "Jew" in the mouths of anti-Semites.

But that was long after JFK was in the ground.

Tell that to Robert Bork.....oh yeah btw,it was a Kennedy that started us down this path of hate and demonizing ones political opponent.
If I remember correctly he wasn`t all that much help to Carter in 1980 either.

You asshats wouldn`t allow JFK in your presence today so spare us all your "fond" remembrances.

[franksolich]

You asshats wouldn`t allow JFK in your presence today so spare us all your "fond" remembrances.

It's the phenomenon historians call "false nostalgia," the longing for things that never were.

The mountain man primitive, the "ThomWVA" primitive's a big practitioner of it, having been in his 20s, and impressionable, during the 60s.  To the mountain man primitive, John was the Father, Robert the Christ, and Vast Teddy the Holy Spirit.

It's pretty sick, this cult of the personality thing.

[JohnnyReb]

Over time I watched "Democrat" become an epithet, a dirty word in their mouths .....just look at what the democrat party is composed of today and you'll see why that is.

[USA4ME]

The RFK for Atty General was the only issue, and he still got it.

What the DUmmies conveniently forget is that when Kennedy met with Khrushchev in 1961, by all accounts, including Kennedy's own, the meetings were a disaster.   Khrushchev ripped Kennedy a new one.  Kennedy was brilliant and had at least the semblance of a backbone compared to Il Duce, and Putin is another Khrushchev.

.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Kennedy and then Johnson made some absolutely horrible picks but it was the nature of politics back then, before the Dumbocrats in Congress decided to fight Reagan at every turn, that the Senate's consent was largely pro forma.  Historical hindsight about just how truly wretched many of those picks were, combined with a more-partisan Congress since then, has done away with the free pass that Kennedy largely enjoyed.  The GOP has been hampered in this fight by 'Old Statesmen' like McCain who keep deciding to stab their own party in the back and call it "Bipartisanship" or "Reaching across the aisle," a grave judgment failing from which the Democrats don't seem to suffer noticeably.

[ReaganForRushmore]

As a very young boy, I always questioned why JFK had RFK as his AG.........In the prism of history, JFK had RFK there to protect him from J. Edgar and any investigations into the Kennedy background. But a Dem would never cover anything up, would they?

[Lord Undies]

pnwmom  (1000+ posts)      Tue Dec-23-08 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. Back then, the parties were less divided along ideological lines than they are now. There were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. So I'm guessing that the Cabinets reflected that.

Back then, just about everyone was a Jesus-loving Christian with the same moral base.  There wasn't a lot to fear.  It took Ronald Reagan's election to bring satan out of his hole and working overtime to change the tide.  Satan went for the weakest minds, which explains the democrat party today.

[Sam Adams]

Obama doesn't have the opportunity AFAIK. I don't think he has any brothers, and his sister isn't into politics.

Actually, Obama has a brother. He lives in a shack in Kenya. He could probably use a job. But let's all forget about him, as Obama spreads (our) wealth around.