Type to search

Why Do Conservatives Keep Talking About John F. Kennedy?

Campaign 2016 Elections Featured Post Politics Top News

Why Do Conservatives Keep Talking About John F. Kennedy?

John F. Kennedy 1956

A day before Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas got an earful of Bronx jeers for his rightwing views on immigration and “New York values,” he summoned up the ghost of liberal icon John F. Kennedy to signal that his was a lofty, aspirational campaign not unlike one mounted by the youthful candidate for president way back in 1960.

“The American people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack,” Cruz said, quoting JFK during his acceptance speech in Wisconsin, where he had trounced his main primary rival, front-runner Donald Trump. “We are not here to curse the darkness but to light a candle that can guide us from darkness to a safe and sane future.”

Cruz, who has slowed the potty-mouthed Trump’s momentum towards the Republican presidential nomination in Cleveland this summer, has pulled out other high minded phrases from the fallen crown prince of Camelot (and also from Winston Churchill) while on the stump.

In Massachusetts, the nation’s bluest state, he contended that Kennedy was “one of the most powerful and eloquent defenders of tax cuts.” He even contended: “JFK would be a Republican today. There is no room for John F. Kennedy in the modern Democratic Party.”

Unremarkably, Cruz’s commentary elicited angry blowback from Democrats, notably Jack Kennedy Schlossberg, JFK’s Grandson, who labeled the senator’s rhetoric “absurd” in an article for Politico Magazine in January. Schlossberg also denied Cruz’s assertion that Kennedy, who would be 98 years old if he were alive today, supported limited government.

“(Kennedy) created new federal programs with ambitious goals, such as the Peace Corps,” Schlossberg wrote from Tokyo. “He did not spend his years in the House and Senate devoted to obstructing the opposition. He certainly did not lead an effort, as Cruz did, to shut down the federal government to score political points and deny health insurance to millions.”

Cruz, of course, is hardly the first Republican to invoke JFK’s name, image and age on the campaign trail. As noted by many a political junkie, Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana, George H.W. Bush’s pick for vice president in 1988, spoke of Kennedy when defending his inexperience during a debate with Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentson, his much older Democratic counterpart and running mate of unsuccessful presidential hopeful Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.

Bentson famously put down Quayle with scathing disdain: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.”

These days, Michael R. Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York since 1988, which was founded in 1962 with support from conservative icon William F. Buckley, doesn’t believe that Cruz’s praise of JFK is a deviation from conservative orthodoxy. “There’s no problem with Cruz (invoking) JFK,” he told The National Memo in a telephone conversation. “Reagan invoked JFK on tax cuts,” added Long, who also noted that Kennedy’s legacy crosses party lines: “He was an inspirational person who brought a lot of hope to a lot of Americans. Probably some conservatives voted for him because of his love of America.”

It appears that Cruz’s use of Democratic imagery is his attempt to sell what is otherwise a far-right candidacy to voters from both parties as well as independents. Last summer, Cruz told PBS host Tavis Smiley that his campaign was “modeled” after President Obama’s successful 2008 primary campaign with its emphasis on social media. Others don’t quite agree with that assessment

“While Cruz may hope to attract Democratic votes, I can’t think that’s his primary motivation,” said David Birdsell, Ph.D., Dean of the Baruch College School of Public Affairs in an email to this reporter. “Kennedy was known as a great speaker, Cruz fancies himself a great speaker too. Kennedy was the youngest person elected to the presidency, Cruz is only two years older than Kennedy was. Cruz wants the mantle of Camelot, but the garment doesn’t fit well and he suffers in the comparison.”

Birdsell, who believes Canada’s Justin Trudeau is far more “genuinely Kennedy-esque” than Cruz or Quayle, does regard the Texas senator as a political pro who has recognized the quality of Obama’s field operation. “He obviously loathes Obama but has the perspicacity to know there was something to learn from his campaign. That reflects well on Cruz, and the quality of his own field operation is the single most important reason he’s in second place. Lesson learned.”

Cruz, however, hit a roadblock in the Bronx this week for his hardline views on immigration and had to cancel a meeting at a charter school after students threatened a walkout. State Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr., a conservative Democrat who is also a pastor at a Bronx pentacostal church, hosted a sparsely attended event for him at Chinese-Dominican restaurant in Parkchester that also drew a few shouting local protestors.

Diaz, whose more liberal son Ruben Diaz, Jr. is the Bronx borough president and labels Cruz a hypocrite, said that he may also “do something” in the Bronx for Donald Trump, whose views are similarly loathed by many in the hispanic community.

“We’ve got to do something about the 12 million undocumented immigrants,” said the elder Diaz. “I want to build a wall to make America great again,” he added with a laugh, echoing Trump.

Trump, meanwhile, has put himself in the same league as Ronald Reagan on the issues, while his admirers have invoked Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson to describe his bellicose bloviating.

As for Trump’s purported allegiance to Reagan’s policies, Michael Long of the Conservative Party dismisses that notion. “He doesn’t come close to Ronald Reagan. He’s more like a populist candidate. Trump has brought a different style to this campaign that’s different from anything I’ve witnessed in my entire life.”

Photo: Wikimedia Commons



  1. FireBaron April 11, 2016

    They want to be just like Jack Kennedy. Of course, Trump, with his string of bed partners, is probably closer to Kennedy in one way more than any other. As for Cruz, well, let’s just say the “nastiest man in the Senate” has no where near the charisma and appeal of the former Senator from Massachusetts.

  2. I of John April 11, 2016

    Republicans are just sore because folks question whether Reagan would have been Conservative enough for the GOP now.

    1. Daniel Jones April 11, 2016

      So they instead try to rip off someone they figure has been dead long enough no one can gainsay their bullshit.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker April 11, 2016

        Nah…They are just pissed off that Kennedy in one of his SOTU speeches refused to kiss up to the military industrialists Eisenhower warned the country about in his farewell speech. Or as Kennedy publicly stated about Viet Nam: “It isn’t OUR war.”

        When Republican states live off federal tax subsidies for their military, prison, Big Oil and Frackola and gun industries, you see why they object strenuosly to any change that would bring them into 2016. They like working for dirt wages that are comparable to the undocumented workers their state industries hire. They love not having to use their brains and much prefer working harder, not smarter at a huge cost to the rest of the states.

        1. AgLander April 11, 2016

          When were you born? Learn your history at ACORN headquarters? Kennedy was the president responsible for escalating the U.S. involvement in ‘Nam that had previously been merely military advisors to combat troops on the front line.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker April 11, 2016

            When were YOU born? I heard him make that statement in the first year of his all too short presidency. I heard it on TV in black and white ..Kennedy didn’t escalate the war in Viet Nam. Actually, that country was originally French Indochina formed in 1887. After the fall of the French in WWII, the Vichy administered the government until the Japanese occupied it in March 1945. In August 1945 they declared Vietnamese independence and extended the war, known as the First Indochina War, against France.

            So assface, anymore stupid posts from you nut freaks who obviously have NO history in your schools. He didn’t escalate the war…it was an ongoing war from WWII with nearly 22,000 French soldiers dead from 1945 until the Cold War Era in 1954.

          2. AgLander April 11, 2016

            You also have a reading comprehension deficit, cupcake. Kennedy was the U.S. president who introduced U.S. COMBAT troops to Vietnam. Up until that time only military advisors were serving a role there in advising the South Vietnamese military. All simply deflection by you away from the original point of the U.S. president’s roles and decisions by babbling on about useless background…..unless you are claiming France was a colony of the U.S……but that’s what you Starbuck’s liberals do so often when you get challenged and can’t keep up. Don’t apologize, it’s just part of being a liberal Democrat.

          3. ralphkr April 11, 2016

            Really, Aglander, this is the first time that I have seen Green Berets termed as not being combat troops. Eisenhower, after aiding the French in Vietnam, sent in Green Beret teams to train and LEAD locals into battle against the North Vietnamese. Yes, they LED the groups which definitely made them combat troops. By the way, the groups in question were NOT South Vietnamese military but were irregulars protecting their villages.

          4. AgLander April 11, 2016

            You are mistaken on the particulars. It wasn’t until 1961 that front line United States combat Special Forces were introduced into Vietnam and Kennedy sent them. He also sent tactical use combat helicopters for the first time. Up until that move, American military personnel were not involved in any combat operations and were in the rear as strategic advisors. That is history. That is fact,not a point for debate.

          5. ralphkr April 11, 2016

            And you, AgLander, seem to be suffering from Reagan Syndrome, i.e., unable to discern the difference between reality and movie. The Green Berets were in Vietnam in 1956 and Eisenhower was president from 1953-1961 and they were definitely in combat against the North Vietnamese long before 1961. That is reality, AgLander, not something to be found in your graphic novels that you think of as history.

            You seem to have confused the 5th Special Forces Group which was not activated until 1961 as being the only Green Berets/Army Rangers unit in history. Men I had served with died in combat in Vietnam in the 1950s while serving as Green Berets.

          6. AgLander April 12, 2016

            Let’s agree to disagree since you have clearly conflated dates that are not supported by any historical chronological records of the conflict and the “Americanization” of the war which happened under Kennedy’s direction and turned into a torrent under Johnson so it really makes it impossible to even address your comments. And what are you talking about in introducing and mentioning “movies”? Perhaps you are the one who gleans your information from such sources since you brought it up? I hope not, or you may also believe that the “Outlaw Josie Wales” was a movie about a real person!

          7. ralphkr April 12, 2016

            It is very strange, AgLander, that you continue to mistake what you have seen in movies and in your graphic novels (that is what they call comic books now isn’t it?) with history. I must take it for granted that you must be a conservative since you have no grasp of the truth nor of history.

            US Military history show American Special Forces (Green Berets) dispatched to Vietnam in 1956 to organize and lead irregulars in guerilla warfare against North Vietnamese. Some US Military historians consider 1950 as the start of our involvement in Vietnam since that is when we started to help the French in Vietnam but that was military aid & supply with no US combat troops involved. Since I get my knowledge from real books and from fellow servicemen (I was on the honor guard for the burial of a couple of friends who were killed leading raids in Vietnam in the 1950s) while you obviously get your knowledge from fantasy & conservative propaganda. It obviously is very upsetting for you to be confronted by the truth and have your fairy tales punctured.

          8. AgLander April 12, 2016

            I can’t prevent you from “doubling down” in your ignorance, only marvel at your persistence and desire to do so!

          9. ralphkr April 12, 2016

            And I am not at all surprised that you take pride in your ignorance, AgLander. You appear to be a typical conservative taking pride in your lack of knowledge of the real world. However there is something that I am sure that you know of which I am unaware. Pray, tell me, AgLander, in your “History Book” what year did Captain Marvel win the war in Vietnam?

          10. AgLander April 12, 2016

            You seem overly interested in movies and comic books and mention them prominently in most of your comments after introducing them early on. I am getting a picture of someone with a collection of old VCR movies and a collection of comic books and the resulting Hollywood view of reality. Some call it nutty…..I prefer to be nice and simply call you a bit eccentric! Enjoy your world.

          11. Eleanore Whitaker April 12, 2016

            You seem overly insane and unable to accept what you can find in any history books. Let me guess…Your history books were written by a jackass like you?

          12. AgLander April 12, 2016

            Good morning, sunshine! Eleanore, the very angry liberal woman who has gone on record as claiming “Republican men” have been the cause of her 30+ years of spewing venom. Professional help is all I can beg you to seek!

          13. Tom S April 12, 2016

            Let me be the Fool to jump into the middle of this New Civil War with some perspective.
            Yes, Ike and his dear, dear JF Dulles did have active COMBAT troops in Vietnam in the 50s until Administration End.
            Yes, JFK did, for awhile, send in additional troops hoping to stabilize the situation he was handed.
            However, he did realize the futility of the mess, and had begun the process of withdrawal before his death. His assassination may well have been the response of the MIC (including CIA). It certainly was not Lee Harvey.
            LBJ reversed JFK’s new course for awhile. But, he saw the futility, too. And began secret negotiations with Ho to end it.

            That’s when the next great GOP Traitor got involved as part of his effort to steal the 1968 Election. Tricky managed to derail LBJ’s Peace overtures with promises to Ho that he’d get a better deal from a Tricky Admin. LBJ and Ev are on a recording discussing Tricky’s Treason.

            Hubert had to carry the existing ‘banner’ and lost narrowly because of the desertion of young Americans from the Democratic Party in November ’68.

            In 1969 Tricky then Tricked everyone. Every person, Allied or Vietnamese, who died after January 1969 died because of Tricky’s Treason and Dis-Honor.

            Elenore, you may be mostly correct, but your ad hominem and slash ‘n burn attacks are uncalled for.

          14. AgLander April 12, 2016

            Sorry, but I have chosen to stick to documented history as opposed to anecdotal based opinions which may carry the day at a table at Starbucks over lattes, but not in a serious review that sticks with documented facts and leaves conjecture and political bias out of the equation.

          15. Tom S April 12, 2016

            No you haven’t, Ag, you are just kidding yourself.
            Use your internet connection to get to the documented history.
            Lee Harvey was in the employee break room at the time of the shots – that is documented in the Warren Commission Report.
            Tricky was a Traitor. I have heard the recording myself.
            And, I don’t do Starbucks.

            You are merely perpetuating “political bias”.

          16. ralphkr April 12, 2016

            Well, AgLander, I see that as a typical conservative you look in the mirror and attribute your own stupidity and errors to others. I admit that I do recall perusing comic books in the barber shop while awaiting haircuts (the girly magazines all in adult hands) in the 1930s but that is the only time I recall having looked at your sole source of information.

            As for movies, well, AgLander, I did see a lot of them in the late 1940s when I managed a theater but I rarely went to the movies after I enlisted…in fact, I believe the last time I was in a theater was in 1966. My mentioning comic books & movies was in an effort to understand your stupidity and lack of knowledge of the real world. You really should get someone to read and explain a book to you, preferably a non-fiction history book.

          17. Eleanore Whitaker April 12, 2016

            Trying to reason with facts and truth with a mentally ill man like AG is like trying to make sense to an infant. Can’t be done. He still thinks the South won the Civil War.

          18. ralphkr April 12, 2016

            But, Eleanore, it is sometimes fun to expose them as the senseless empty-headed charlatans that they are. By the way, Eleanore, it was NOT the Civil War but the War of Northern Aggression.

          19. Eleanore Whitaker April 12, 2016

            You are the one with reading comprehension problems or else your CONfederate history books have rewritten the history of French Indochina which became Viet Nam…Wow..and you lunatic ballfaced jackasses of the right wonder why no one believes a word out of your mouths?

            I learned all about French Indochina in the 5th grade in Catholic School…I guess in your Mutton Chops and Corn Pone schools, the only geography you ever learn is to memorize the map of DogPatch..How do you not know the history of Viet Nam? You can do what you assfrigs of the right all do…insist, insist, insist like the contrary, belligerent idiots you are all. It doesn’t change what every country of the world teaches about Viet Nam. Tell me..do you morons of the right always look to blame everyone but yourselves? The more you pissforbrains do that, the more the rest of the country ignores your biased BS. Get a life, get a job and stop living off MY state’s tax dollars.

      2. I of John April 11, 2016

        Their argument doesn’t hold water at an rate.

        1. Leslieesaucier2 April 12, 2016

          “my room mate Maria Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr.”….i!533two days ago new Silver McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512 Dollars,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k Dollars Last month ..3-5 hours of work a day ..with. extra open doors &. weekly. paychecks… it’s realy the simplest. work. I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. 87 Dollars, p/h.Learn. More right Herei!533➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsLifelineGetPaidHourly98$…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::i!533………

  3. AgLander April 11, 2016

    The answer is simple…..JFK’s politics and views would not make him a modern day Democrat but a Republican. In fact, he would be shocked seeing his party today which is nothing more than a loose conglomerate of aimless, self loathing misfits and malcontents unhappy with their status in life and anxious to blame someone else for it.

    1. Paul Bass April 11, 2016

      Says the RWNJ with only about a 1/4 upvote rating.
      Go post on Fox, we don’t believe a word you say here at NM. Or are you so pathetic you get your yoodles by having everyone hate you? If so, I recommend Viagra…

      1. AgLander April 11, 2016

        Bitter much? The truth hurts. Use some balm on your hurt feelings, cupcake.

        1. Paul Bass April 11, 2016

          No one believes you, go back to la la land and talk the foxbots.

          I knew JFK, Cruz, and you, are no JFK.

        2. “Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?”~~~Groucho Marx

          1. AgLander April 11, 2016

            Perfect name……raccoons always walk with their heads angled downward and their eyes looking at the ground. It hurts to raise their head, I guess, and see what’s going on other than at their feet. You are a perfect match!

          2. ralphkr April 12, 2016

            Actually, AgLander, raccoons always walk with their heads down so that they can avoid stepping in a steaming pile of Republican. They hate getting that smeared all over their feet.

    2. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst

      Are full of passionate intensity.”

      ~~William Butler Yeats

    3. jsjca April 11, 2016

      WOW! I have been a Democrat all my life and have never met Democrats like you describe. How did you meet so many misfits and malcontents? On several occasions, Kennedy family members have rejected the notion that JFK would be a Republican today. Many issues the Republicans promote today are anathema to JFK’s values. His positions were closer to Republican positions when he was president than they are today. Right Wing people today forget that the Right Wing hated JFK during his presidency. There is a plethora of literature describing the horrendous things the Right Wing accused him of, including being a traitor.

    4. ralphkr April 12, 2016

      “loose conglomerate of aimless, self loathing misfits and malcontents
      unhappy with their status in life and anxious to blame someone else for
      it.” Gee, AgLander, you just described the TEA Party and the Right Wing Republican party.

  4. Eleanore Whitaker April 11, 2016

    Whenever a Canadian Texan of recent emigre takes the time or effort to mention a Democrat in the same breath as their conservatism, it is purely for the drama these Drama Kings manufacture. Since Warren Harding, the only president with any decency and common sense conservatism was Dwight D. Eisenhower, who today, by Tea Party and Koch Corn Pone Kings standards would be considered a Democrat. So whenever you hear the pitiful echoes of any Republican man and make no mistake..there never will be any Republican woman in that party with a major voice they won’t transform into their version of “women, i.e., Coulter, Bachmannistan, Haley, Fiorina, The Tundrea Tootsie Palin or Malkin) you are really hearing the swan song of a party that decimated itself in record time.

    The idea of allowing radical extremists from the Koch established Tea Party to infiltrate the hallowed halls of the Republican good ole boys fraternity was self-destructive. Now, there’s no way to return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers which was for opposing factions to always work TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON CAUSE…and that common cause isn’t Corporate Welfare which is now costing every American family $6,000 annually out of their middle and lower incomes. But, what the hell…the Corn Pones and Mutton Chops in Republican states have plenty of free time to open their gaping maws and bitch till the cows come home. They just don’t have the brains to advance their states away from fossil fuels, pollution the rest of us pay heavily for and their own lack of drive and ambition. I guess when you get out of bed at noon, you don’t have time for a real job with real WORK…the 4-letter word today’s Republicans in Congress are proving they hate most.

    1. mgbbhc April 11, 2016

      Ironic, isn’t it, that Dwight D. Eisenhower (I Like IKE!) was the last Republican President who ACTUALLY balanced the budget – 70 years ago . . . and he did it by raising taxes!

      1. Tom S April 12, 2016

        He was also the last “Republican” Pres to Pay Down on the National Debt. All Democratic Presidents Paid Down the Debt from the Great Depression, WW II, Marshall and MacArthur Plans, and Korea. Clinton, not Raygun, Paid Off that Debt. Raygun ran up $4T more Debt, and much of HW’s.
        The current $19T National Debt is All-“Republican” (All ‘Fiscal Conservative’).

        Republicans haven’t afforded Obama the opportunity to make the changes necessary to Pay Down any of W’s Debt, but he has managed to Save a bunch in Trust Accounts he has control of.

        Currently, the Deficits are driven by WCare Part D, for which “repubulicons” have refused to provide a Funding mechanism and Price-Fixed medicines, and Accruing Interest on the Raygun, HW and W Debt! Mission Accomplished!

    2. jsjca April 11, 2016

      Thank you for pointing out the Founding Fathers’ philosophy of “negotiate and compromise” as one of the best ways to ensure our liberty. The Republicans, who love to claim their devotion to the Constitution, have adopted a position of “slash and burn.” They view compromising with their opponents as a weakness and a defeat…much like every dictator throughout history.

    3. Wayfarin' Stranger April 12, 2016

      The original tea party was about taxation without representation.

      The imposter wants representation — the whole government if it can get it — without taxation.

      But if government turns out to cost anything, everybody else not of them to pay for it …

  5. MDLiberalMike April 11, 2016

    When I was a senior in college, I helped form a Kennedy for President group on my college campus in Wisconsin and campaigned for Kennedy in the Wisconsin primary in 1960. In fact I met him twice in one day, as well as rode in a car with his wife Jackie from Menomonee to Eau Claire, WI that same day. President Kennedy was a great progressive president. Ted Cruz is a great pretender and no where can he compare in character or ideas to John F. Kennedy. Ted Cruz would be a great scourge on the United States of America if he were ever to become President. Donald Trump, on the other hand, would be a complete disaster.

    1. mgbbhc April 11, 2016

      As Bill Maher says, Cruz would be our worst President but Trump would be our last President.

      1. Wayfarin' Stranger April 12, 2016

        Hmm …. the last trump of Armageddon? …

    2. Jmz Nesky April 12, 2016

      … And THAT about raps up the entire Republican carcass, uh.. caucus..?

    3. Tom S April 12, 2016

      Fortunately, there is little likelihood that either would become other than ‘also rans’.
      Demographically, this is the last General in which the “republicon” party has much of a chance.

      1. MDLiberalMike April 12, 2016

        I agree with you wholeheartedly.

  6. Kurt CPI April 11, 2016

    JFK would be disgusted with both parties. His policies, attitudes and agendas were more along the line of modern libertarian than anything. He went in hard against organized crime. He researched and favored currency directly administered by the US treasury rather than the private “Federal” Reserve. He championed civil rights, but vehemently opposed socialism. He (and brother Robert) defied his roots, his programming and the expectations of those who engineered his political climb, and became an independent in every sense. His desire to see America become the ideal that was defined at its onset got him killed. No one representing either party has the spine or conviction of a JFK.

  7. Eleanore Whitaker April 11, 2016

    When you have 33 years of experience as a Republican as I have, you don’t realize by osmosis how much of the BS Republican men spend their lives manufacturing. Here is what I observed in that 33 years: A. What any Republican man says and what he and his posse plan to do are animals of different breed. B. Republican men aren’t so much Republican or conservatives as they are bossy, overbearing, political bullies..but only as a group. No bully ever bullies without his “gang” to back him up. C. Republicans are scheme manufacturers. Before a single action is ever taken, they’ve already engineered what they hope will be a fool proof, impervious scheme to sabotage anyone who dares get in their way. And it is as Bush publicly stated, “MY WAY or the Highway.”

    1. AgLander April 11, 2016

      “Republican MEN?” How odd you found it necessary to be gender specific! I suspect you are an angry, dateless feminist who blames the opposite sex for your life’s frustrations. And I again suspect you have a lot of grievances…..too many non callbacks after first dates perchance?!

      1. Tom S April 12, 2016

        Whatever, Eleanore is correct. I know ’em, too, e.g., most every Red Governor and Assembly leader.

        1. AgLander April 12, 2016

          Good…..you and Eleanore make an excellent myopic couple. Not fun to be around at social gatherings but who cares when you have each other!.

    2. Tom S April 12, 2016

      “If you want to know how civilized a culture is, look at how they treat its women.”
      Bacha Khan

      You can substitute “Party” as an example of “culture” and the observation remains accurate.
      Although a man, I do not know how any self-respecting woman can Vote Republican.

  8. Otto T. Goat April 11, 2016

    They do it because pointing out where JFK stood on various policies highlights how far to the left Democrats have moved.

    1. Tom S April 12, 2016

      But,yours is a false premise, Otto. The current Democratic Party is as conservative as it was in the days of JFK. Bernie is an Independent, Democratic Socialist Populist. There have long been a large similar component to the Democratic Party … even more so before WW II.

      1. Otto T. Goat April 12, 2016

        I don’ think JFK was in favor of gay marriage, abortion on demand, and raising taxes.

        1. jsjca April 12, 2016

          Reagan legalized abortion in CA and did not turn against it until he had to in order to get the Republican nomination. He also raised taxes and had many gay friends.

        2. jsjca April 12, 2016

          Almost nobody was in favor of those things back then so your comment is meaningless. JFK would have had the same views as Ted Kennedy. The family stayed together. Conversely, Reagan legalized abortion in CA and he did not oppose abortion until he had to in order to get the Republican nomination. He also signed a gun control law and raised taxes. Yet he is the icon of the conservatives.

        3. Tom S April 12, 2016

          As jsjca has stated, that was the early 60s. This is the mid-Teens.
          Even the Pope is OK with “gay marriage”. There is NO “abortion on demand” – except in the minds of the ignorant.
          And, since Taxes are ridiculously low, I am sure that Jack would approve. He only lowered taxes during his Admin because Ike had jacked them up to help Pay Down the WW II Debt and Pay for Korea.

  9. mgbbhc April 11, 2016

    And there is no room in the modern Republican Party for Ronald Reagan who raised taxes, granted amnesty to illegals and was pro-choice. Even Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t be a Republican today!

    1. Wayfarin' Stranger April 12, 2016

      Brilliant, mgbbhc, brilliant!

  10. Bren Frowick April 11, 2016

    Cruz demonstrates yet again that he hasn’t the slightest clue what he’s talking about. But then, he is counting on the ignorance of his audience, always a safe bet for a snake oil salesman…

    1. Jmz Nesky April 12, 2016

      The pubs motto of ‘telling lies long enough they begin to sound like the truth’ worked perfectly among the sheepletons.. so well in fact that they’ve decided to slither over on our side of the fence with them.. Soon the sheeplecons will believe that all presidents were Republicans.. except for Obama, they’ll never go for that.

  11. jsjca April 11, 2016

    It is always a source of amusement and bemusement when conservatives and right-wingers try to usurp the mantels of Democratic presidents. Over the years they have claimed Truman, JFK, and even FDR. It is as though there were no Republican presidents during the 20th century. Even JFK joked about it. On several occasions, Kennedy family members have rejected the notion that JFK would be a Republican today. His positions were closer to Republican positions when he was president than the positions Republicans hold today. People have forgotten that the right-wing hated JFK during his presidency. There is a plethora of literature describing the horrendous, vile things the right-wing accused JFK of, including treason.

    1. Wayfarin' Stranger April 12, 2016

      Were Hillary not in the race and Bill no longer extant the Republicans
      would be invoking and adulating him as well. For the GOP the most offensive thing about him as President was not the Lewinsky matter (I admit having wondered whether la Monica was in fact a cunning GOP plant) but rather administering while Democrat. Economically Clinton was the most Republican Republican in the Oval Office since, say, Herbert Hoover.

      The Republicans’ evoking and invoking the éminences grises of Ronald
      Reagan, and such as JFK and HST appropriated however inappropriately, reminds me of the South Sea islanders’ “cargo cults” during and foillowing
      World War II. Much puffing Reagan has been attempt to compensate for the Nixon disaster, intensified by disappointments in Gerald Ford and Bush George the First and their failures to do the Republican proper thing of getting re-elected, and the propping of George Two (from and about whom we hear nearly nothing in the turmoil de jour) vindication of debacle of the One.

      It is interesting that with the elephant in the room, that country’s
      ten richest own more than the least fifty percent, the Republicans aren’t
      saying much these days about Theodore Roosevelt.

      Who? And who was that guy Lincoln, the St Abraham of Blessed Memory?

      Is Conservative with short or no memory a contradiction in terms?

      The Republicans are desperately poor, to destitution. However they may feel about wealth distribution or redistribution, the don’t shame to claim what they don’t, or no longer, have.

  12. Tom S April 12, 2016

    WHY? Because they are Delusional and Big Liars.

    When was the last time you heard a “republican” tell the ‘whole Truth and nothing but the Truth’??

    They are the inheritors of the Hitler/Goebbles Big Lie policy:
    “If you tell a Lie Big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

    The Lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the Lie.

    It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the Truth is the mortal enemy of the Lie, and thus by extension, the Truth is the greatest enemy of the ” GOP.

    The Great W Deepression ripped down their Big Lie shield, yet the behavior of the GNoP Congress since Jan 2009 has been to bolster the neo-Con Big Lies while blaming the Truth.

  13. Robert Cruder April 12, 2016

    John F. Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic President. Many non-Catholics, ESPECIALLY evangelicals argued that he would take orders from the Pope who by dictionary definition is the autocratic ruler of a foreign country.

    John F. Kennedy reminded all of us that the Presidency is a secular office and that he would serve the interests of all the people irrespective of their religion even if that conflicted with his own. I agreed and since then became a proud EX-Catholic.

    JFK would be ashamed of where the Republican party has taken our country but would be even more ashamed of the Roman Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court including the late Justice Scalia who play word games to enforce sectarian religious prohibitions as secular law. JFK would have opposed that on Constitutional grounds regardless of its standing with voters.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.