Why didn't people like the Kennedies?

I've been wondering about this. John F. Kennedy was killed as president. Why? Robert Kennedy was killed running for president. Who killed him and why? Ted Kennedy had to wear bullet proof vests sometimes. Why? Why didn't people like the Kennedies? They seem like nice people to me.
 
OK, there's a long list of reasons, each different for each brother. The major factor for JFK was anti-Catholicism. Sometimes pure ideology of neo-Nazi extremists like Hunt. Civil Rights.

JPK: Sketchy origins of wealth, pro-Nazi sentiment, anti-Semitism. The latter is consensualized, the first is disputed, and the second is basically true.

JFK

1) CR: The famous DMN 22/11/63 John Birch poster with JFK in crosshairs, accusing him of treason. Best example of that.

2) Catholicism/ Church and State: Anti-Catholic bigotry that ironically resembles anti-Semitism: "Allegiance to a foreign power/land."

3) Ideology: Many Republicans didn't like him because he was a Democrat, though Jack and Bobby were the most conservative Democrats until Clinton on many issues.

4) Assassin: deranged loony. Would've shot Nixon or Edwin Walker (his previous choices) had the opportunity occurred.

RFK

1) Civil Rights- no explanation required. Very polarizing because of 'Nam, CR and personality.

2) War: Even many Irish were incredibly abusive about Vietnam, thinking him a "vendu" to use a Quebec term that applies here.

3) Personality- Basically very *impassioned* on many issues. Listen to a speech of his or see the motorcades- security nightmares, though the assassination occurred in the opposite context, ironically.

4) Activism: You have to go to the barricades and demand change, not be complacent. Tried to convince audiences of his causes rather than convincing himself of theirs. That's why the middle class didn't feel comfortable with him (along with the motorcades) and vice versa.

4) Assassin: combination loony and Israel, of which Bobby was a strong supporter. The assassin was a Palestinian Christian, still imprisoned for life IIRC, but RFK is the most prominent victim of a Palestinian terrorist.
 
JFK was killed by a guy who defeced to the Soviet Union came back and and started supporting Castro. RFK was, most likely, killed by a guy with strong opinions about the Middle East conflict. Neither opinion had much support in mainstream American and it might be fair discribing the killers as disturbed rather then political.

However, as with most big events, they are followed by a lot of conspiracy thories.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Because they were arrogant, self-centered, lying, backstabbing and cheating bastards? That's why I hate them atleast.
 
I've been wondering about this. John F. Kennedy was killed as president. Why?

If you are a conspiracy theorist, he was killed by A) The CIA, B) Castro, C) Cuban exiles, D) Lyndon Johnson, E) The Mafia, F) The Federal Reserve, G) The Teamsters, H) Howard Hunt, I) The Israelis, or J) The Military-Industrial Complex, or K) All of the Above.

If you have a stronger grasp on reality, then JFK was assassinated by a lone nut with a debatable motive.

Robert Kennedy was killed running for president. Who killed him and why?

He was killed by a Palestinian man named Sirhan Sirhan angered by Kennedy's support for Israel.

Ted Kennedy had to wear bullet proof vests sometimes.

Because he was a prominent politician, and had made some enemies in that time. And it would have been quite possible that some crazy would have taken a shot at him, just to claim the kill of the third kennedy brother.

Why? Why didn't people like the Kennedies? They seem like nice people to me.

Variety of reasons. Their politics, their religion, their prominence, etc...
 
JFK basically won a Pulitzer without actually deserving it, became the most overrated american president ever, used drugs and was addicted to sex (went so far as to share Marilyn Monroe with his brother).
His brother had a sexual relationship with Jakie Kennedy mere weeks after JFK's demise, not to mention his activity during John's reign (nowadays we would call it nepotism).
As for the guy that recently died, he is basically a murderer that got lucky for lack of evidence.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Perhaps they are just unlucky?

JFK-Assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald
RFK- Assassinated
Ted Kennedy-Chappaquidick
JFK Jr-Plane Crash
Also another member of that clan that was killed while skiing.
Probably a few others.

Seems like a coincidence to me, but many people believe in a curse.
 
People liked the Kennedy's, it just takes one guy (and no Grassy Knoll) to have an agenda against a man.

3) Ideology: Many Republicans didn't like him because he was a Democrat, though Jack and Bobby were the most conservative Democrats until Clinton on many issues.

I highly disagree on that part. JFK pushed for civil rights, which is essentially like the push for gay marriage today (if you want a comparison) in political backlash, support, and so forth. Kennedy proposed the massive social welfare programs that would be carried by LBJ such as Medicare, Medicaid, and increased social safety nets. Kennedy, with the majority of the general populace, thought Goldwater was loon and thought little of the Conservative movement from what I recall. Bobby, for his part, may have supported a decentralization of power, but simply to ensure that the "Big government" of the era worked better and more efficiently toward the goals of social welfare and such. So I highly disagree with the assertion that Jack was a "New Democrat" like Clinton, and that Bobby was a "New Democrat". You could perhaps argue in relative degree to the Democrats and political environment of the day (where Liberalism was considered good and the general theory followed by the major factions and Conservatism was a four letter word), but I'd still disagree. I mean, Kennedy's goals were what would become Johnson's Great Society, which was the greatest Liberal undertaking since FDR, and Kennedy's ideas for social programs were generally things even Liberal Democrats may be afraid to touch today were they in a relative situation.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Nixon's proposal for public private partnerships for ghetto development was the exact same as Robert Kennedy's Bed-Stu Dev. Corp. set up in 1965. I'm surprised the media didn't realize this, because both of them would've spilled their coffee and Strom Thurmond would've spilled delegates. As for the New Dem idea, this is endorsed by Bill Clinton himself in My Life: "In Indiana, Bobby Kennedy became the first New Democrat, before Jimmy Carter, before the Democratic Leadership Council, which I helped set up in 1985. He believed in special privileges for none and equal opportunity for all..."

[Originally posted by Richard Nixon]
What we do need is imaginative enlistment of private funds, private energies and private talents in order to develop the opportunities that lie untapped in our own underdeveloped urban heartland. We need incentives to private industry to make acceptable the added risks of ghetto development and of training the unemployed for jobs. Bridges of understanding can be built by revising the welfare rules so that, instead of providing incentives for families to break apart, they provide incentives for families to stay together; so they respect the privacy of the individual; so they provide incentives rather than penalties for supplementing welfare checks with part-time earnings. We must make welfare payments a temporary expedient, not a permanent way of life, something to be escaped from, not to. Our aim should be to restore dignity to life, not to destroy dignity.
[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Actually, Nixon's proposal for public private partnerships for ghetto development was the exact same as Robert Kennedy's Bed-Stu Dev. Corp. set up in 1965. I'm surprised the media didn't realize this, because both of them would've spilled their coffee. [Originally posted by Richard Nixon]
What we do need is imaginative enlistment of private funds, private energies and private talents in order to develop the opportunities that lie untapped in our own underdeveloped urban heartland. We need incentives to private industry to make acceptable the added risks of ghetto development and of training the unemployed for jobs. Bridges of understanding can be built by revising the welfare rules so that, instead of providing incentives for families to break apart, they provide incentives for families to stay together; so they respect the privacy of the individual; so they provide incentives rather than penalties for supplementing welfare checks with part-time earnings. We must make welfare payments a temporary expedient, not a permanent way of life, something to be escaped from, not to. Our aim should be to restore dignity to life, not to destroy dignity.

Which may work were Nixon a Conservative, which I'd argue heavily he isn't. While Nixon's speech may be of a culturally conservative stripe, his policies were Liberal or fit into Liberalism. One cannot fall into the trap of stereotypes about the Welfare state and assumption that they are the true definition. Welfare programs of the kind addressed are not meant as a permanent crutch, but simply as something to offer aid to achieve improvement so as to avoid the need to use the programs of a welfare state. So offering jobs and opportunities to urban communities and the denizens of it is not something I'd call Conservative.
 
Last edited:
Even Thatcher, the bluest of Tories, used PPP's in the mid 80's. I agree with them on that being the optimal solution. Now on social issues, within the context they were liberal, but mostly culturally conservative, with the exception of RFK on abortion, who was tentatively PC policy-wise, but PL personally. "Liberalization if necessary, but not necessarily liberalization." Your Majesty, I never said Nixon was a conservative, but that there was ideological overlap.
 
Last edited:
To move on, the younger generation hasn't really performed to expectations on RFK's side of the family in particular. Criminal charges aplenty, nasty domestic disputes, ultra-liberalism, and more. Of course, the famous Bush-rigged-04-like-Ferdie/GMA article on RS.com is quite sad IMO.
 
Joe actively endorsed Nazi Germany against Britain when he was the US ambassador here, they all actually supported terrorists against Britain and two of them at least caused the deaths of their mistresses. I wouldn't like any family with qualities like that.
 
Top