A family who's existence was derived by Grandpa Joe, who was Irish mafia, a bootlegger / criminal. Joe bought the Presidency for JFK (who was no liberal- he was a capitalist and big time chauvinist, yet liberals identify with him because other Kennedys support socialism- TEDDY). The family is filled with drunks, druggies, bums and wannabe politicians who all represent socialism. Teddy was a DUI manslaughter'r, a druggie, drunk, womanizer BUT the only Kennedy successful at doing anything, you can't say Ted is not a powerful legislator, albeit socialist.
The media fawns over this family, who is the latter day Lindsey Lohans. Because 2 of them were murdered, the 2 have become martyrs. Both Jack and Robert betrayed the Italian mafia who had helped them so much, the media worships them and shoves them down the throat of the public, as if we all are not aware what a rotten, no-good group of elitist hedonists, the Kennedys really are (not counting Jackie or her kids, she kept them away).
2007-08-02 14:28:23 · 16 answers · asked by ? 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I've often wondered the same. If I here that term "Camelot" again when referring to Kennedy's Presidency, I just may puke. Enough is enough. I agree with you. Would you please run for President so I will have someone I can vote for? You sound like my kind of person!
2007-08-02 14:32:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Probably nothing. The Kennedy family likely told the Kopechnes that Mary Jo got drunk and joined the circus. When the family got lippy about it, the Kennedys likely waved Teddy's empty bottle of Chivas Regal in the Kopechne family's faces and told them how unfortunate it would be to read about Mary Jo's drinking problem and how she drove the car over the bridge (with their angel Teddy in the passenger's seat) in the press. How it would besmirch the reputation of a fine and promising young lady. . . And how much would the Kopechnes like to pay the Kennedy family to keep Mary Jo's drinking problem out of the press?
2016-05-21 04:41:55 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are a fading, nostalgic memory for the Baby Boomers whose eyes were first politically opened during the John Kennedy 60's. He was the political rock star of his era. Since, demographically now, most of the nation was born long after the height of the Kennedy mania and feels no personal pull to him, the phenomena is only kept active by media types that started their political awareness at the time and long for the good old days of their youth. And they're rapidly heading into retirement.
Another ten years and all Kennedys will become historical figures (ala Wilson and FDR) and not really relevant to any current political environment.
2007-08-02 14:50:13 · answer #3 · answered by nileslad 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question itself is flawed. Somewhere, somehow, you've acquired the notion that there's this huge entity called "liberal U.S. media". Wrong. False. Stay away from those conservative pundits, son-- they'll rot your brain.
See, if you ever did even the faintest amount of real research, you might discover just how bogus that notion is. It is really mind-boggling that some people still cling to this phrase, or worse, they just can't connect the dots. Whitewash is pretty effective, I guess.
But you really make me laugh, a lot harder when you dribble out your witless attitudes about 'socialism'. What the hell do you know about it? Do you realize employee unions have given you everything you have in your life? Get back to us when you've spent some time at the library, child. I certainly don't have the time to school you.
2007-08-02 14:37:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Is this really what the conservatives are bringing to the table? Whining about the freakin' Kennedy family? I know discussing non-existent non-issues is less painful than discussing Bush's disastrous presidency, Gonzales' incompetent, Katrina, the deficit and the myriad of other GOP failures, but really....The KENNEDY FAMILY??? I haven't seen them covered since John Jr.'s plane crash, and that was years ago. You'd be more credible whining about how Bill Clinton is really to blame for all of Bush's mistakes....
2007-08-02 14:38:04 · answer #5 · answered by truth be told 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, in about 500 words you gace a pretty good answer to your own question. I think it was that so many people in the 1960's thought they could relate to the Kennedys, and now want to wash their hands of them by reading all of the books bashing them. If they knew in 1960 what they know now you'd never have heard of them.
2007-08-02 14:59:46 · answer #6 · answered by Patrick M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Assasination was probably the best thing you coulda done for the Kennedy legacy. JFK never had time to prove what a jerk he really was.
2007-08-02 14:45:04 · answer #7 · answered by vladoviking 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are not as there is no such thing as a "liberal media."
All great families of wealth have hideous secrets and skeletons in their closet. I would assume because the Kennedy's are far more likable than some of the others. They at least pretended to be relatable to the common man and to an extent were. Unlike the Bush family were Bush Sr., was amazed at a grocery store checkout counter as he had never seen one before.
2007-08-02 14:34:14 · answer #8 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
you must be a lunatic...JFK did some great stuff for this country, and was assinated. So was RFk. Another part of the family died in a plane accident. If they were socialist why the hell did oswald, who lived in the god damn USSR, kill him? Why are cons so obsessed with bashing a family that has been threw so many terrible things? Do you have a soul?
2007-08-02 14:33:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because it was "Camelot". The Kennedy brothers were, to many, Knight in Shining armor trying to do what was best for America and both were killed before they could accomplish their goals. I liked JFK and RFK and JFK Jr., the rest of them leave much to be desired.
2007-08-02 14:33:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋