JFK on Choices

JFK on the First 100 Days

JFK on Communism

JFK on Opinion

On Trump's Failed Pivot to Normalcy

As the 2016 Republican Presidential Primaries drew towards a close and Donald Trump (R-NY) had the nomination locked up, his new campaign manager Paul Manafort promised that Trump 2.0 would be more serious and his image would change.

Well, it's after the balloon drop at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and the song remains the same. Trump continues to eschew party unity by denigrating his fellow Republicans, steps on his own message by doubling down on bizarre conspiracy theories about his opponent's families and wantonly alienates important voter segments by viciously counter-punching at every perceived slight.


Continually Smearing Cruz 

Fox News panelist and Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes chronicled several of the general election missteps in the immediate aftermath of the RNC in CLE.  It is mind boggling that after a smooth convention in Cleveland that stressed party unity that Trump used a press conference the next day to revive the rumor that Senator Ted Cruz's father Rafael was involved in the conspiracies around the assassination of JFK in 1963 because it was published in the National Enquirer.

So instead of capitalizing on the image of GOP unity or putting forth a focused general election campaign message, people chattered about this crazy conspiracy talk.  That stepped on his message. Now Trump may have wanted Cruz to acquiesce and kiss the ring (before he held the news conference saying that he didn't want the endorsement) but to use this tact to disparage Cruz's political future was stupid and leaned towards the loony.

Cruz supporters did not appreciate attacks on the leading Republican challenger. Going against Cruz for perceived sins of the father seems scummy. And to use a questionable National Enquirer photo expose shows that he's not serious. Trump may have been trying to forgo a challenge to re-election in 2020 but first he need to be elected. In the event that Trump is successful in November, he will need every vote in the Senate to have his Supreme Court nominations approved. Alienating a legislative ally is not smart.

The Wrath of Khan

{L] Ghazala and [R] Kzir Khan at DNC in Philadelphi 

Another Trump faux pas was continued attacks against the parents of a Gold Star family who lost their son in 2004 who spoke against him at the DNC in Philadelphia. Rather than respect the sharp critique of Khazi Khan who's son was sacrificed in preserving America's liberty, Trump went after the family. First, Trump questioned why the Pakistani immigrant's wife was silence, giving a dog whistle to those wanting a Muslim ban.  Then Trump questioned if Kahn was giving the speech.  Trump surrogate Roger Stone suggested that Khan may be part of the  Muslim Brotherhood.  That would be a neat trick for a Pakistani family to join an Egyptian based organization. When Mr. Kahn appeared on morning television shows, Trump live tweeted that it was all about Islamic Terrorism.

Thus Trump slanders the family and conflates Muslim with Islamist terrorists.  Pro-tip: If you are going to sympathetic foes, have the good sense to leave it to your surrogates. And reign in your attack dogs to not be too outrageous in their indictments. In Trump parlance: Get smart.

So Trump revived the racist perception of the Muslim ban, displays what can be interpreted as religious bigotry about propriety of women speaking, conflates Muslim with terrorism and seems to denigrate the sacrifice of the Khan's son in pursuit of scoring political points.

Many people have taken verbal pot shots at former President George W. Bush's War in Iraq.  Grieving mother turned political activist Cindy Sheehen would often give the 43rd President an earful for the mess in Mesopotamia. But Bush would grieve with the families, silently take their verjuice and then make policy without attacking Gold Star families.

With Trump's continued attacks on the Khans, Gold Star Family organizations are clamoring for an apology from Trump.  Thus Trump's thin-skin and instinct to always attack is alienating a segment of voters who would be likely to support him.  Considering the way that Trump was booed by crowds in Denver after Trump denigrated General John Allen (who also spoke at the DNC) as a loser, maybe Trump doesn't think that he needs the military vote anyways.

Many establishment Republicans and anti-Hillary activists are trying to convince principled conservatives to give in and vote to Trump, because the alternative is so much worse.  Maybe. But Trump is not making it easy to make that Hobson's choice. Trump continues to act impulsively, engaging his mouth before his brain, picking stupid fights and then doubling down, pursuing a short term strategy for momentary ratings. These are not hallmarks of leadership in America.

Stephen Hayes was spot on about Trump's failed pivot to normalcy. It is unbecoming of a leader. No wonder Hillary Clinton's campaign will now focus on how Trump is unfit for leading America.  Now that the GOP nominated him, they are going to have to spend the next hundred days trying to minimize the damage from unpredictable, impolitic and sometimes untenable ejaculations from their nominee. Good luck.

JFK on Leadership

John F. Kennedy on Communism

Obama's White House Channels JFK?

In response to the uproar over President Obama normalizing relations with Cuba without gaining any real concessions from the Castros, White House spokesman Josh Earnest invoked the spirit of JFK.  Earnest intimated that President Kennedy would change his policy of isolation after seeing that it did not bring about the desired change.

Really?  Is this wisdom akin to Mr. Obama's assertion that he heard the 2/3rds of Americans who did not participate in the Midterms shellacking of President Obama's Democrats in the House and Senate?  Of course, such perspecaciousness is unsurprising for a Commander-in-Chief who can see fallen heroes in a Memorial Day audience, especially Navy Corpsemen (sic). 

While the left and the right may seek to claim the mantle of Camelot after 50 years, it certainly seems like a stretch to imply that a Cold Warrior such as JKF, would give up for nothing.  After all, President Kennedy gave the final  approved for the Bay of Pigs invasion (before he withdrew air cover during the operation thus dooming the mission).  And Kennedy stood up to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Furthermore, JFK  plotted several assassination attempts against Fidel.  It seems with his spurious assertion that Josh Earnest continues to be the ironic Obama spokesman.

But pro arguendo, should American foreign policy toward economically isolating Havana change after 50 years?  Well, 190 other nations have not been observing the boycott and what sort of political and economic liberalization has occurred in the island prison state?   Hmm, foreign tourists enjoy white  sandy beaches in Cuba but are cordoned off from the grime the common people live with through tourist apartheid separated by barbed wire fences.  Many regular Cubans seek to work as "sex workers" since prostitutes can garner some hard currency from tips.  Western companies can invest, but they must partner with the kleptocratic communist Cuban government  which keeps 92% of the joint venture worker's salary.

Then consider President Obama's diplomatic skills.  Once again, the 44th President is coddling a dictatorial government who is actively opposed to our interests, without winning anything in return. Wonder what our Dear Leader will offer Kim Jong Un in the wake of Sony Hack Attack in appeasement?

h/t: A.F. Branco 

JFK on Policy

Remarkable Instance of Keeping the Faith with JFK

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Hobby Lobby (2014) which allowed closely held corporations to follow deeply held religious tenets and not pay for abortifacients which kill human life, the United States Senate considered S. 2578, the so called "Protect Womens' Health From Corporate Interference Bill".

One of the more poignant speeches during the Senate floor debate was by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  Cruz observed that the practical effect of S. 2578 would gut the Free Exercise of Religion clause from the First Amendment of the Constitution and impose federal will upon all 50 states through the supremacy clause. 

To bolster his argument, Senator Cruz concluded his speech by boldly invoking John F. Kennedy's quote on religious liberty to condemn so called "faith fines". 

Seasoned political junkies realize that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought S. 2578 to a vote as a cheap political stunt which had no actual chance of passage but would gin up a liberal base through identity politics and scare tactic campaigns during a tough election cycle.  While the bill won the votes of all Democrat Senators and a few RINO Republicans (Murkowski, Kirk, and Collins), it failed the cloture vote 56-43, with the Senate Majority Leader switching sides for the ability to vote on it again later.

While this vote on S. 2578 was doomed for legislative failure is instructive.  Senate Democrats seem to care more about partisan politics and elections than respecting Federalism, the First Amendment and Religious Liberty. Cruz quoting JFK spotlights the progress (and arguably the devolution) of the modern Democrat party.  And the episode shows how Christianity is endangered even in America,

A Brief Book Review: The End of Days by James Swanson

The End of Days : The Assassination of John F. Kennedy by James Swanson (Harper Collins, 2013 398 pages) is a readily readable account of the four days in November 1963. The author’s title was intended to be a metaphor which marked the end of days for JFK as well as naivite for the nation.

Swanson is a skilled writer who was able to condense 80 pages of source notes into a page turning murder mystery story without the mystery.  Swanson firmly believes  that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, and Swanson’s story gives no credence to the proliferation of conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination which have been circulating over the last fifty years.

Swanson gives 60 pages of background switching between the 35th President and his assassin in a parallel lives narrative style before their lives start to intersect in Texas.

***

One of the virtues of the End of Days was giving insight into Lee Harvey Oswald’s mindset by way of recounting Oswald’s appearances on New Orleans radio programs during the summer of 1963 supporting the Fair Play for Cuba cause.

***

Swanson’s short history of the Kennedy Administration does not whitewash the young Democrat President’s philandering foibles but it does not focus on it.  Kennedy is portrayed as a fervent anti-Communist who was positioning himself for his run for re-election on a pro-growth, tax cutting theme.  These traits are often ignored in other retellings of the American “Camelot”.

The End of Days also adroitly points out the imaging campaign which the widowed Jacqueline Kennedy used to immortalize her assassinated husband’s Administration as Camelot

***

The detailed account of the run up to the dastardly deed, the manhunt and the interrogation of the perpetrator was masterful.  Since the Oswald murder by Jack Ruby and the state funeral were televised live and became iconic images imprinted on the American psyche, Swanson alludes to a couple of these scenes.  Unfortunately, The End of Days did not seem to have reproduction rights for the photo of Lee Harvey Oswald just before he was shot or little John John’s salute of the casket.

***

Although The End of Days read like a Murder Mystery in which the reader knows what will happen, there were a couple of instances when the foreboding background voice of the fate that awaits seemed overwrought. The ending of the book seemed rushed in trying to tie up the loose ends about concerns about Robert Kennedy becoming President Lyndon Johnson’s Vice President and Jackie O’s estrangement from American popular focus.

While I enjoyed reading “The End of Days”, his media appearances had me expecting a little more.

***

The End of Days would neither satisfy a Sixth Floor Museum devotee nor a convicted conspiracy type, but Swanson was not writing for that audience.  If someone wants to read a true life potboiler chock full of facts about the JFK assassination, they should consider reading James Swanson’s “The End of Days.”

SEE MORE at DCBarroco.com 

Obama's Inconsiderate "Resolute-tions"

Much of the power of the Presidency resounds in projecting unarticulated messages through imagery, architecture  and history.  In the film The American President (1995), President Shepherd (Michael Douglas) told his chagrined lobbyist/love interest (Annette Benning):

You know that when the city planners sat down to design Washington, DC, their intention was to build a city that would intimidate and humble foreign heads of state... The White House has the single greatest home court advantage in the world. 

But it is not just the buildings nor the monuments of the Ellipse which speak volumes.  Sometimes even the furniture is fraught with meaning.

The desk which many Presidents have chosen to sit in the Oval Office as their work desk is known as the Resolute Desk.  The Resolute Desk is comprised of timbers taken from the HMS Resolute, a British exploration ship abandoned during the Belcher Expedition in the Arctic in 1855 but recovered by an American whaler and presented to Queen Victoria in 1856.

The British presented the large partners desk to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880.  The desk has twice been modified. President Franklin Roosevelt had the knee hole enlarged to accommodate his knee braces.  A door with a modified Presidential seal was intended for FDR but President Truman liked it so much that he kept the installation.

The President's desk projects a sense of style and authority.  The photo of President John F. Kennedy sitting at the Resolute desk as his son played with the door at the bottom of the desk is iconic.

President John F. Kennedy working at the Resolute Desk with his son  (1962)

That is why many have taken umbrage with President Obama's persistent inconsiderate "Resolute"-ness.  The Obama White House is deliberate about all photo/ops, particularly in the Oval Office. So when Mr. Obama is photographed speaking to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH 8th) regarding a potential strike on Syria due to chemical weapons use, the President was not just stretching his legs.  

President Obama telephoning House Speaker John Boehner Aug. 31, 2013

But this is not the first time the President Obama has made a Resolute faux pas while conducting foreign policy.  Early in Mr. Obama's first term, the 44th President had both feet on the desk when telephonically chatting with Israeli Prime Minister  Binyamin Netanyahu in 2009. 

President Obama speaking to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2009

This photo stirred controversy in Israel since in that part of the world it is a sign of supreme disrespect to show the sole of one's shoe to another.

To be fair, President Obama is not the only commander-in-chief to treat the Resolute desk casually.  Early in the Presidency of George W. Bush, the 43rd President is being briefed by Chief of Staff Andy Card and Special Advisers Karen Hughes and Karl Rove with his feet on the Resolute.

President George W. Bush in the Oval Office.

On the one hand, President Ronald Reagan refused to enter the Oval Office without wearing a jacket as a sign of respect for the Office.  On the other hand, President George W. Bush was aghast at his predecessor President Bill J. Clinton being photographed wearing running shorts in the Oval Office.  Oh, if that were the only thing at which to be aghast during Clinton's tenure in the Oval Office.

The public should be mindful that these are just snapshots, but they certainly color the narrative.   For instance, after President Obama finished his talk with Speaker Boehner on Syria, he then announced that Congress would vote on the matter, but that the President felt that he still retained the authority to strike.  Afterwards, President Obama went out to golf.

So when President Obama makes his big speech about Syria on Tuesday, will the American public consider his manner and leadership resolute?  Or will they they think of the Vanity Fair article which dubbed Obama "The Lean Back President"  which reflects poorly as a leader seeking taking America to war?

John Kennedy on Negotiations