Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Are you suggesting that JFK coopted Television
and that's the only reason a puppet wasn't elected.
A mistake that has been corrected and never happened
again, at least, not in television. Wasn't Obama internet elected?
What side do you think he's on. And doesn't this mean that we have
an opportunity to scoop TPTB and sneek in a cell phone president elect.
David Grouchy
Kennedy did not co-opt television but used the medium of TV brilliantly. How his appearance was orchestrated indicated expert, behind the scene's
packaging of JFK's persona. Nixon's failure to appreciate the visual and emotional impact may have been it's relatively recent use in the political
medium. Just as Obama exploited the interactive experience that is the internet, JFK used the still young medium of TV. In a time when most people had
B&W TV's, the contrast of light and shadow, was critical, often requiring heavy make up for a more "life like" appearance. Nixon was asked if he
wanted make up. We know he refused. We'll never know if he knew how important it was. More likely at that time even people in the public eye did not
know the effort required to act "smooth" on TV. It was a medium largely thought of as entertainment, not "serious" news. It's hard work to make
it look like it's no work at all. Later people polled on who won the debate's had an interesting response. Those who watched it on TV voted
overwhelmingly for Kennedy. Those who heard it on radio said Nixon clearly won. Like Obama and his use of the internet, Kennedy took advantage of
those properties that would exemplify his attractive trait's, namely his appearance and physical charisma.
Obama took advantage of the Internet, and like Kennedy used TV's ability to package a message with greater texture. The internet gives users the
ability to interact and affect political events. The greater the degree of involvement in a medium, the more relevant people feel they are. It's
usually true As a medium it's appeal is to feel more like a participant then just an observer.
I mentioned JFK to point out the true reach of political power is limited. When the exercise of that power runs contrary to the wish's of certain
cabal's, a reaction is not uncommon. What happened to JFK is an extreme example. JFK was not killed just because the "wrong guy" won, but because
of the reaction to what he did. Not everything is a conspiracy from start to finish, but something's are. More often what appears like a conspiracy
is opportunistic behavior. To say JFK was elected because he was more telegenic then Nixon is only partially true. He also had help. JFK was helped by
element's of organized crime, in particular Sam Giancana, and the "Outfit" (mafia) out of Chicago. His win was by a razor thin margin. No doubt
they helped. Winning the Presidency alone was not what condemned him, but what he and more specifically RFK did after he won. There was always
associations with different groups on all sides, legal or other wise. Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa (who RFK put in jail) when elected. Who was/is in bed
with whom (in a manner of speaking) has always been a murky, shifting and opportunistic reality.
From trying to destroy organized crime, how he handled Cuba, and was going to get the US of Vietnam, he managed to p**s off whole section's of power.
People ask who wanted to kill JFK? It's less complicated to ask who didn't, which boils down to Jackie, Bobby, and the Boston Rotary Club. As far
as Obama, being elected by the internet, as a medium that is more difficult to control from a central base, for now it remains a wild card. On one
hand it gives people access to vast amounts of information, and more important it's manipulation. That may change. Something so powerful makes it's
effect ultimately unpredictable. Governments fear "unpredictable" more then a full scale riot. They know how to put down a riot. For those like me
who like the open exchange of idea's, one vulnerability of the Net is evident in it's fingerprint. It's multiple server decentralization is not as
decentralized as it appears. And while it's likely to be noticed if an organization takes over TV and radio stations by force it's not as obvious if
they replace management. The same would apply to the Net, but be even more subtle.
One last point on the "mood" that many had at high level's of the government, ant in particular the military. It may be the ultimate irony that
Kennedy was viewed specifically after the Cuban missile crises as a loose cannon by so many. Excusing his associations with the mob, and his
reckless womanizing, on all of which Hoover was taking notes (the old joke being if he slept around as much as people say, he'd be in a jar at
Harvard), I think his actions prevented WW-3. The point may be mute but Nixon was Eisenhower's action officer for operation Mongoose. I think when
executed Nixon would have gone all out and do what Kennedy didn't and was hated for, send in air cover. I would have, or there would have been no
attack at all. But in October 1962 after we saw the missile's JFK was under enormous pressure to launch a pre-smart bomb "surgical" strike. Then a
contradiction indeed. JFK"s caution at that point may have saved have million's because of tactical nukes on Cuban beach's, some controlled by men
the rank of sargent's, and sub's shadowing our carriers armed with nuclear torpedo's.
I think taking advantage of an opportunity is not just simpler then the manipulation of events by a grand conspiracy, but whats behind many of them.
It doesn't have the fingerprint of a conspiracy because it isn't. It's just people making the most of a situation, hey that's entrepreneurial. I
believe most apparent conspiracies involve being a shrewd observer, and adaptive opportunist with a great sense of timing.
