+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Breaking silence after half-a-century (/thread-553076.html)
Breaking silence after half-a-century - Native Georgian - 02-05-2012 09:14 PM
A woman who worked in JFK's White House as an intern has published a memoir:
http://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-Secret-President-Aftermath/dp/1400069106/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328488063&sr=1-1
She was 19 when it started, and is 69 now. That is a long time to keep quiet about something that was both a formative event in her own life, and that would have been a subject of overwhelming public interest (think OJ + Princess Diana) if it had been known at the time. Even now, in 2012, I still predict it will generate a fair amount of media-attention.
Her 50 years of silence is both rational and admirable in many ways, and I don't know what prompted her to tell her story now as opposed to any other time. But I can't help but think how, if she had tried to tell this story in the 1960s or the 1970s or the 1980s, she would have been denounced, attacked, condemned as a liar or worse, and generally given the kind of workout in the mainstream media that (for example) Sarah Palin and Ken Starr have been given in more recent times. If any of Ms. Alford's family had tried to defend her, then they would have come under attack as well.
Those were the years when most media-liberals ardently shielded Kennedy's legacy from any unpleasant facts, and spoke of his memory in the same tones of hushed reverence they use to speak of (for example) Martin King Jr's memory today. It is understandable that Ms. Alford would not have wanted to incur the wrath of people like that. It is also ironic, since many of those same people will now -- now that liberals no longer feel invested in preserving JFK's reputation -- react to her disclosures by saying "So what? We knew this all along."
RE: Breaking silence after half-a-century - Native Georgian - 02-06-2012 10:08 PM
(02-05-2012 09:14 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: Even now, in 2012, I still predict it will generate a fair amount of media-attention.It's going to be the main story on NBC News this Wednesday, with interview clips being used on the "Today" show Mon-Tues-Wed., followed by a "new" interview on Thursday's show. Also the New York Post had a fairly long article about this on Sunday.
RE: Breaking silence after half-a-century - UConn-SMU - 02-06-2012 10:57 PM
I agree with what you wrote, but I was surprised that you quoted yourself.
I think the liberal media will generally ignore her.
RE: Breaking silence after half-a-century - UConn-SMU - 02-06-2012 10:58 PM
(02-06-2012 10:57 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: I agree with most of what you wrote, but I was surprised that you quoted yourself.
I think the liberal media will generally ignore her.
I concur.
RE: Breaking silence after half-a-century - Native Georgian - 02-06-2012 11:02 PM
LOL, I was trying to show some examples of what I had claimed would happen.
RE: Breaking silence after half-a-century - I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou - 02-07-2012 09:17 AM
I want to see the video...
RE: Breaking silence after half-a-century - AtlanticLeague - 02-07-2012 09:22 AM
I don't think this will get that much coverage for the simple fact that it's not that shocking. We all knew that JFK had mistresses, tons of them.
RE: Breaking silence after half-a-century - Native Georgian - 02-07-2012 10:08 AM
(02-07-2012 09:22 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote: I don't think this will get that much coverage for the simple fact that it's not that shocking. We all knew that JFK had mistresses, tons of them.I guess the term "that much coverage" is open to interpretation. I certainly don't think this is going to get Super-Bowl-like attention. More like a Wild-Card game or a divisional game.
But my point in starting this thread was to comment how different the woman's story will be received by the media now, as opposed to how it would have been received in, say, 1973. Now, people shrug their shoulders and say "Yeah, JFK was like that." Then, people would have denounced her as a liar, fantasist, whore, "protecting Nixon", etc., etc., etc. That kind of shift in attitude is interesting to me. Also, when it comes to our national political leaders, I think we -- all of us -- are better off knowing the full truth abut them, as opposed to not knowing. People should go back and look over some of the Kennedy books that were published in the 20 years or so after his death. Watch some clips of the tv-movies that were made (Martin Sheen's in particular). Liberals acted as if JFK were a god.
Also, check some of the liberal websites like Huffington Post to see their reaction. It's interesting that they are not really denying the woman's story, but still accusing her of doing it for the money (she's already rich), and being resentful of her for "bringing shame to a dead man", while simultaneously denying that JFK's affairs mattered in the first place. (But why is it shameful if it doesn't matter?). Also interesting because Nixon is just as dead as Kennedy, yet every time some new batch of his tape-recordings is made public, there are plenty of liberals of a certain age who just start salivating at the thought of hearing Nixon's latest racist or anti-Semitic remark while rambling to his aides in his office. A shame we will never get to hear JFK or FDR unload whatever was on their mind at the end of the day!