“Shamalot”

[ndrosen]

P.J. O’Rourke has an article in the December issue of Commentary about President John F. Kennedy, based on a book by Harvard history professor Fredrik Logevall, JFK: Coming of Age in the American Century, 1917-1956. The book, as I understand it, takes a favorable view of JFK, for whose sometimes appalling behavior the author makes excuses; O’Rourke takes a dim view of the man and the whole Kennedy myth, titling his article “Shamalot.” JFK was a philanderer, as we already knew, and seems to have had a full share of human nastiness in other ways; he did have charm, which is not a real substitute for solider virtues. O’Rourke makes a distinction: JFK had charm while alive, but only had charisma posthumously.

I must say that I have long had a rather dim view of the Kennedys and their hangers-on and flatterers; I think it absurd and disgraceful to our republic that being related to an imperfect president who was assassinated while in office has been seen a qualification for public office.

Comments

[cynthia_says_hello]

😆 then you might be relieved to know that the portrait I have of JFK in my house (it was sitting at the platform step on the way upstairs) is not because I am a fan of the late President, it was artwork for my law firm office. Lincoln I do have respect for and was in my home office (along with that Article III calligraphy art) in my previous house.

I’m just moving like a slug in slow motion, when it comes putting up artwork now. 😆🙄😂😂😂💕