I don’t doubt he has a good moral compass or that he’s compassionate. And the rest of the candidates, they want to change America for the worst? This comment is based all on emotion and little on the facts. My post on the other hand, compares and contrasts his words with his voting record. Those are called facts in most places.

Kevin

Kevin is spot on with his analysis. The Dems would like people to believe that Obama is the next JFK. That’s how all of the new Democrat shining stars are always portrayed by the media who is betting you don’t know what JFK really stood for. Dukakis, Mondale, Clinton, Kerry, and to a lesser degree Gore (that comparison strains the outer limits of credulity)and now Obama have all been the heir to JFK’s “throne.”

The only problem with these comparisons is that the American people don’t buy it. As Kevin noted, JFK was in many regards a modern day conservative. (His supply side tax cuts, his anti-Communist positions, his support for Dr. King’s “color blind society” which many southern Dems segregationists like Al Gore Sr. opposed, his opposition to the Great Society programs supported by many of his fellow Dems and Harvard advisors including LBJ, and his and RFK’s steadfast support for Joe McCarthy, all point to a very conservative Democrat.)If Loyd Benson were alive today, I think he would probably say to Obama, “Barak, I knew JFK, and Barak, you’re no JFK.”

Kevin correctly points out that any comparison of B. Hussein Obama, Hillary, or Gore- all outright Marxists in thier core beliefs and positions- to JFK, is totally bogus and meant to appeal to mainstream voters (i.e. right of center conservatives and independants).

Kevin is correct. Obabma is another Teddy Kennedy. He comes nowhere close to John F. Kennedy. The elite media know this but comparing him to Teddy wouldn’t really enhance his appeal to voters would it Giancarlo?

Gregg

Of course Sorenson knew Kennedy better than I did. That’s why his view of Obama is so unrealistic. He desperately wants Obama to be the next JFK, somebody he idolized his whole life, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. That’s the whole point.

I haven’t taken anything out of context. I cite his ratings by interest groups that are based on his votes. What could be more straight forward. He voted, they rated and I reported. Everything is linked to.

I may not know who “your constituency” is, but but from the tone of your comment, I’m quite sure I know where they reside. On the moral high ground.

And whoever they are, you do them a “disservice” by making demonstrably false claims about the post.

A single crack against Clinton’s philandering, but there is not a single “cheap shot” in this post. I’m not a political conservative, as I said in the post. You missed that point as well. And you found “rhetoric” on a political blog, I’m shocked, shocked.

To summarize, your comment was filled with more rhetoric and political cheap shots that the post itself. Other than that, nice to hear from you.

Kevin

I think Ted Sorensen knew JFK a little better than you do and is probably better prepared to make that comparison if he found it fitting.

All you’ve done in this article is taken pieces of legislation out of context. I think you’re probably a bit more sensible and intelligent than that.

There is nothing wrong with conservatives having their own views on government. But you do a disservice to your constituency by resorting to political cheapshots and rhetoric.