Not long ago John F. Kennedy was named as one of the best presidents in USA ever. Now I´ve been seeing some documentaries, showing that his morals weren´t the best possible (thinking mainly of his numerous affairs), maybe he even was a threat for the country in some ways. Apparently his brother Bobby did what he could to cover things up. I´d like to get some balance in my wiew on John Fitzgerald.

I'm not sure why JFK would be held in that high esteem considering he didn't serve 3 full years as President. His summit with Khrushchev in 1961 didn't go well and this was exploited all the way down to the Cuban Missle crisis, where JFK finally stood up and made the Russians blink. He wasn't a fan of NASA and the Apollo program was saved by the fact that LBJ was his vice president. Neil Armstrong might never haved walked on the moon. Kennedy didn't make any major strides in civil rights.

Just some thoughts to chew on.

This is news for me. Kennedy talked about sending a man to the moon (and get him back ) before the end of the 1960´s. Has that been hyped up? Was it only a speach, maybe inspired by Lyndon B?

Kennedy was hardly the only president to have extramarital affairs. If that were really a legitimate criterion for evaluating presidents, this country would have an awful history.

I would say Kennedy was overrated. He had a number of bad gaffes, including the Bay of Pigs debacle and the Vienna Summit, although it wasn't exactly an easy time to be president.

His aggregate ranking is 10 (see Wikipedia "historical rankings of presidents"). This seems high to me.

His leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis is often credited with preventing a nuclear war between the US and the USSR - how accurate that is, I don't know, but if its true, top 10 seems pretty accurate.

That was certainly the high point, and that was big, but I don't see why it should erase the multiple negatives.

Truthfully, one really has to be an expert historian who has spent years studying American presidential history to legitimately rank the presidents, and I am far from that.

Here's my opinon of JFK from much study:

(1) His administration inherited the Bay of Pigs invasion from Eisenhower. The operation was in its implement stage and he chose to take the advice of Eisenhower's advisors that the plan was necessary and likely to be successful.

(2) He and his brother stood firm on school integration. remember his sending troops to the University of Alabama? He has Civil right's legislation in congress which was being stonewalled by the Southern Democratic block which was the power back then. It did take LBJ as president to pass the historic legislation, but JFK started it. Remember LBJ's speech after the assassination where he stated, "Let us continue".

(3) "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage..."
Of course this is well known, but I believe it sums up the biggest point about President Kennedy and why he was important as president. Congress controls legislation, but a president inspires and leads. JFK was the leader of all those people who lived through the depression and conquered evil. They were all in their prime and the county was a strong as it ever was or was ever going to be. He recognized that the 1960's was a time for vitality and inspiration and greater things to come. So I believe that today he embodies that spirit that was destroyed by assassination, and Vietnam.

Blaming Eisenhower for the Bay of Pigs is very shaky. Kennedy refused to provide air support to the Cuban exiles, which was an important part of Eisenhower's plan. Everything fell apart because of that decision. That' on JFK.

If you want to look at presidents as inspirational leaders, look no further than Reagan. He walked into a nation wrought with despair and completely turned it around. America wasn't in a state of despair when Kennedy took office. The 50s were prosperous.

Because nuclear war would be just about the worst thing ever to happen aside from the ice ages and the big meteor. Kennedy could have raped and murdered a million women, but preventing a nuclear war with Russia would still make him one of the most important presidents, lol :P

I guess that's fair. It's kind of like having a 9-7 regular season in the NFL and then winning the Superbowl. You'll always be remembered for what you did in the most critical moments.

Certainly true about Reagan. Following all the problems of the 70's, he was the strong and calming kind of leader the country needed at that time. you might remember how shaky his first two years were, and then he hit his stride. True also about JFK and inheriting the prosperity of the 1950's. My point was that he recognized that and how the prosperity happened, so his stated goals were to build upon that greatness. I think there was more good than bad in those 1000 days, but we'll never be able to truly grade his time.
Just as Reagan embodied the prosperity of the 1980's, Kennedy embodied the potential and vitality of the 1960's - or maybe he embodies the vitality and potential that was wasted by murder and war.

Yup, all very good and true points.

Ronald Regan's historical legacy is totally overrated. Saying he completely turned the country around is a stretch. He gave the old car a new coat of paint but totally ignored the engine for 8 years. did we feel better about ourselves with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the flexing of military muscle? Yes. But we were set up to pay a price for it.

Great analogy, son.