>>>>>I thought that John, who almost everyone agreed was a good and decent man who did quiet works of charity graciously, also had the potential at some point in the future to lead this country out of the swamp that it has become. It was reassuring to me to have him in the background, and I believe he could have played a pivotal role.<<<<<
Merely on the basis of his family? If so, please forgive me, but how creepy. Haven't we gone beyond believing in hereditary nobility in this country? George W. Bush, for example, has been an effective governer of Texas for two terms ~ I am sure you don't like him, but at least you have to agree that he has proven himself worthy of consideration as a future national leader, whereas JFK, Jr. never did anything of similar caliber. He was a pleasant man, I agree in advance. It is always surprising to see wealthy men behave well, but it is hardly worthwhile electing someone to public office merely because his father was important and he, himself, is pleasant. |
