[[Because he’s served his country in a significant capacity (Texas Governor). I’m not saying he’s worthy of such honor, but it certainly makes more sense in his case than it does JFK Jr.'s. ]] PapaBear
Actually, though, he’s been serving his State (marginally), not his Country per se. Of course, he’s a Presidential candidate so that counts for something, but otherwise they both look like the sons of ex-Presidents – and Jon-Jon is a much more popular and well-known one, and for good reason (albeit reasons largely tied to quirks of fate).
Okay, Big Iron. Walk through statuary hall in the Capitol and count the number of governors represented there. Now count the magazine publishers (don’t forget Ben Franklin). Now look through a book on stamps issued by the USPS. How many Governors? How many publishers (again, don’t forget BF)? Take a look at all the ships ever commisioned by the US Navy. How many are named after Governors? Publishers? (There’s Franklin again!).
BTW - IIRC, JFK Jr. was never ambassador to France, delegate to congress nor the inventor of anything.
Your nit-picking is growing tedious! You know damned well that any person who has served as an elected official (Federal or State) is more deserving of honors at the public’s expense than is someone who has never left the private sector.
I think that you are all missing a very important item when it comes to JFK Jr. and don’t get me wrong I too think that there is and was way too much media hype…
What you are all missing is the fact that he is/was the only son of an assassinated President, we all knew that after the murder in Dallas that his kids would have their own pages in history and be under the media microscope, all I’m trying to say is that you all should not be surprised at what the media had done with this story…
I know I’m going to regret continueing this silly debate, BI, but I do feel I need to point out that I’ve already given you three examples of federal institutions that consistantly honor state governors.
But in what way does this prove that it is REALLY a federal interest? JFK, Jr. was a beloved (like it or not) public figure and the son of an assassinated President of the US. His connection to the interests of the Nation as a whole are at least as significant as that of somebody who is Governor of one state (and not a very powerful one, it appears, at that), and who is the son of a President who is the Republican equivalent of Jimmy Carter in the hearts and minds of the Nation.
Hey, if George Dubya’s plane goes down, he’ll merit every bit as much (or more) in search/rescue/recovery, and I have no problem whatsoever if he gets buried at sea or via some federal deal not generally available in practice for the public at large.
“Or perhaps you could split it down party lines. Dems = not enough. Reps = too much!”
As a Republican (from a Chicago suburb), here’s my position, for what it’s worth:
JFK Sr. is almost deified because of his assassination. Yes, he would have voted for the Civil Rights bill, but he didn’t push for it with all his energy in the way LBJ did. And he wasn’t assassinated by right-wingers because he was going to pull the U.S. out of Vietnam, simply because he had no such intention! He sent MORE advisors to Vietnam and made MORE committments to the South Vietnam governments.
This is not to say that JFK wasn’t a good President who put necessary and effective programs (Peace Corps, Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, etc.) in place. Kennedy was and is deserving of respect and honor, if not for these reasons just because he WAS the elected President of the nation. It’s just that he wasn’t the second coming of Solomon like some people now make him out to be.
The JFK Jr. thing got WAY, WAY too much media coverage, especially three-hour-long prime-time-preempting coverage during times when there was NO NEW INFORMATION TO REPORT! On the other hand, JFK Jr. was important to a lot of people who lived through the 1960s, so his disappearance and death DID deserve somewhat more coverage than the disappearance and death of J. Random Citizen or even J. Random Magazine Editor.
Many of the reflexive Kennedy-haters want it both ways: they attribute the bad acts of prior Kennedys (Chappaquidick, bootlegging, etc.) to JFK Jr. but are angered and shocked that other people attribute the good acts of previous Kennedys, especially JFK Sr., to JFK Jr.
Connected to that: Since when did it make someone an Enemy of the People to be rich, handsome, the son of a dead President, and the grandson of a bootlegger?
A) Not giving rich, attractive, and connected people “special treatment” means not doing them special favors, but it also means not automatically hating and defaming them. Reflexive celebrity bashing is as unjustified as blind celebrity worship.
B) Since when did the Prohibition crimes of Joe Kennedy mean that JFK Jr. is thus morally suspect?? What ever happened to that “no corruption of blood” thing in the Constitution?
The Coast Guard, Civil Air Patrol, and local, county, and state law enforcement officers respond to ALL missing and lost planes and boats, not just celebrities, with an intensive search. It is an insult to these public servants who risk their very lives at not-particularly-high salaries (or NO pay in the case of the volunteer CAP!) to save people to assert that they don’t make intensive searches for “common” people when they disappear.
That said, additional resources from the Navy, NOAA, etc. were committed to the search. By order of President Clinton, an acquaintance, if not a good friend, of the Kennedys. What was he supposed to say: “Sorry, I’m the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, but I won’t commit a single extra ship or airplane to find a lost and probably endangered friend of mine because I can’t commit Navy vessels to every search and rescue operation and I don’t want to be perceived as unfair.” Huh?!?! Would that be a human response?
Is it really a major ripoff of the American taxpayer to send ONE warship into territorial waters (not even the open sea) to do a burial at sea of the son of a former President and his wife? Are we a Third World country, that we have to ration out fuel to our Navy by the gallon and only send out one destroyer on patrol at a time?
