• The Kennedy Men Web site • Live Online Transcripts • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more

The Kennedy Men
With Laurence Leamer
Author
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001; Noon EST

How did Joeseph P. Kennedy become one of the Richest men in America? What were the defining moments of John F. Kennedy's life? What was it like for Teddy Kennedy to follow in the footsteps of his older brothers?

Author Laurence Leamer was online to take questions and comments on his newest book "The Kennedy Men: 1901-1963."

Leamer is the author of numerous biographies including "The Kennedy Women," "King of Night: The Life of Johnny Carson" and "Make Believe: The Story of Nancy and Ronald Reagan." He was an associate editor at Newweek and has had is work published in Harpers, New York, Washingtonian, New Republic, Travel and Leisure among others.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Laurence Leamer: I'm glad to be here. This is the first time I've done this on my computer. It's like answering E-mail in the morning. So here we go.

Washington, D.C.: Why did you cut it off in 1963? Wouldn't it at least have made more sense to take it through Bobby's assasination? Or are you planning a sequel to cover Bobby's campaign, Teddy's rise and the next generation?

Laurence Leamer: The original idea was to tell the whole story in one volume. I had so much new information that I simply couldn't do it in one volume. So now I'm getting busy writing the second volume that will carry the story all the way to today. The research is mainly done, but it's such a different story. It doesn't have the narrative spine of the first volume, and I'm interested myself in just how it will come out. It's much more based on interviews than the first volume.

Alexandria, Va.: Is it true that the only reason John F. Kennedy's PT Boat was hit was because he had made a mistake? I have heard this rumor but do not have any specifics. Thank you.

Laurence Leamer: I think Kennedy got a bad wrap on that. I talked to one veteran who was on a PT boat in the Pacific and he said his boat had almost been hit by a Japanese destroyer. Imagine it was pitch black. You could see nothing out there. And suddenly this destroyer is bearing down on Kennedy's boat. He could be so terribly reckless, but I think he handled himself well here. He swam with one of his men who was injured for a number of hours to a tiny island. The next night he swam out seeking rescue. That was classic Kennedy. It was courageous but it was also a little bit crazy. If he had come upon a friendly boat and flashed his light, he might well have been killed.

Washington, D.C.: I just read an AP story this morning that says that an enormous and valuable collection of original photograph negatives of JFK taken by photographer Jacques Lowe were destroyed in the Sept. 11th attack on the World Trade Center. (They had been stored in a vault at Chase Manhattan's site at 5 WTC.).

According to the wire story, there were approximately 40,000 images on those negatives -- including some of the more famous images of the President.

Any thoughts on this?

Obviously, even with this information, it is impossible to see Sept. 11th as more of a tragedy than it already is -- thousands of people died. And yet, it still is poignant.

This causes me to ask: Do you think JFK would have been surprised (and/or in any way disturbed) by his ongoing icon status? Or, would he have understood (as a student of history) that a youung leader struck down in his prime would naturally gain this kind of place in American culture?

washingtonpost.com: JFK Negatives Lost in Trade Center (AP, Dec. 6, 2001)

Laurence Leamer: I saw the same story. Lowe was in my opinion the most artistic of the Kennedy photographers. He took many extraordinary photos. He was a peculiar man. After Bobby's death, he left the country for many years. He had a loft in lower Manhattan where I went to see him. He was quite secretive about his collection. The tragedy about the loss is that I'm sure there are not copies of all those photos.

Washington, D.C.: On the day when President Bush recently named the Justice Dept. HQ after Robert Kennedy, CNN continually played (on a loop) footage which I think was filmed during his 1964 Senate campaign: RFK is standing at a microphone at an event, and Rose Kennedy keeps stepping up to whisper something in his ear.

It's very cute. The two of them are joking with each other. They seem to be having fun.

Of all the Kennedy moments, somehow this one always "gets to me" emotionally. If it is indeed from '64 (I have always assumed it was), I can't help but empathize with Mrs. Kennedy -- knowing that one of her sons had died less than a year earlier, yet not knowing that this son would die similarly.

Was she afraid for Robert Kennedy when he decided to enter elective politics? For Ted?

Laurence Leamer: Rose was a true political woman, the daughter of Boston's mayor. She grew up standing on political platforms, acting as Boston's first lady since her mother was quite reclusive. She was afraid for her surviving sons but she also believed that they belonged in public life. She was a woman of monumental faith or she never could have gone on. Teddy was her favorite and she was happy when he backed off seeking the presidency. She felt he had burdens enough.

Washington, D.C.: What rumors would you most like to put to rest about the Kennedy family?

Laurence Leamer: One rumor that I think I've nailed in my book is the whole sordid Judith Exner Campbell saga. Exner was one of innumerable women who had an affair with JFK. She's the only one who parlayed it into a livelihood. From 1988 on she kept making grandiose "revelations"--that she had carried hundreds of thousands of dollars to the mob from Kennedy, that she was pregnant with his baby but aborted it. I show in my book how she only worked for a month her entire life and made her living off men. I show how some of America's leading journalists paid her thousands of dollars in "expenses." And each time they gave her money she came up with a new tale. It's a distressing commentary on American journalism. Beyond that, I don't think there's one rumor but a whole climate of rumor about the Kennedys that I hope I've dealt with in my book. It's far from a valentine but I think it's well documented. I do wish some of these journalists who paid Exner would have the guts to stand up and admit what they did.

Arlington, Va.: Why did the Kennedys get along so well with the Hollywood crowd? Politics? Lifestyle? This was before Hollywood was a mandatory stop for Democratic fundraisers.

Laurence Leamer: Joe Kennedy was the head of his own studio and lived with Gloria Swanson in Hollywood. How's that for openers? Jack Kennedy was fascinated by Hollywood. After World War II he came out to Los Angeles and tried to figure out how one became a star. He wasn't interested in going into movies but generating a star's charisma in his political career. The Kennedys had a natural affinity to Hollywood and Hollywood style. Jack Kennedy liked to play there with stars and starlets. Pat Kennedy married a star, Peter Lawford. It's really the Kennedys who create this relationship between Hollywood and Washington that is so important now.

Crofton, Md.: Why are we still so obsessed with JFK's sex life? We should be discussing some of the bad and good decisions he made as President -- Peace Corps (good) Vietnam (bad, or at the least poorly thought through.) Do you discuss in your book the Presidential record or the personalities of the Kennedy men or both?

Laurence Leamer: I write about both JFK's political and personal life. He was a sick man, and I think his sexuality was an assertion of life. When he was fifteen he spent the summer at the Mayo Clinic. He was diagnosed mistakenly with leukemia. Imagine. He wrote letters to Lem Billings, his best friend, talking about having sex with the nurses. I think he invented that. He wasn't going to be that pathetic sick kid in the bed. In 1958 Joe Miller, one of Kennedy's aides, came back from a trip to the West Coast and warned the Massachusetts Senator that labor leaders were worried about the stories concerning JFK's sex life. Miller was soon demoted for even talking about such things. Bottom line is that we have this magnificent freedom in America, and I've tried to use it in this book to write a full portrait of these men. There are chapters about policy matters. I go on in great depth about Cuba and I have new material on Vietnam, but I think the personal aspects are important too.

Washington, D.C.: Here's a "needle in the haystack" kind of question:

By any chance, are you aware of a book which was written perhaps ten or fifteen years ago (I do not know its title or the author) which speculated on what would have happened had JFK lived?

As I recall, the scenario went something like this: JFK is re-elected in '64; pursues Vietnam far less aggressively; but, in '68, the Democrats can't field a candidate. Instead, according to the book, Calif. Gov. Ronald Reagan is elected (I don't recall who the Democratic nominee would have been, according to the book). RFK runs against him in 1972.

I know that such speculative / "what if" books are of questionnable value. Still, I have remained interested in the premise and I regret that I cannot recall the book.

Do you know it? Do you have any impressions of that "what if" scenario?

Laurence Leamer: I don't know that book, but I think these "what if" questions are perfectly appropriate. Look at it this way. If Reagan had died after a thousand days in office, we would remember the debacle of the Marines dying in Beirut and a stumbling economy. Anyone who envisioned a Reagan as a monumentally important president would have been institutionalized. Or look at FDR. If he had died toward the end of his first term, he would have been considered a failed president. One of Kennedy's serious problems was his health, and I'm not sure he would have lived through a second term. On the crucial question of Vietnam, he was of two minds. He didn't want to "lose" Vietnam but he didn't want a major American presence. My guess--and it's only that--is that he would have Vietnamized the war, beefed up the South Vietnamese, and let them try to defend themselves.

Baltimore, Md.: How liberal were the Kennedys at heart? And if they were so liberal, why were they so close to Joe McCarthy?

Laurence Leamer: It depends which Kennedy you're talking about. The old man was a conservative. JFK was more of a centrist. He disliked liberals personally more than he did liberal ideas. He thought they were weak. He couldn't stand Stevenson. Bobby went from being very right, following his father, to being a new Democratic liberal at the end. If Bobby had not had such a fight with Roy Cohn, he probably would have stayed on with McCarthy and that might well have been the end of the national political aspirations of the Kennedys. And Teddy is the stalwart for what's left of American liberalism.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa: In two of your answers you mention JFK's health problems, with him being misdiagnosed with leukemia. What exactly were his health problems and what is it about those problems that leads you to say he would not have made it through a second term?

Thanks.

Laurence Leamer: For starters he had serious back problems that were twice operated upon. He was being given novacaine injections for that pain. He had addison's disease and was taking Cortisone for that. He was being given injections containing amphetamines by Dr. Max Jacobson. Kennedy took six pills every morning and six more at lunch. He had to take a nap every afternoon. And yet he was able to project this imagine a vibrant youthful president.

Washington, D.C.: I have not read your book (yet), and I have seen your comment on this chat session indicating that you have sought to put JFK's personal life in its proper context rather than make that the basis of your book, as some other Kennedy biographers have done. So, I am not critiquing you, per se.

But, if you accept the premise that America (both the public-at-large and the press) would have benefitted from focusing on something other than Gary Condit this summer, isn't the same true when studying history? For every ounce of energy we spend talking about JFK's relationships (alleged) with M. Monroe, J. Exner, et al, doesn't that distract us from focusing on JFK's political relationships with Kruschev, LBJ, Castro, Willy Brandt, etc. -- which, I think it is safe to say, were the "relationships" that truly deserve our attention.

Laurence Leamer: It's a question of emphasis. I get as sick as you did at these tabloid-like books that emphasize only the personal. I don't believe that J. Edgar Hoover wore a dress, but the average person believes that now thanks to one book. I think we're on a journey together as Americans trying to figure out what is legitimate reportage and what isn't. It used to be that people in Washington knew the intimate truths about our leaders, but those outside didn't. The truly dangerous thing is that these revelations or pseudo revelations make us think that are leaders are all corrupt or pathetic. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage writes that Americans didn't think much of the Senators with whom he served. That's the way it always is in a democracy, looking for greatness in the past. But I'm with you, and I've done this balancing act in my book that may or may not be appropriate. It's all a question of judgment.

Shepherd Park: Anything in the book on Joe, Jr.? My father went through flight school with him and was in the same squadron when Kennedy's plane blew up on his secret mission.

Laurence Leamer: Yes, there's a great deal on Joe, Jr. My goodness if your father was in the same squadron he may have been at the reunion in 1962 at which JFK, Bobby, and Teddy all spoke. It took place in Washington at the Mayflower. I've got the tape. It was very powerful.

Harrisburg, Pa.: How religious were the Kennedys? They were America's most prominent Catholic family, but JFK didn't seem to be a particularly pious guy.

Laurence Leamer: Eugene McCarthy didn't like JFK in part because he thought Kennedy hardly had the right to call himself a Catholic. No, he wasn't pious. Bobby was deeply religious. The Kennedy women were primarily the bearers of the faith. But the young generation is different. Many of the men are profoundly religious--not that they run around talking about it.

Vienna, Va.: How much of a problem did Joe Kennedy's image pose for his sons in their political careers? He was forever branded by his defeatism as Ambassador to the UK during the war. And I understand that some liberals remained suspicious of JFK & RFK because of their father's conservative, isolationist, anti-Semitic views.

Laurence Leamer: Joe's image was a problem expecially among American Jewish voters. There was a special report done on that during the presidential campaign that I talk about in my book. No question but that Joe was anti-Semitic. Some of the material I quote is quite devastating.

Washington, D.C.: Can you comment on President Kennedy's relationship with Adlai Stevenson?

I have always had the impression that the Kennedys looked down on Amb. Stevenson. RFK (who traveled with him in '56) thought he was a weak candidate. They, I think, had little faith in him prior to his impressive performance standing up to the Soviets at the UN during the Missile Crisis.

I was always surprised (and, as a native-born Illinois Democrat, somewhat hurt) by this. I would have thought that JFK and RFK would have looked up to a man like Stevenson who was educated, well-read (even possessing a knowledge of esoteric matters, much like them), liberal and principled.

Your thoughts?

Laurence Leamer: JFK had a real problem with Stevenson. Bobby thought that his brother was slow to push for a test ban treaty because Stevenson backed it. One of the most devastating things in my book is the way Arthur Schlesinger Jr. essentially betrays Stevenson during the Bay of Pigs. Schlesinger is there in the White House in part to watch out for Stevenson. Schlesinger sends this ten-page memo to Kennedy saying that it's fine to have Stevenson get up in the UN and lie and that if any of the Cuban brigade members are captured and brought to the UN, we should disavow them, say they are nothing but mercenaries.

Washington, D.C.: What do you think will become of the family in the years to come?

Laurence Leamer: It's a big family and I'm sure that things good and bad will happen to them. They should be around for a good long time. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is running for governor in Maryland. Mark Shriver is running for Congress there. Patrick Kennedy is already in Congress. Several of the others are doing very important things, from Timmy Shriver who runs Special Olympics International to Anthony Shriver, who heads Best Buddies. Then there's Bobby Kennedy, Jr., one of our leading environmentalists, his brother Doug is a fine journalist now at Fox, while Chris Kennedy runs the Merchandise Mart in Chicago. I could go on, but my guess is that the days of scandals are pretty much hover.

Baltimore, Md.: If JFK didn't trust liberals, whom did he trust? Outside the family, that is. To whom did he turn for advice?

Laurence Leamer: Kennedy developed what is the family pattern, call in the best experts, or what are called the best experts, listen to all of them, and come up with an answer. JFK trusted Bobby above everyone else, especially after the Bay of PIgs. He realized he couldn't trust the CIA or the military leaders the way he had hoped.

Arlington, Va.: How has the Kennedy family taken to your books -- both this one and the last?

Laurence Leamer: Well, I still get interviews with them, so I guess they think I'm trying to do a fair job. I'm sure it's hard for them since there is so much material good and bad in the book. I've gotten positive reviews on this book praising me for painting such a dark portrait of them, others saying that my book is very positive about the family, others saying it's balanced. Look when I read a review of my books I always remember the negative line. That's human nature. I'm sure they read my book the same way.

New York: How was JFKs relationship with Jackie?

Laurence Leamer: It's got to be one of strangest marriages ever. I quote a love letter that Jackie wrote Jack in September 1963. It's just exquisite, how her life would have been a tragedy if she hadn't met him. I can't tell you how touching it is, how beautifully rendered. I can't imagine getting that letter and feeling less than blessed. And yet two weeks later JFK writes a letter to another woman trying to set up a meeting. He loved her but he could not be loyal to her.

Washington, D.C.: A few nights ago, I noticed that "PT 109", the movie starring Cliff Robertson as JFK, was on cable.

I think the movie was made in '62(?).

Was there any objection to the movie being made at that time? In this day and age, I can't imagine a feature film being made about a politician while in office without some complaints (although, with Bush's approval ratings at 80 percent -- who knows?) for "equal time."

Anyway, any information on the film, its production and any backlash to it?

Laurence Leamer: No, Kennedy had no problem with the movie. The movie that got killed was The Enemy Within about RFK's struggle with corrupt unions.

Arlington, Va.: What is the most interesting thing you found in your research?

Laurence Leamer: Two things. The whole atmosphere at Harvard at the turn of the 20th century. The emphasis on sports and courage. The fact that the varsity teams were almost all prep school men. The role of private clubs. I also was startled at the material in Evelyn Lincoln's secret archive that I use for the first time. Here is material on the extent the church was behind JFK's candidacy, the medical records proving how sick he was, letters showing the extent that JFK masterminded his political career.

Arlington, Va.: Sir, as you obviously know, these men have been written about to a great extent for years. Why, then, did you decide to write this book? What does it offer the reader that the others don't?

Laurence Leamer: I was a college student when JFK took office, and I came to Washington and worked at GS3 clerk. That's how interested I was in Kennedy. I think--or at least I hope--my book gives a balanced look at the whole story, incorporating all kinds of new information.

South Bend, Ind.: Have you reached a conclusion on JFK's assasination (i.e. Oswald acting alone vs. a mob hit or right-wing conspiracy)?

Laurence Leamer: I don't have anything new on this. Indeed, I stayed away since I don't have new material and others have spent years on this. I always thought there was some kind of conspiracy. Several of my closest friends are leading experts on this. But frankly in recent years I've been thinkig more and more that perhaps after all it was simply Oswald. There was a fascinating piece in The New Yorker just a couple weeks ago.

Laurence Leamer: Thank you for all the questions. I've enjoy doing this and I hope my high school typing teacher will give me a passing grade.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Author Lou Cannon on Ronald Reagan at 1 p.m. EST
Entertainment Guide: Got Plans? at 1 p.m. EST
Post's Jay Mathews on the Challenge Index at 1 p.m. EST
What's Cooking Holiday Special at 1 p.m. EST
Live Online Special Coverage: America At War

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

   |      |