Johnny, we hardly knew you...

And judging by scores of specials devoted to the 40th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's (search) death, we still don't.

Never have I ever seen such slanted, way-too-sopping, one-sided, glorifying portrayals of an individual in all my life. And I liked Kennedy!

Don't get me wrong. There was a lot to admire about the former president. He was young and vibrant, fast and witty, funny and endearing.

I heard a lot about "that" Jack Kennedy.

I heard little, if anything about the "other" Jack Kennedy. The guy who slept with mob mistresses. Popped pills for pain. Wire-tapped Martin Luther King (search). And endangered national security.

Barely a mention of these ills.

You'd think with the passage of time, we'd make an attempt at balance.

Kennedy did a lot of good... report it. But he also did a lot of bad...report that too.

I’m amazed by liberals who have no problem leaving out factual blemishes when it comes to JFK, but have a big problem leaving out fictional blemishes when it comes to Ronald Reagan (search).

Better to make up quotes from Reagan to fit a left-wing script than to say so much as “boo” about a left-wing hero.

Don't let anyone tell you about this being fair and balanced. It's about being phony and one-sided.

Don't tread on Camelot, but walk all over morning in America.

Dallas was a great tragedy. Why do we compound it by not reporting on the legacy of the man, good and bad, who was the central figure in that tragedy?

I can understand making a myth out of a man after he's dead. I can't understand lying about the record of that man when he was alive.

One glowing JFK special ended by saying, "We will never know all the good he could have done had he not died."

They're right. Because they had a tough enough time looking for anything bad when he was alive.

Watch Neil Cavuto's Common Sense weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on Your World with Cavuto.