©Ivan W. Parkins 2012, All articles, text, web pages property of Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material requires permission of the
author and can be obtained by contacting, firstname.lastname@example.org
American Political Commentary
Veritas Veneratio Virtus
I. W. Parkins
Links to Articles and Items of Interest
· Wall St. Journal-Review and Outlook on “The Ryan Difference”
· Karl Rove– in the WSJ -”What If Obama Had Turned to the Middle?”
· Ann Coulter, on “New York Time’s Fact Checkers: Bed Rest is Work!”
· Erick Erickson on “Paul Ryan: Winner” and
· Amy Payne on “Defending American Takes More Than “Hope””
· Rasmussen’s “Daily Tracking Poll” on Presidential race
· Breitbart.com– stories which are not seen in “the media”
· The Drudge Report—website by Matt Drudge
This is democrat credibility?
By Ivan W. Parkins
Ex-President Clinton’s endorsement of President Obama will one day be a problem for historians. That is, if those historians look beyond what the press of Clinton’s time has done for Clinton.
No doubt Clinton’s record as a sexual predator, along with his not so minor penalties for prior and related legal misdeeds will be noted. Those things are not likely to harm Clinton’s reputation more in the future than they do now. But, that will still leave two Clinton’s out there, and I do not refer to Hillary.
Clinton is the successful rogue of the “Old Mainstream Media” and the other Clinton will still survive in official records and less easily altered accounts. I refer to such things as President Clinton’s last minute pardons, both their number and the fact that they included at least one millionaire fugitive who had been especially generous in financing Clinton.
There are additional, more serious, and not well known matters that are likely to survive, just not to get much notice beyond Clinton’s own time. I have included articles from past issues here to help remind us of former President, William Jefferson Clinton. I have also, linked to this original webpage where I originally discussed this issue.
(The following commentary was published in the “The Suncoast News” , Feb. 4, 1998. It is related to the accompanying article on media disinformation regarding President Clinton on a National Geographic Program.)
By Ivan W. Parkins
Gross, relevant and easily documented facts are being ignored by many persons commenting upon the constitutional-severity and partisan-bias aspects of charges against President Clinton.
The President’s defenders make the point that he was elected after the public had heard many of the charges against him. Some of them insist that unlike President Nixon’s Watergate crisis, this one does not warrant interfering with a sitting President. Iran-Contra, in the second Reagan Administration, is also being cited by Clinton’s supporters.
But, regarding the popular choice argument, Clinton has not won a majority of votes cast, and his re-election was no landslide. One the other hand, Nixon won by nearly 18 million votes, still the largest plurality in our history. Reagan, in 1984, won by a plurality approaching 17 million, the second largest. Running third in this comparison was Lyndon Johnson with a plurality of more than 15 million.
All three were also majorities of the vote cast, and by landslide proportions. Yet our three top presidential winners were all soon driven from office or seriously threatened, and all, including Democrat Johnson, due mainly to Democrat Congresses.
How much credibility do Democrats deserve, now, when they contend that attacks upon Clinton are constitutionally irresponsible and partisan, i.e. Republican, motivated interferences with American’s choice of leaders? I.W. Parkins-7/4/98
Our “cute” President:
It should not be forgotten that Congress drove from the Presidency ,in wartime, the President who had won the largest popular plurality in our history. And, a few years later, failed to convict the only recent President who failed to win a majority in either of his terms. Who was carrying water for whom--Congress or the "Old Mainstream Media".
By Ivan W. Parkins
Isn’t it “cute” that President Barack Obama can blame so much of his political trouble on Republican control of the House of Representatives? His own partisan majority there was, for two years, greater than the combined sum of all partisan majorities enjoyed by all Republican Presidents since Herbert Hoover’s of 1929-30.
If you wish for more facts in this matter, try WORLD ALMANAC, page 554. President Eisenhower, in his first two years, had a majority of 9 Republican votes in the House, with one third party vote also present. President George W. Bush, in the first three of his two-year election periods had majorities of 12, 9, and 30 votes, for a total of 61, with the possibility of 1or 2 third party votes thrown in at various times.
Two Democrat Presidents, besides President Obama, have faced Republican majorities in the House. The first was Truman, 1947-49 during part of a term actually won by FDR. The other was President Clinton, following the Gingrich revolution and the Lewinsky scandal. Republican majorities in the House then numbered 26, 22 and 12. President Obama’s, is now the third example of a Democrat President facing a Republican majority in the House; it resulted from the 2010 off-year election. Other Democrat Presidents since FDR have faced only a House controlled by Democrat majorities; most of those majorities numbered several dozen votes. President Obama’s Democrat majority in the House, 2009-11, was 79—larger than the combined total of all partisan majorities available to Republican Presidents, but poor compared to some other Democrat majorities, especially the 246 of FDR, 1937-39.
A review of Scot Faulkner’s book.
From Vol. 1 issue 25
By Ivan Parkins
Newt Gingrich’s revolution, taking over the House of Representatives in the elections of 1994, can not be appreciated unless one first understands that for an unprecedented time, 40 years or twenty Congresses, the Democrats had held firm control of the House. They took it from Eisenhower’s Republicans in 1954 by a margin of 29 votes, and 29 votes was the smallest margin of their control for 40 years. In seven Congresses the Democrats controlled the House by 100 votes or more. None of the Republican advantages in the six years (1995-2001) following the Gingrich’s victory was by a margin as large as 29 votes.
Scot Faulkner’s book Naked Emperors details his effort as first-ever chief administrative officer of the House to correct the management problems left by 40 years of Democrat majorities. Faulkner had no legislative authority; his job was to oversee how 800 million dollars was spent and how 13,000 employees served the needs of House Members. For starters, a private accounting firm called in to do an audit quit, the records were simply too few and poorly kept for auditing.
The reform met with strong resistance. Why should any Member not be happy with a bank where his checks would be cashed and no one had authority to demand that he make deposits? Recent media stories had forced release of names of the 303 Members (both parties) who were taking advantage of that. The largest such individual indebtedness totaled nearly $600,000.
Contracts for services and supplies were often missing. Apparently, they were let as political favors and evidence had been destroyed. Thousands of lobbyists and journalists had passes to enter the Capitol Building after the hours available to mere citizens.
Faulkner’s book is very specific about persons, times, places, and other details. Obviously, he is presenting his report of his work. Not so obviously, because poorly publicized, that work attracted dozens of foreign officials, including at least one Russian, anxious to learn of how to provide better services to a legislative body. He and his management team achieved at least one real First, The first reduction of a House budget in the twentieth century.
Some of this makes dull reading. But, it is worth at least a quick skim by any citizen serious about voting in the 2008 elections. Some of the Congresspersons involved are still there, and they have more seniority and power.
Should we now trust the party that had 40 years of solid majorities in the House prior to 1995, and now is in control again, to oversee the management and budgets of our government’s other branches? I.W. Parkins
The American Way?…
Or How Disinformation in the Biased Media Changes Public Perception
By Ivan W. Parkins
June 24, 2008, 2pm EDT, I have just seen on the National Geographic Channel (NGC) a particularly interesting, and especially timely, example of disinformation. It was a carefully selected account of events and proceedings leading to President Clinton’s impeachment and acquittal. Little, if anything included was false; much that was not included was true and more significant.
That severe judgment is prompted mainly by my having recently discovered and read David Schippers’ book, SELL OUT , published in 2000. former Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, Schippers did appear in the NGC documentary, but only very briefly. Originally, he had been reluctant to take the investigative job. He was, after all, a Democrat, a former head of the FBI’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Unit, under Attorney General Robert Kennedy. But, Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, an acquaintance, said that was why he wanted Schippers.
Of course Schippers’ party links and the fact that he worked satisfactorily with an “extreme right-winger” like Ken Starr did not fit well into a picture of events as having been engineered by a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
One incident that Schippers relates in his book has Starr replying to Clinton lawyer David Kendell’s charge that too much information was being leaked to the media… “ Mr. Kendell, the only information that has never leaked was that unavailable to the White House.” (page 151)
But, the great injustice was not the Lewinsky Case, most of which did become public in lurid detail. More grave, and clearly related to Clinton’s performance in office were matters such as illegal citizenship grants and campaign gifts from the Chinese. About those, the White House was able to stall with legal challenges and slow yields of documents until just before the 1996 elections. Members of Congress, many Republicans along with most Democrats, saw those issues as threats to their reelection, and opposed the whole impeachment process.
Clinton’s problems would have been much greater if he had had to respond in public to charges that he had demanded quick citizenship for 75,000 persons with arrest records, 115,000 with unclassifiable fingerprints, and 61,000 who had filed no fingerprints at all (page 45). But those and the questions about illegal campaign contributions were left to Janet Reno and other Clinton subordinates.
Of course, Clinton’s great victory over impeachment is now what most casual observers now remember. What Mr. Schippers calls the “flat-out rigged ballgame” (page 7) have never been transformed by our information system into a part of the public’s political memory.
I am reminded of recent diatribes by candidates about the need for change. Yes, we do need change, but I am troubled by what changes. I.W.Parkins 62908