©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, info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com

Text Box: Vol.5,Issue 18
Text Box: August 30, 2012

American Political Commentary

Veritas Veneratio Virtus

 

I. W. Parkins

Front Page

Text Box:   IN THIS ISSUE– Democrat Credibility?
Clinton’s Endorsement of Obama
Democrat Credibility? (a republish from June 29, 2008)
More on Popular Votes and Recent Presidents (reprise)
Our Cute President (reprise)
Naked Emperors (reprise)

 Links to Articles and Items of Interest

· Wall St. Journal-Review and Outlook on “The Ryan Difference”

· Karl Rove-WSJ commentary-”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

                         “Is The Media Coordinating Race Bating”

· 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

You must read this article by Amy Payne from Heritage on

“Obama Edits Official State Department Documents

 to Tout Himself

CLINTON’S ENDORSEMENT

OF OBAMA?

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.

Democrat Credibility?

(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

 MORE ON POPULAR VOTES

AND RECENT PRESIDENTS

By Ivan W. Parkins

 

President Reagan left us his Vice President, or G.H.W. Bush won the office with 53.4% of the popular votes, a larger majority than has been attained by any President since.  Prior to that, Bush had piloted a torpedo bomber in 58 combat missions during WWII.  He finished education at Yale, helped to pioneer oil drilling in the Gulf, and won two terms in the House as Representative from Houston, Texas.  He also served as Ambassador to the UN, National Chairman of the GOP, Liaison to China, and Director of the CIA.  In his one term he arrested Noriega from a corrupt control of Panama. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Bush organized and international coalition, quickly degraded the largest military establishment in that region, and did so with minimal coalition loses. The operation was financed, almost entirely, by our allies.  But, Bush was vexed by a slowly recovering economy, “Mainstream” television networks that even   boycotted a major press conference, and the third party candidacy of Ross Perot.

 

Democrat Bill Clinton’s 43% of the popular vote carried the election of 1992.  In four years Clinton would win again, with a larger but not quite majority share of the votes.  He began with a House majority slightly larger than Obama has begun with, but finished the six years remaining in his Presidency with small Republican majorities in the House.  In fact, he was impeached by the House and faced a quick, but much less than two-thirds, condemnation in the Senate.  The possible charges supported by evidence included illegal campaign money from China and illegal grants of citizenship, but he House had charged him only with his much more widely publicized sexual dalliances and lies relating to them.  Meanwhile, the Clinton Administration enjoyed the formal end of the Soviet Union and the flowering of the Dot-Com Boom.  But, the first attempt to destroy the World Trade center had fizzled, and we lost two African embassies with heavy casualties.  Given a mostly sympathetic press Clinton finished his two, less than a popular majority terms, with a substantial public following.  Few, if any, retiring from America’s Presidency, have profited so greatly after having held that office.

 

George Bush was winner in the Electoral College, 2000, without having won a majority of popular votes.  That win, and the already increasing partisanship of American politics provided him with a very unpromising term.  Furthermore, he would have only small and uncertain majorities in Congress.  By the time that he getting well adjusted to the office the Twin Towers were destroyed by some of the same people who had failed earlier, and months after that the Dot-Com Bubble burst.  Bush would face years of difficult wars and economic struggle.  Not only was Muslim terrorism more extensive than we had noticed, our military had been on short budgets and long restraints since the beginning of Clinton’s two terms.  Bush won a slim majority in his reelection, 2004, but lost his slim partisan control of the House in 2006.  He also faced especially severe harassment by the old “Mainstream” media, but with increasingly active newer media in his support, Now, President Obama has entered with a majority only slightly less than that of the first President Bush (the best of any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson).  His is now still an administration in the making, and I will not comment further about it here.

NOTE:

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".

Our “cute” President:

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.

Naked Emperors

 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