About Ivan W. Parkins

©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 20
Text Box: September 24, 2012

American Political Commentary

Veritas Veneratio Virtus


I. W. Parkins

Front Page

Text Box:   IN THIS ISSUE– 
ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT, Reprise from 11/2011

 Links to Articles and Items of Interest

· Thomas Sowell on “The Fallacy of Redistribution”

· Ann Coulter on “Elitist, ‘Out of Touch’ Media Complain on Romney....”

· WSJ Editorial- “Middle-Class Job Killer”

· WSJ Editorial- “Obama’s Cyber Attack”

· David Azerrad on “Time for a True Opportunity Agenda”

· Dan Spenser on “Obama Permanently Out to Lunch”

· “Presidential Daily Tracking Poll” by Rasmussen 

· Breitbart.com– stories which are not seen in “the media”

· The Drudge Report—website by Matt Drudge

· The Heritage Foundation


By Ivan W. Parkins


             How can anyone take seriously the lament of a Democrat President who has already had, for his first two years, a majority in the House of Representatives that was larger than the sum total of all Republican majorities enjoyed by all Republican Presidents since Herbert Hoover?  Actually, only two Republican Presidents have had any House majorities of their own party since President Hoover’s first two years.  They were Eisenhower, his first two years and George W. Bush, his first six.  All of those totaled, friendly majorities times years, do not add up to the 79 that Obama recently had.  Meanwhile, Presidents Eisenhower,  Nixon, and Reagan all won landslide reelections, but without Republican majorities in the House.  Nothing in the previous history of the United States is remotely similar to that.  What might help to explain it?  My best estimate is what has been a very dominant “old Mainstream” mass media, plus likely vote frauds in places where Democrat partisanship is very strong and nosey media are unwelcome.

             Of course, Obama himself is already exceptional as an incumbent and candidate.  Even now, I can think of no one else who did so well while so much remained unknown about him.  He impresses me much as an actor fulfilling a role.  If he were starring in a Hollywood extravaganza as The Great Con Man, I could believe him more easily. 

             And finally, is the elite academia “certification” of Obama by Harvard and the University of Chicago meant as atonement of higher education for the “decertification” of Nixon by Harvard and Yale four decades earlier? I am not sure, but believe that a case can be made.  092412




Website link

By Ivan W. Parkins


             The first thing that many Americans are likely to recall about Mitt Romney is that, as Governor of Massachusetts, he helped to design a quite comprehensive health care program for that state.  Perhaps more of us should note that it occurred a few years before our present economic crisis became so obvious. Also the MA plan was to apply to only about 2% of Americans, and to a 2% who averaged more education, more income, less ethnic diversity, and less unemployment than was found in most other states. Also, MA had only about ¼ the percentage uninsured for health care that the nation averages.  Even if the outcome there were more promising than it now appears to be, it would likely be a poor choice for the nation.

             Actually, we do need a better designed health care system.  We also need a President who can say of many and varied important public matters, “been there, tried that.”

             Regarding jobs, Mitt Romney has served as a lay minister counseling persons laid-off due to new technologies and relocations of plants and offices.  He has also been one of the owners and managers who had to decide when businesses needed, for competitive reasons, to change technologies or locations.  And he, as Governor, secured in MA a $2000 subsidy to employers who retrained a person that had been unemployed for a year.

             From my perspective of teaching in five different colleges and universities, and in four different states;  and with some regard for things shared with my late wife whose experiences were even more diverse and almost as long as mine; I was especially impressed by one remark in Romney’s book,  NO APOLOGY.  It is as follows:

             “I simply cannot believe that the teachers unions and the Democratic Party can successfully persist in opposing the very fundamentals that have propelled America’s leadership in every other dimension of our economy—competition, innovation, and higher rewards for better performance.”

             Mitt Romney makes the case of no apology for America quite thoroughly, including his obvious study here and abroad of business and military competition.  Until someone more clearly focused and broadly qualified appears, I hope to see him as the chief steward of America’s greatness.




By Ivan W. Parkins


In Massachusetts, Governor Romney faced a much smaller, but more intense, example of    what nearly all Republican Presidents have faced since 1956.  MA is the only state that did not go for Nixon in 1972.  An especially prominent Democrat U.S.Senator from Massachusetts was the chief architect of our sell-out in Vietnam.  And that, I believe, will eventually, be recognized as an invitation for all who wish to challenge, not America’s might, but our patience.


Only one Republican has won the Presidency recently, and gotten with it a Republican Congress.  That, of course, was George W. Bush, who benefited from Newt Gingrich’s earlier successes in the House of Representatives.  During Gingrich’s reign as Speaker, Congress voted to allow the President (Clinton at that time) to exercise an item veto.  The Supreme Court, on no very clear constitutional or worldly experience ground, declared that to be invalid.


In Massachusetts and many other states, plus foreign democracies, the Chief Executive has ample authority to control the financial content of legislation.  MA has an item veto, and Governor Romney vetoed eight sections of the Health Care Bill there.  But, the largely Democrat and lopsided legislature invalidated six of his vetoes.  Slightly later, after the ‘06 elections, with only 5 Republican Senators among the 40 (in Romney’s time there had been 6) invalidated the other two.


It is very difficult to judge the performance of a Chief Executive when his legislature has been dominated by an opposition, and highly partisan, majority.  The United States had relatively little of that through most of its early history. Those President’s who won the office without popular majorities, or who lost in the midterm elections, sometimes did suffer hostile partisan Congresses.  Since 1956, however, Republican Presidents, even landslide winners, have frequently faced hostile Democrat Congresses. Indeed, only George W. Bush has done slightly better.  And, I contend that that change back toward the traditional balance has been due mainly to the recent rise of strong alternatives to “old mainstream media.” Fortunately, we may have such media in the future, unless President Obama’s FCC or Supreme Court can destroy them.

Graph Below

Please note: The blue national defense line has been mainly downward since the Tet Offensive (1968) in Vietnam.  The large bump upward from the early 1980s to the early 1990s is a Reagan-Bush period during which we pressured the Soviet Union to the point of ending both that political giant and the main threat of atomic war.  That was followed by Clinton's great economies, soon followed by the first Twin Tower
bombing, and later by the total destruction of two of our African embassies, and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. Defense spending has increased again since 9/11/01, but at a much lower level than in 1968, or 1985.  The red, entitlement spending, has increased almost steadily throughout the same period.

The graph to the right , by the Office of Management and Budget, demonstrates that in the 1990’s a very large part of the Clinton Administration’s savings came from national defense.  Those savings have made the war in Iraq more expensive than it might have been had an earlier level of military, and intelligence, spending been maintained.

If you look at similar graphs for the period of the Vietnam War, you will find that, at it’s most expensive around Tet, 1968, military spending rose only slightly above the previous decade of Cold War spending.  Much of  national defense costs are for maintaining, training, and improving the readiness capabilities of our forces, whether at home in peace or abroad in some limited conflict.  Especially, in the earlier battles of WWII we paid in extra lives for our lack of readiness.  The old saying that, “if you want peace, you should prepare for war” has merit.  The Swiss and Swedes have done well at it, but only recently.   During WWII our Navy relied heavily upon the 20mm and 40mm machineguns of Swiss Oilercon and Swedish Bofors armament companies.  Both the Swiss and Swedes had violent histories in earlier centuries; both maintained high states of preparedness; and both avoided active involvement in WWII.  The United States is far too large a player in the world to expect such easy choices.

I.W. Parkins

 I owe an apology to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, from which I took the "War on the Cheap" graph.  I misinterpreted the Journal's attribution to OMB; that was for dates and GDP figures only. The graph belongs to the Journal.