Watering Down 1984

In the history of American politics in modern times, a consistent pattern in American Presidential elections is that there always major factor or factors to water down the victories of the Presidential candidates and their parties (Palumbo 300-50). The most common way this occurs is for the opposition party to retain control of the Congress.

Another factor may be control of the Supreme Court by persons espousing views similar to the President's political opposition, with the Court counteracting legislative proposals of the president, to the point sometimes--as with Franklin Roosevelt's more radical "New Deal" proposals--of discarding them altogether as "unconstitutional" (Palumbo 300-50).

At other times, the major watering-down factor may be a major scandal. This happened to the administration of Warren Harding and, to a lesser extent, William Howard Taft's administration. These two Presidents found that, although they'd won fairly big and had some degree of Congressional control, a major scandal investigation prevented their administrations from performing their stated goals. (Palumbo 300-50).

In the administration of Richard Nixon, scandal even caused the resignation of the President. Other, earlier presidents, including Grant, Hayes and Garfield, were plagued by repeated scandals that forced them on the political defensive even as it had seemed they had won control of the Congress as well as the White House. But a President plagued by scandal often finds himself deserted by his own party, including its members in the Congress, who proceed to distance themselves from him by not supporting his favored legislative actions (Palumbo 300-50).

Still another watering-down factor is the presence of powerful third parties on the political scene. Although the elections of 1860, 1912 , 1968, 1980 and 1992 are perhaps among the most obviously affected by third parties, many other elections have been influenced by third parties to some extent (Palumbo 300-50; "Presidential Election Returns," World Almanacs 1969-1997).

Even the seeming landslide 1936 election was affected by the "ghost" of the third party of Huey P. Long, a popular independent party candidate shot just as the campaign was getting underway. Long's third party had taken positions somewhat different from those of either of the major parties. After his death, the Roosevelt campaign modified some positions to match those held by Long. At the same time, Long's supposed political "successors" broke up into two or three large groups whose primary influence was to keep a number of persons from voting at all. Even in 1936, when FDR stomped Alf Landon, a third party was an influence (Palumbo 300-50).

By 1938, FDR increased his clout over the Supreme Court by demonstrating his political popularity. But that same year, FDR lost ground slightly in the Congress. By 1940, war was looming and FDR's presidential campaign, though successful, encountered much more difficulty. This had the effect of bracing the Supreme Court's conservatives once more. Thus, even in the case of FDR, a virtual political superman, there were watering-down factors. First the Supreme Court stymied his efforts; then the threat of Long's third party loomed; then there was some loss of ground in the Congress, followed by the threat presented by Republican-based Isolationism in 1938, as Europe went to war, and then, at the time of FDR's third victory in 1940, war was imminent (Palumbo 300-50).

Other factors that have in the past had a watering down influence on the victory of a president and his party, have been the geographic region of the states carried and the home region of the candidate. In both 1976 and 1980, I saw these watering-down factors. Jimmy Carter, victorious in 1976, had barely squeaked in in the popular vote and carried an identity as a conservative Southern Democrat from Georgia and carried a number of Southern states. In 1980, a defeated Carter had carried a southern as well as a border state. There was also a lot of third party activity, with the parties of John Anderson, Ed Clark, the Libertarian, ecologist Barry Commoner and the Socialist Labor Party, between them, probably deciding the election, at least in the Electoral College ("Presidential Election Returns," World Almanacs, 1969-94).

So, as I began to examine the data from the 1980 election, it was clear that Reagan had not won the "mandate" that he'd called for. Although he won control of the Senate, the Supreme Court remained more moderate than Reagan in its views for several years after this election. The Democrats retained the House, though they hardly had what could be called "working" majority on many issues. Incidents like the "convenient" death of Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Senator from Washington state, during the off-year elections, and the retirement of Independent Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia and his replacement by a Republican after an odd three-way Senatorial race, added to Reagan's strength as his first two years in office progressed and he'd recovered from the assassination attempt. ("Presidential Election Returns," World Almanacs, 1969-94). Reagan seemed to gain additional strength, not from overwhelming popularity, but through conveniently-timed deaths and retirements. The Democrats gained seats in the 1982 Congressional elections as Reagan dropped in the polls until mid-1984.("Presidential Election Returns," World Almanacs, 1969-94).

However, I stared long and hard at the outcome of the subsequent Presidential election of 1984. To frame 1984 better, I looked at the results of the 1986 and '88 elections. There, I again saw the usual, powerful watering-down factors. Although Bush defeated Dukakis in the Presidential race alone, Dukakis carried ten states, including a border state, West Virginia. A number of third parties also appeared on the scene. In addition, the Democrats, already having won control of both house of Congress, now retained and increased their majority. Thus, Bush was a watered-down victor in 1988. ("Presidential Election Returns," World Almanac, 1989).

Further along, in 1992, Clinton, a Democrat somewhat associated with the conservative South, defeated Bush in a three-way race probably decided by the third party of Ross Perot. He carried control of the Congress, but for only two years. Also, the Supreme Court had by this time become very conservative, though Clinton did get to name two new members to it. In 1996, Clinton repeated the pattern so common since Truman and Eisinhower: a President of one party, a Congress of another. And again Perot's third party was an important factor, though perhaps not as pivotal as in 1992. ("Presidential Election Returns," World Almanacs, 1969-97).

In the case of Reagan in 1984, such factors are also present, but not strongly enough, given his standing in the polls. Reagan retained control of one house of the Congress, and the Democrats' majority in their lone house, the House, was not readily-working one and dropped further during the '84 elections. Reagan seemed also to increase the GOP's political strength in other areas, including in the South and in the Governorships. There was virtually no third party activity that year--in fact, third parties seemed to have disappeared. ("Presidential Election Returns," World Almanac, 1985).

At the same time, the Supreme Court, too, seemed to be moving in Reagan's direction. He had the opportunity to name more new conservative members. Not until 1986 did a scandal--the Iran-Contra scandal--appear which politically and legally threatened the Reagan Administration.

Iran-Contra hurt Reagan because it shook the public's image of him as super-patriot. After having set himself up a "hawk" and tough-liner with nations overseas, Reagan now appeared to be willing to bargain with terrorists in a most ignominious fashion. He dropped in the polls, and though his spin-control experts tried to make the best of his fall from grace in the media, he never really recovered.

The only other watering-down factor I've seen in the case of Reagan was one which is similar to that which effected the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and, to a lesser extent, that of Garfield's successor: an assassination or assassination attempt. The shooting of William McKinley helped propel Teddy Roosevelt into the spotlight and into greater popularity--just the JFK shooting did LBJ.

Reagan was disabled from March, 1981 until August of that year by a would-be assassin's bullet. In that sense, he was "watered down," in that he couldn't as effectively govern over his newly-elected majority in the Senate. This assassination attempt--and its failure--may have strengthened Reagan politically in the subsequent 1984 election. The public may simply have wanted to express gladness that for once a president had survived an assassination attempt, especially an Irishman. Some may also have wanted to ensure that an Irishman was, for once, re-elected.

But such factors, or even his vice-president's scandal, Iraq-gate, in his subsequent administration, don't fully satisfy the criteria of "watering down factors." Even though some embarassment and even a few resignations and successful prosecutions resulted from both the Iran-Contra and Iraq-gate/BCCI investigations, major convictions were not achieved. And the general political drift of the administrations, though affected, was not affected quite enough.

Somehow, there was something missing, something that was not being said. In later years, I was to read how Bush had practically become president from the day Reagan was shot, but that this had been hidden from the public. Perhaps this secret, "unofficial" presidency in some ways was a watering-down factor to Reagan's Administration. However, there were important things that were not being said in the media. There was a popularity being claimed for this president, yet there was a feeling of fakeness about the whole thing. I never stopped feeling like there was something being covered up.

I believe I happened to discover a source that announced that missing element, that covered-up thing. We have had a traitor Vice-President. Nelson Rockefeller, we now know, betrayed America during World War II , say Loftus and Aarons (250-70). And I believe my mysterious book ad source had felt they discovered that our recent President George Bush committed an act tantamount to treason during World War II. It is the discovery of this latter fact--and its publication--which could be a final watering-down factor for the 1984 election.

Certainly, Loftus and Aarons reveal a number of Reagan-Bush activities that serve to water down the 1984 election to some extent, anyway. On May 15, 1984, Vice-President George Bush, acting under unprecedented authority granted him by the Reagan Cabinet, established a surveillance of virtually the entire Jewish community in the United States. (Loftus and Aarons 419-24). Such surveillance was undoubtedly one reason why Reagan/Bush triumphed so heavily in the 1984 election. This was used along with "walking around money" to bribe African-American ministers from providing rides to the polls for members of their congregations, especially in New Jersey. Also used were the now-famous "network projections" that seemed to "call" the 1984 election too soon, possibly intimidating some Western state voters, as well as additional and probably illegal FBI surveillance of Contra opponents, including the Maryknoll Sisters, an order of Catholic nuns. Certainly these groups, though relatively small in mainstream American politics, nevertheless are important and the discovery of cheating against them is a powerful watering-down factor.

To really be watered-down, however, Reagan/Bush would have had to have engaged in something damaging to middle class, WASP America. Patriotism is an important issue to white, middle class America.

Patriotism is also a favorite issue of the Far Right. Certainly, Reagan played it to the hilt as he courted that Far Right. He espoused a strong military, took a tough line in foreign relations, spent huge amounts on weaponry and claimed credit for defeating Russia in the Cold War. Accusing liberals of being "soft" on the patriotism issue, he rode roughshod over their social programs as part of his so-called "defense build-up."

No one can claim the patriotism issue forever, however. Sooner or later, the truth was told about James Forrestal, William Farrish, Allen and John Foster Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, William Draper and George Bush's father, Prescott Bush, sr. They and their company, Standard Oil, engaged in treason against the U.S. government during the Second World War. Along with other present-day flag-wavers, including the millionaire Hunt brothers of Texas, they tried to betray America to the German-Japanese Axis. The money they could get for their oil from those two enemy nations was far more important to them than their own nation, and especially the wishes of the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, a President several of them had actually plotted to kill in 1934. (Litchfield 130).

What I "learned," in Houston in the Fall of 1980, however, was even more shocking than the discovery of those other treasons. That radio ad alleged that Prescott Bush's illegal machinations involved his son, George. As a Naval pilot in the war, George would have acted as an illegal courier to Japan for his father's company, Standard Oil.

With the help of a number of highly-placed people, including Secretary of the Navy Forrestal, George Bush allegedly delivered Allen Dulles's and Standard Oil's illegal messages to the Japanese. (See "We Will Exterminate Them," and "Get Mad, George!"--as well as "Tojo Out," among other chapters, for more details).

This would have been not only illegal, but highly illegal. Done totally behind the back of President Roosevelt, and, it would therefore, be covered up for years and years. Its cover-up, if fact, was a major reason why George Bush became President of the United States. It was the only way he could rest easily about the problem.

This, if fact, means George Bush not only took actions against blacks, Jews and Western state voters, bad as those were. He'd also have betrayed Middle Class WASP America in the midst of World War II. While its sons were fighting against the Japanese, he was allegedly a part of some bargaining process with Japan.

When we hear Reagan or Bush today talk about the patriotism issue, must we, therefore, now re-think the situation? Many years have gone by since those summer days in 1944 when Allen Dulles, as Loftus and Aarons tell us, connived to sneak his wealth out of Nazi-occupied Europe into Japanese-occupied Manchuria, keep Russia out of alliance with America against Japan and re-arrange the very order of enemies of World War II to become Allies and Axis versus Russia. It was as a part of Dulles's machinations that Standard Oil used Bush as a courier to Japan in that summer of 1944. (For more details, see "TOJO OUT".)

After all these years, a final, shocking truth could finally be told. Only now, Reagan seemingly massive 1984 landslide may be watered down, not by contemporary events, but by the history books themselves. And this seemingly sordid tidbit will change the history books, not only because of its shocking nature, but because of the massive cover-up it may reveal. Only by becoming Vice-President, then Acting President, then President of the United States, could George Bush ensure he wasn't tried for treason against all of America, including white, middle-class, Protestant America and its sons.

An almost equally shocking scenario, could be a "politically true" one, in which, while the charge itself was not true, it was presented at a crucial juncture in a political campaign year, in order to pressure or manipulate Bush to take an action which some desperate group needed, perhaps by exploiting knowledge obtained from Bush himself at an earlier time when he joined some secret organization, such as Licio Gelli's "P2", as described by Barbara Honnegar, as part of an "October Surprise".

If either of these scenarios explains the appearance, then disappearance, of the radio ad and the book to which it referred, then history may indeed reveal more undercurrents in all our lives. If something more conventional turns out to be the answer, as I also explore, there is still some story to be told of the epic search and the psychological and perhaps metaphysical side of George H. W. Bush--and of this Universe in which we live.

Works cited:

Bellant, Russ. Old Nazis, the New Right and the Republican Party (original title: Old Nazis, the New Right and the Reagan Administration. Boston: South End, 1991

Boller, Paul F. Presidential Campaigns. New York: Oxford UP, 1985

Bowen, Brig. Gen. Russell S. The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed.Carson City, NV: America West, 1991

Higham, Charles. Trading With the Enemy: An Exposť of the Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1947. New York: Delacorte, 1983. 39-42.

Litchfield, Michael, and the "National Insecurity Council." It's A Conspiracy! Volume One. Berkeley, CA: Earthworks, 1991. 130-59.

Loftus, John and Mark Aarons. The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. New York: St. Martin's, 1994. 63-80; 250-70.

Palumbo, Dennis J. American Politics. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1973.

"Presidential Election Returns," World Almanacs, 1969-1997. New York: Scripps-Howard, 1868-.

Simpson, Christopher. Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War.New York: Delacorte, 1988

Tarpley, Webster Griffin and Anton Chaitkin. The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush New York: Executive Intelligence Review/Ben Franklin. 1991.

If you find this list of sources inadequate--and some have indicated they did--I invite you to visit my Bibliography, Annotated Bibliography, and Updated Annotated Bibliography for additional and backup sources. I would like to note here, for the record, given the critiques I've received on this point, that there is a massive amount of data, not easily accessible, to be processed here. It has required more than one round of edits to my sources. The actual information you will find regarding this, is voluminous. The Annotated Bibliography alone, for example, will stretch over several web pages, as you will see when you visit it.

The fact is, regardless of whether the original book ad's claim was legitimate, it is clear there has ended up being something unusual about GHW Bush's records in WW2. This strongly indicates that Bush was not "regular military" but was, rather, in the OSS, fore-runner of the CIA. A series of things suggests this, including:

How did he get into the Navy as a pilot at 18, when regulations set a minimum age of 21 for pilots? On top of that, why was he made a reconnaisance pilot at the age of 19?

Why are the page numbers so "funny looking" regarding his flight of June, 1944, off Guam? Why was he taken aboard the USS Lexington after a seemingly innocuous water landing in the midst of the US fleet? How did Bush know where to locate rear-admiral Kauffman, even if it was only to deliver the wedding invite described by Stinnett?

What was going on at Palau, regarding reconnaisance photos Bush took? There seems to have been a reprimand issued, then apparently more or less withdrawn, regarding Bush's captioning of the recon. photos he took. Was there a discrepancy between OSS rules and Navy rules regarding such?

Why are dates missing from squadron commander records regarding his flight at Chi Chi Jima? Why, in fact, do they appear to have been removed? Why do official Marine flight records say there were "no carrier-based raids against Chi Chi Jima between July 4, 1944 and February, 1945," if Bush's squadron attacked Chi Chi Jima September 2, 1944? Why does the log of the USS Finnback, not have a mention of Bush until October 1944?

In 1959, while Allen Dulles was still CIA head, Bush's ship the "Barbara" was described in an FBI memo as "a CIA asset". The wording does not suggest this was a brand-new affiliation for the ship.

As you read through this Site, and these sources, you have to wonder: what are, and what is the nature of, the undercurrents in all our lives? In history? In politics? In the possibly metaphysical? What is Synchronicity? What is the Unconscious or subconscious? What "powers" does it have?

Gerald K. Haines, in his work on the CIA's investigation of UFOs, (cited elsewhere on the Site and in my sources), has been able to confirm that CIA personnel sometimes impersonated Air Force personnel in the 1940s, '50s and '60s. They did so, in these instances, by interviewing alleged UFO witnesses to try to determine if UFO sightings were related to the U-2 or other reconnaisance craft. These conversations fed into the ongoing books and articles at NICAP and elsewhere regarding "Air Force" visitors to UFO witnesses.

Since the CIA impersonated Air Force personnel, why should Navy personnel have been exempt from being also impersonated by its predecessor, the OSS?

You may want to "qualify" some of my statements in succeeding chapters, from "committed" to "may have committed" or "possibly". But after you weed through all the "may haves", "seemingly's" and "seem to have's" that could or should be added to this massive amount of material, you have to come back to grappling with what all of this suggests.

Go back to The George Bush-Undercurrents Website