We are moving into a new decade. The tired, old answers of the past are not good enough for the 70’s. Texas needs a positive and constructive voice that will be respected by President Nixon whether in support of his programs or in criticism.
After much study, I have decided to enter the Senate race. It will be a long, tough, uphill battle. However, I am convinced I can win. But, I desperately need and want your help.
Best regards,
George Bush, M.C.
While in Congress I served as chairman of the House Republican Research Committee Task Force on Earth Resources and Population. Population control was an important cause for me. I thought it was essential if we were to have any success at all in the fight against poverty and in protecting the environment. However, I am convinced that years later my work on this committee would lead to some misunderstanding regarding my stand on abortion. I was and am for family planning; I am not for abortion. Unfortunately, I could not find any correspondence or other notes regarding this topic, so instead I would like to share with you part of what I said in a news release when we finished a task force report on Federal Government Family Planning Programs—Domestic and International.
December 22, 1969
EARTH RESOURCES AND POPULATION
House Republican Research Committee Task Force
This report and its recommendations . . . are the result of five months of hearings and research.
. . . This report will, we believe, be of assistance in the achievement of President Nixon’s goal . . . of providing these services in the next five years to all Americans who want these services but cannot afford them or do not know where to find them.
There is great urgency in providing these services. So many of our poor and near poor American women have been frustrated and discouraged over their inability to control their fertility, their inability to prevent unwanted children. . . .
This is not a sensational report. The subject of family planning should not be considered sensational. The subject has certainly been a sensitive one, but we have found that the public in general is way ahead of legislators and policy makers in recognizing the need of providing these health care services. Birth control is a very private and personal matter. There is a big job to be done in providing dignified services to the estimated 5.3 million American women who want to avail themselves of family planning services in order to have the knowledge necessary to make a personal choice of birth control methods, whether it be the pill, an IUD, or the rhythm method. Family planning is a public health matter and it is also an answer to alleviating poverty. To deny this right to any American because of the lack of health services, poorly administered health services, or because of the sensitivity of the subject is not only foolish but negligent.
It is important to note our emphasis on the need to rely heavily on the private sector of our society in solving this problem. No one on the Task Force believes that the Federal and State governments alone can do the job. Leadership and funds are necessary from all levels of government, but the ultimate difference between success and failure in these programs will depend on the private sector’s contribution of money and people. . . .
February 16, 1970
Dear Charles [Untermeyer],
. . . Things are hectic. I am traveling extensively in the state and I find it difficult to be both a Congressman and candidate. The mean parts of the campaign are already starting. Yarborough is saying nasty things but, I swear to God, I yet have to make my first tough comment about him. We’ve vowed to stay completely off him, at least till after the primary. Lloyd Bentsen,39 the Connally anointed conservative Democrat, is running all out against Yarborough and is hitting him pretty hard. He is hurting me with the money; but, all the pros at the Capitol press room simply inquire how much did you pay Bentsen to get into the race. . . .
I’m not sure I can survive the next nine months; but, I’m going to give it everything I’ve got. Keep those cards and letters coming.
Best regards,
George Bush, M.C.
As you’ve seen already, there were many emotional issues in the 1960s. The next three letters deal with three: gun control, POWs, and busing.
June 4, 1970
Mr. Stephen Melinder
Houston, TX 77024
Dear Mr. Melinder:
Thanks so much for your recent letter concerning gun legislation . . .
I am opposed to federal registration and licensing of firearms and my voting record is quite clear on that point. I have never been pleased with all the aspects of the Gun Control Act of 1968. I did vote for it, but only because I feel that a state, if it so wishes, should be permitted to control the flow of weapons within its borders and should not be harassed by importation of weapons across state lines.
Frankly, Mr. Melinder, I am extremely concerned about the prevalence of “Saturday Night Specials” in the Houston area. I think the state should review its gun laws very carefully with the idea of cutting down on this kind of weapon. I don’t believe this is an area for federal legislation. Police Chief Herman Short of Houston, one of the best law enforcement officers in the country, feels quite strongly that local action is required to solve this problem. I agree. . . .
Yours very truly,
George Bush, M.C.
July 9, 1970
Dear Mr. President:
The horror of the treatment American Prisoners of War are receiving at the hands of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese has been vividly brought to light in our nation’s Capital in a display made available by Mr. Ross Perot.40 I believe that anyone who has taken the time to view the replica of a North Vietnamese bamboo prison cage, and accompanying photos realizes the message it contains—that North Vietnam is ignoring the Geneva Convention it signed in 1957. Surely, many of those who have seen the display have been moved, as I was, to write the leaders of North Vietnam and ask they respect the Geneva accords which that country has signed. I am convinced that American public opinion could influence the North Vietnamese to respect the Geneva agreements concerning Prisoners of War.
But, in spite of all that has been done to bring the problem to the attention of the public, I believe something additional is needed. I therefore request that you earnestly consider designating a certain day, or hour within that day, as a time for Americans to remember our Prisoners of War. In this manner the problem of enemy neglect of our captured soldiers would receive the national attention it deserves. I feel certain that when the public is fully aware of the Prisoner of War problem, tens if not hundreds of thousands will be moved to take the time to write the leaders of North Vietnam expressing dismay for treatment of captured Americans and asking the Geneva accords be respected.
With warm regards,
George Bush, M.C.
July 23, 1970
Mrs. William S. Dixon
Houston, Texas 77017
Dear Mrs. Dixon:
Thank you very much for your concerned letter and I just wish I had an easy and simple answer.
. . . I am a strong advocate of the neighborhood school concept . . . It seems ridiculous to go ahead and juggle the students around from one school to another when there are no racial problems involved. There have been great inconveniences to many of my constituents under this plan.
I hope my record in human rights is a sensitive one—I think it is; but, I can assure you that I do not favor bussing to achieve racial balance and I do not favor quotas. What I want to see is every student in Houston have a quality education in a quality plant by quality teachers. We are not at that point yet; but, we can do it without sweeping revisions of our sweeping court orders.
Best regards,
George Bush, M.C.
At some point during the 1970 campaign, I jotted down some notes (perhaps for a speech) on how I felt about the relationship between Congress and the President. Obviously I was irritated, but I don’t remember now what sparked it. I did find my notes interesting, because I would feel exactly the same way when th
e tables were turned years later.
. . . As I said repeatedly in my 1966 campaign for Congress, I will support the President when I think he’s right but I’ll battle against him when I think he’s wrong.
I don’t believe in kicking the President. I didn’t do it when Pres Johnson was in office and I won’t do it now.
C.Q. [Congressional Quarterly] shows I support Pres Nixon 64% of the time . . . but when I differ I don’t do it in a way to increase the personal burden on the President.
One of my real regrets about the Johnson presidency was the personal abuse that was heaped on the President—the name calling. The direct allegations, usually chanted in epithet, that he wanted war or encouraged killing. How gross! How unfair.
It is ironic that the steadfastness of Pres Johnson at certain critical times laid a groundwork for the Nixon plan which is winding down the war.
Just as some kick Pres Nixon on the economy, some still kick Pres Johnson on the war.
My plea is this: criticism “yes” but continually trying to blame the President “no.” . . .
Bentsen ended up beating Yarborough in the Democratic primary, then beat me in the general election. I think I could have beaten Yarborough; Bentsen proved much tougher and was also aided by a “liquor by the drink” vote that brought out Democratic voters in rural Texas in record numbers. Not only did I lose the election, I lost my job, since I had given up my House seat to run. The first order of business was to write some of my campaign staff and volunteers: Pete Roussel, a young man from Houston who had been my press secretary for several years; Carl Warwick, a major league baseball player who had supported me back home; and Vivian Flynn, a family friend and supporter.
November 1970
Dear Pete—
You showed us Bushes a lot of class in the time you’ve been around us.
Perhaps you more than anyone else understood how desperately I wanted to win the race. You understood it because you became almost a part of our family.
You’ve given us a lot Pete—a lot to be grateful for, a lot to be happy about, a lot to be proud of.
God it hurts to lose to Bentsen after all our work and trying and caring.
I’ve never seen a guy [Pete] remain so cool—so fair—so “hanging in there” when the schedule got tough.
My love to your family and my family’s gratitude—lasting gratitude to you—
George
Nov. 8th
Carl Warwick
Houston, Texas 77069
Dear Carl,
There was this guy standing on a manhole cover—oh God the campaign was fun and exciting. It moved a lot of people——young people seemed to give a damn. I am truly grateful to you for taking all that time and for working so hard.
Our paths will cross again—I’ll make sure of that, but in the meantime thanks for so very much.
The future—I don’t know maybe public life in D.C. maybe back to Texas.
My main balloon has burst—we didn’t win the pennant. But today it’s clear that the world will keep turning. Tuesday night with those great kids in tears41 I wasn’t a bit sure.
Thanks,
George Bush
November 20, 1970
Miss Vivian Flynn
Houston, Texas 77005
Dear Vivian:
. . . Things look a lot brighter now. It’s still too early to know what we’re going to do, but the future looks pretty darned exciting. We’re torn between staying in politics in some way, or moving back to Houston and getting fairly immersed in business. Whatever we do, I’m sure it will be challenging. . . .
Best regards,
George Bush, M.C.
THE REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TO THE
UNITED NATIONS
CHAPTER 4
International Waters
The first order of business after the election was to decide what to do next. Before I committed to running for the Senate, President Nixon had subtly made clear to me that should I lose, he would want me to continue serving in government. However, although no job offers had been made, I did not feel that President Nixon owed me a thing.
Another interesting political twist at this time was the relationship between Nixon and former Texas governor John Connally. Nixon was high on Connally, convincing him to become a Republican and then appointing him secretary of the treasury. (Nixon really thought Connally should eventually become President.) Given my Texas Republican base, they both felt I should “be taken care of” before the Connally appointment was announced.
However, I had no interest in staying in Washington unless the job was right. Barbara and I had decided we would much rather go home to Texas. That was not to be. In early December, I began keeping a diary, by dictating into a tape recorder, on how I went from Capitol Hill to the United Nations.
December 11, 1970
On Wednesday, the 9th of December, Bob Haldeman1 called me to come to the White House. I had previously talked to him and I had previously talked to Secretary of State [William] Rogers. In both these discussions, the subject of the U.N. came up. Rogers seemed very much interested in my doing it, but he pointed out that there were a lot of pitfalls and a lot of problems involved with the U.N. that I really needed to know about before getting thoroughly involved. . . .
On the 9th, then, I went back to Haldeman’s office and he told me they’d decided they wanted me on the White House staff as an Assistant to the President . . . He indicated he felt the President thought this would be better for me than the U.N. job or certainly the National Committee job which was under active consideration.
We chatted for awhile and he started to define the duties of the job of one of the President’s assistants when the President called for Haldeman to go into his office. He returned in five minutes and took me into the Oval Office where he and I and the President chatted for some forty minutes. During the course of the conversation, the President began to outline the staff job, saying that it would give us real flexibility. He told me that he understood that I did not want the National Committee job, and I told him that I didn’t want it under the existing circumstances.2 We didn’t go into the details of it. He pointed out that he knew that people around there were somewhat abrasive and that he felt I could do a good job for him in the White House presenting the positive side of the issues. . . .
We then started talking about the U.N. and I told him that I thought the U.N. would have some real appeal because I could spell out his programs with some style and we could preempt that mass news media area—that he was operating almost in a vacuum, John Lindsay, Goldberg3 and others being critics and not supporters; that perhaps the U.N. job was not the greatest for getting something done, but that I felt I could really put forward an image there that would be very helpful to the Administration. The President stopped and told Haldeman something like this, “Wait a minute, Bob, this makes some sense. George would be in the Cabinet, and I’m not putting much emphasis on that, but given that, he’d be coming down here every couple of weeks, getting briefed and having an input on domestic policy and all of this makes a good deal of sense to me.”
“Let’s announce tomorrow that Bush will be Assistant to the President, with general duties, and that he will start right after the Congress reconvenes. Tell Rogers to put a ‘hold’ on the U.N. job. In this way, if Yost4 anytime wants out, we can still have the option open on the U.N., but go ahead with the staff position.” . . .
We then went into Haldeman’s office and started talking about how it would all work. . . . The President called for him again and so I went back to the Hill. Haldeman called me 15 minutes later and told me they’d decided to go with the U.N. job. . . . “You’ve sold the President, and he wants to move with it now. He’s talked to Rogers and they’re ready to go.” . . .
My feelings now are kind of mixed. I’ll miss the Congress, but it’s going to be a tremendously exciting challenge . . .
It will be interesting to see what the Texas reaction is.
We called a lot of our friends after the President’s statement at the press conference—Will Farish, Fred Chambers, and others. All these fellows felt it was really great. A couple of them said, “Well, if this is really what you want,” meaning that I guess they were somewhat disappointed.
At this early stage, the more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to think it’s just ideal.
. . . This idea originally was the idea of Charles Bartlett,5 a great friend of mine. He called me right after the election when I was in the depths of despair about the election and Charley Bartlett said you’d be amazed what this campaign did for your image up here. A lot of people are thinking of you in national terms. I thought he was just going overboard as a polite, decent, warm guy trying to cheer me up, but he said, “I think out of this will come some real opportunity,” and he said I want to talk to you about one. I went over and talked to him when I got back to Washington and he talked about the U.N. as the greatest thing. I talked to him just before I went over to the White House and he told me it was marvelous for Nixon and I was the one guy who could bring it together and have new ideas and all this kind of thing. He was very excited and he’s got a lot of ideas that might help. Nobody’s ever been able to sell the country on the U.N., he says, and he thinks I might be able to do that, and he’s very pleased and, of course, I’m very much indebted to him. . . .
December 17, 1970
I went up to the U.N. headquarters for the first time. People’s reaction ranged from the chauffeur to the woman at the entrance—you could see they were looking me over carefully. Ted Schottke, the administrative guy, seemed amazed when I asked him to have lunch . . . but he is a down to earth kind of guy and I was determined to get his confidence early on. The woman was waiting, holding the elevator as we were walking into the building, and I glanced back over my shoulder and noticed her looking me over carefully as we got on. . . .
All the Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings Page 14