All the Best

All the Best
GHW Bush

In three words; friendship really counts. After reading this book if there is only one lesson I could take away that would be it. If I could do it over, I'd first read this book and then model friendship after GHW Bush. GHW Bush’s life was primarily pre computer age and certainly pre internet. In friendship Bush found that a letter here and there allowed a person to convey what is in his heart towards another. Myself, having lived the first forty-five years of my life with the same technological disadvantage, wrote and received few letters. Do the letters start the circle of meaningful friends and then the opportunity that follows? This book, where Bush uses those letters in his memoirs, answers that question with an absolute yes. Along with his dedication to his friends he had a resume that solidified and already conservative view and qualified him as a candidate for President of the United States.

GHW Bush went straight from high school against his father’s wishes to the Navy. He was the youngest naval pilot to receive his wings. He was a Torpedo pilot for three years in WWII. He flew off ships in the Pacific. Was shot down and rescued. His letters suggest he was a Dewy man and also leaves hints that many on his ship were as well. He down plays the election that not much was said because they knew it would be a FDR victory. He also leaves hints that he was not keen on the New Deal policy. He went from high school to military to Yale. Albeit of some money, his letters portray a blue collar life. He had no silver spoon. Probably the most notable letters he wrote pertinent to his time served were the ones he wrote to the families of the crew that were with him when his plane was shot down. Bush took full responsibility for their deaths, though through the tragedies of war, one could hardly blame being shot at as your fault.

In early business it appears as though his father's connections helped with getting an entry job in the oil supply business. It was on self motivation that Bush made his foray in to the oil field. The letters imply that his success was of his own making. It was at this time his father first became Senator of Connecticut. If there were connections to money, the GHW Bush wealth only saw tangential benefit. Against the facts there is the myth on the Bush silver spoon. The antidote is found in a letter on to a critic, written after his presidency where Bush positions himself appropriately writing: " Look, yes I was lucky enough in the depression to have three square meals and a Dad that could pay the hospital bills when I got sick; but Walt, I never felt the world owed me anything - 'class' in that sense. I never felt superior to some other guy who had less.” I said, “You sound like Soc. 10 or even Soc [society] 22." The tenor of this letter says, his financial stature was overblown only to deride a person of sound principle, regardless of the actual facts.

His first job was in oil supply. He learned the business and patched together investment backing just like any other entrepreneur would do. Whether his father’s name or money may have helped raise the money the book never says. But from reading the letters, it took hard work in terms of long hours, enterprise thinking, and lots of letters to friends always demonstrating sincere thanks and friendship. This was a practice that I am sure saw no conclusion as a collection in the book of a United States President.

As Bush's first foray in to politics he was chairman of the Republican Party in Houston. around solid principle and hold to it. In the transition from business to politics Bush sold his controlling share of the company he founded. To those with cynical views on his oil money, I find nothing but cynicism. I found it interesting that his letters to reach for the black vote in 63 were genuinely respectful to first conservative principal found in black business owners knowing he did not have to have to bend party principles to cater to their vote. It was a mark of strong moral conviction. In the aftermath of the 1964 Democrat landside victory, Bush wrote to Republican Party leadership to maintain conservative principle, but broaden the base. He felt you didn't have to bend or mold either side buy rather create room for productive debate. I have read elsewhere, that to be successful you must form a sound strategy. As a Congressman in 1968, his opinions formed form past experience joined with his on the ground inspection of America’s landscape found two causes to stand on first was home ownership for minorities fighting for our country. Second to promote what is now known as NPO’s to more efficiently disperse aid to those in need. This marks a fair and balanced conservative, with a compassion for the poor and an eye for the most efficient means to help them. I find that Bill Clinton was much too handicapped as President to do what he now does in the Non Profit world. The difference is Bush held his strategy as President; Clinton only found the NPO value after his presidency.

April 29, 1975 while serving as Ambassador to China in response to John Small's (of Canada) reaction to the South Vietnamese surrender while experiencing the news in Peking; Bush wrote to Small the following; ‘it is important that the U.S. stand firm in Korea, and it is important that this slide and decline be halted. It is important that these people stand for something. Where is our ideology? Where is our principle? What indeed do we stand for? These things must be made clear, and the America people must understand that, as soon as America doesn't stand for something in the world, there is going to be a tremendous erosion of freedom.’

In accepting the job as the Director of the CIA, Bush allowed duty to take precedence over politics. There was a lot of talk inside the beltway for a Bush presidential campaign. Our country needed to fix some problems in the CIA and President Ford tapped on him for the solution. At the time Rockefeller was the heir apparent Republican nominee. As a practical decision he saw, from his diplomatic experience in the UN and in China that the need for international intelligence should be second to none. He accepted this post over the quest for the top slot. As a reader of Known and Un Known, I find it possibly a trend for men of power to write in their memoirs how they humbly accepted their call to duty in their rise to power. Rumsfeld writes in his book that the distant Bush stationed in China pined for a presidential run. How would Rumsfeld know this? Neither book tells. I tend to believe Bushes story because in 1975, technology around communication put substantial limitation to access the republican political machine.

In the Iran hostage taking Bush writes "I firmly believe that all of us, citizens and presidential candidates alike, should stand behind the President in the handling of this extremely sensitive matter. I say this with the conviction of having worked in two presidential administrations in a foreign policy and seeing the United States weakened in the eyes of the world because potshots were taken at the President for political reasons. To do this in this crisis might help me as a presidential candidate but would be wrong for this country. Keep in mind Bush was not in politics at this time of Carter. He had license to be a pundit rather than a politician. But he stuck to his principle, perhaps a trait he handed to his sons.


As President and in conjunction GHW Bush's resume, in particular his tenure in China, he was able to write a sincere letter to Chairman of China's Deng Xiaoping after the Tiananmen Square slaughter of citizens. The letter made clear the position of condemnation of the action and at the same time held together a level of respect that held our two nations in a productive dialog. Having a sincere previous relation that was held in tact through letters gave a lot more gravity to the words in the letter. Perhaps this moment helps a common voter to more carefully consider the qualifications of a presidential candidate and forget the campaign advertisements and rhetoric of debate. Clearly our current President came into office with absolutely no resume, and we have seen very questionable results in terms of our international relations.

In 1990 a time of spawning democracy in Eastern Europe and Russia, Bush writes in comment to those asking for American leadership and who is the enemy; "It's apathy; it's the inability to predict accurately; it's dramatic change that can't be foreseen; and it's events that can't be predicted like the Iran-Iraq war... There are all kinds of events that we can't foresee that requires a strong NATO, and there are all kinds of instability that requires a strong US presence. Here you see an echoing of early formed principle. Basically it is a principle that was indeed passed to his son GW Bus. That being that weakness is provocative.

By Oct 1990 Bush passed deficit abolishing budget and writes ' We eventually did get a budget deal, and although it was not as good as our original one, it was a major step in the direction of getting our deficit under control. Through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, it slashed the accumulated deficit by $500 B over five years. We also set strict limits on discretionary spending. I will confess to feeling a little vindicated in 1998 when the federal budget deficit was finally erased and a net of economists, journalist, and government officials cited "Bush's budget compromise as the beginning of the end of our deficit problem."

Did Perot or the Press cost GHW Bush his second term? I remember Murphy Brown a TV sit-com. The show was comprised of brilliant comedy with political satire at the cost of Republicans; much like Boston Legal did to his son. Add to this weekly half our info-mercial events championed buy the rising ‘phenom’ news network, where in 1992 during a commencement speech at Notre Dame, Bush was preceded by a liberal speaking harshly against Bush. The crowd was maybe touched but unmoved by her long speech. When Bush was announced he was received with standing ovation and his speech was well received. CNN covered only the girl, the barbs in her speech and said nothing of Bush or the reception a very conservative Notre Dame crowd gave him. This is biased reporting with an agenda and is clearly not the whole truth that Americans deserve. Did the campaign environment of the new media age cheat us on a president of easily found principle with a solid and consistent strategy giving way to a President with questionable character and a strategy that blew in the wind of the polls? I think so. Did our country get what we asked for? I think so. So what does that say about our country?

As a person who has hired many people. As a person who has sent many a resume, and participated in many an interview I come away with a cheated feeling every time. The tools and the process never seem adequate to the decision being made. I think the same goes for presidents. The choice is as much about the people selecting the applicant as it is the applicant themselves.

Lets look at the past fifty years After Johnson, we needed someone we could trust, someone with a resume. Nixon was vindicated in 1968, regardless of his quirks, simply because he was not a Democrat. After Nixon we needed anything that did not come from the Republican Party and literally got a peanut farmer. After Carter we needed a president that could give us confidence in ourselves. We got Reagan the actor, turned governor with solid performance in California. Bush followed on his coat tails. With GHW Bush we were bamboozled, by a spinning press where sound bites prevailed over everything else. We got an easily distracted Clinton who in concert with Moris’s polls and a polar opposite Hill got little done. After Clinton all we were looking for was a president that could keep his pants on. And still with the bar that low it took a 7-2 Supreme Court decision to make up our minds. Why? Our other choice was a wooden indian with a huge geo footprint, and claim to fame after a lame duck vice presidency was supposedly inventing the internet. After GW Bush, we voted for anything not Bush and got a community organizer.

Of this entire list of American Presidents over the past fifty years, GHW Bush has the stellar resume. He was a business executive, a Congressman, an Ambassador, an Administrator, he had a voting record. Yet the fickle people fell prey on the phrase ‘read my lips’ and gave him one term in the White House. We have now evolved to an ‘entertainment tonight’ type society where we actually are looking at a half term governor as a legitimate contender to a standing President who had only the claim as a part time Senator, a full time campaigner, and a community organizer. We have a president who has never had to make a payroll who has yet as of August 1, 2011 to put forward a responsible budget and his Party Lobbying for an 18 month term on a budget that is six months late. In contrast, in the days immediately following the 1991 Gulf War, I saw Bush as a shoe-in in 1992. The Gulf War being his pinnacle and with our country’s moxy back, everything else was…well boring; so boring that we fell prey to one phrase. From 1980 to 1992 We saw 12 years of solid presidential performance. Did we learn nothing? We have since seen 18 years of question marks. I come away from this book vowing to convince as many people as possible that the resume and the interview are important. Pay attention to the presidential candidate, not the pundits. Look at the resume. Look at the voting records. Turn off the TV sets. Make up your own mind.