George H. W. Bush's Father

[Anthony Frank]

Three months before George H. W. Bush announced that he was a candidate for the Senate in Texas, his father, former Senator Prescott Bush, made a tremendous contribution to the effort to have Goldwater become the Republican nominee for President in 1964.

On June 8, 1963, an Associated Press story carried by the Washington Post said: “Former United States Senator Prescott Bush has denounced the recent marriage of New York Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller and said he does not think Rockefeller is fit to be President.”

“‘Have we come to the point in our life as a nation,’ Bush asked, ‘where the Governor of a great state, one who perhaps aspires to the nomination for President of the United States, can desert a good wife, mother of his grown children, divorce her, then persuade a young mother of four youngsters to abandon her husband and their four children and marry the Governor?’”

“Have we come to the point where one of the two great political parties will confer upon such a one its highest honor and greatest responsibility? I venture to hope not.”

This vitriolic denunciation of a “Governor” who was “not fit to be President” sounded like a campaign speech but seemed remarkably out of place, because Prescott Bush said all of this at the commencement exercises of Rosemary Hall, an exclusive girls’ school in Connecticut, where “Bush spoke on ‘shifting standards of behavior.’”

To top it off, when he gave the speech, he solicited support for his view.

“Bush said that whether Rockefeller’s actions are approved will depend on educators, opinion makers, churches and others, and on ‘whether our people are ready to say phooey to the sanctity of the American family.’”

As if that wasn’t enough, one week later Bush made what little support he received public, and he tried to accentuate the significance of it.

“Former Senator Prescott Bush says he has received telegrams and letters showing ‘overwhelming approval’ of his criticism . . . The former lawmaker said that out of about 10 letters and telegrams ‘only two expressed opposition to my views and all the rest were favorable.’ He added that he received mail from New York, Minnesota, Indiana and other Midwestern states.” (10 letters? Overwhelming approval?)

On October 24, 1963, Washington Post columnists Evans and Novak devoted their column to a “Goldwater surge” in Connecticut, and cited that “the odds soared against Rockefeller after his remarriage and after former Republican Senator Prescott Bush castigated him as unfit to carry the banner.”

Citing that Connecticut “nestles in the center of the Party’s eastern liberal heartland,” they quoted one liberal Republican there as saying, “The Goldwater crowd has a horse off and running with lots of money riding on the nose. We don’t even have a horse.” They also speculated “the odds are now at least even that Senator Barry Goldwater, conservative idol from far-off Arizona, may wrap up Connecticut’s sixteen votes at the San Francisco convention next summer.”

What makes Prescott Bush’s criticism even more interesting is the fact that the New York Times Index for 1963 listed more than thirty references under the subheading “marriage” of Nelson A. Rockefeller, but they show that Prescott Bush was the only U.S. politician to criticize it.

Members of the clergy also criticized it, and most interestingly, a reference on November 7, 1963, said, “Premier Khrushchev, in apparent reference to the Governor, scores ‘parasitic capitalists’ who ‘live life of luxury, drinking, carousing or changing wives.’” This was 15 days before his KGB officers in the CIA assassinated President Kennedy in an effort to get Barry Goldwater elected President of the United States.

A Washington Post article on November 21, 1963, mentioned “Mrs. Rockefeller” and said her “marriage to the Governor on the heels of divorces by both brought some protests within Republican ranks.”

“Some protests within Republican ranks” is another reflection of how unique Prescott Bush’s vituperative attack was.

On November 21, 1963, the Washington Post reported that “Senator Thruston Morton, chairman of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, said Senator Barry Goldwater is far ahead in the running for the Republican presidential nomination,” and he “said he doesn’t know where Nelson A. Rockefeller can count on delegate votes outside of New York.”

This article, on the eve of President Kennedy’s assassination, clearly shows that the effect of Bush’s widely reported attack reverberated nationally. It is hard to imagine that anyone but stalwart Rockefeller supporters would continue to think Rockefeller should be President after Prescott Bush portrayed him in such a despicable light. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev referring to the wealthy Rockefeller as a parasitic capitalist, who lives a life of luxury, drinking, carousing, and changing wives, certainly reinforced Bush’s bitter denunciation of a man who was “not fit to be President.”

The fact is, a Gallup poll back in January of 1963 had Rockefeller well ahead of Goldwater, with 46% of Republican voters who would like to see Rockefeller nominated as the GOP candidate, and only 26% for Goldwater.

Seeing as how Kennedy was killed as part of a two-pronged assassination plan to have Goldwater elected in 1964, a plan that failed to come to fruition when they failed to assassinate President Johnson on October 31, 1964, a good question would be:

How hard was it to find a young mother who would seduce and marry the wealthy fifty-five-year-old Rockefeller, thus assuring that Goldwater would be the Republican nominee in 2004.

Edited July 11, 2004 by Anthony Frank

[Robert Howard]

Three months before George H. W. Bush announced that he was a candidate for the Senate in Texas, his father, former Senator Prescott Bush, made a tremendous contribution to the effort to have Goldwater become the Republican nominee for President in 1964.

On June 8, 1963, an Associated Press story carried by the Washington Post said: “Former United States Senator Prescott Bush has denounced the recent marriage of New York Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller and said he does not think Rockefeller is fit to be President.”

“‘Have we come to the point in our life as a nation,’ Bush asked, ‘where the Governor of a great state, one who perhaps aspires to the nomination for President of the United States, can desert a good wife, mother of his grown children, divorce her, then persuade a young mother of four youngsters to abandon her husband and their four children and marry the Governor?’”

“Have we come to the point where one of the two great political parties will confer upon such a one its highest honor and greatest responsibility? I venture to hope not.”

This vitriolic denunciation of a “Governor” who was “not fit to be President” sounded like a campaign speech but seemed remarkably out of place, because Prescott Bush said all of this at the commencement exercises of Rosemary Hall, an exclusive girls’ school in Connecticut, where “Bush spoke on ‘shifting standards of behavior.’”

To top it off, when he gave the speech, he solicited support for his view.

“Bush said that whether Rockefeller’s actions are approved will depend on educators, opinion makers, churches and others, and on ‘whether our people are ready to say phooey to the sanctity of the American family.’”

As if that wasn’t enough, one week later Bush made what little support he received public, and he tried to accentuate the significance of it.

“Former Senator Prescott Bush says he has received telegrams and letters showing ‘overwhelming approval’ of his criticism . . . The former lawmaker said that out of about 10 letters and telegrams ‘only two expressed opposition to my views and all the rest were favorable.’ He added that he received mail from New York, Minnesota, Indiana and other Midwestern states.” (10 letters? Overwhelming approval?)

On October 24, 1963, Washington Post columnists Evans and Novak devoted their column to a “Goldwater surge” in Connecticut, and cited that “the odds soared against Rockefeller after his remarriage and after former Republican Senator Prescott Bush castigated him as unfit to carry the banner.”

Citing that Connecticut “nestles in the center of the Party’s eastern liberal heartland,” they quoted one liberal Republican there as saying, “The Goldwater crowd has a horse off and running with lots of money riding on the nose. We don’t even have a horse.” They also speculated “the odds are now at least even that Senator Barry Goldwater, conservative idol from far-off Arizona, may wrap up Connecticut’s sixteen votes at the San Francisco convention next summer.”

What makes Prescott Bush’s criticism even more interesting is the fact that the New York Times Index for 1963 listed more than thirty references under the subheading “marriage” of Nelson A. Rockefeller, but they show that Prescott Bush was the only U.S. politician to criticize it.

Members of the clergy also criticized it, and most interestingly, a reference on November 7, 1963, said, “Premier Khrushchev, in apparent reference to the Governor, scores ‘parasitic capitalists’ who ‘live life of luxury, drinking, carousing or changing wives.’” This was 15 days before his KGB officers in the CIA assassinated President Kennedy in an effort to get Barry Goldwater elected President of the United States.

A Washington Post article on November 21, 1963, mentioned “Mrs. Rockefeller” and said her “marriage to the Governor on the heels of divorces by both brought some protests within Republican ranks.”

“Some protests within Republican ranks” is another reflection of how unique Prescott Bush’s vituperative attack was.

On November 21, 1963, the Washington Post reported that “Senator Thruston Morton, chairman of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, said Senator Barry Goldwater is far ahead in the running for the Republican presidential nomination,” and he “said he doesn’t know where Nelson A. Rockefeller can count on delegate votes outside of New York.”

This article, on the eve of President Kennedy’s assassination, clearly shows that the effect of Bush’s widely reported attack reverberated nationally. It is hard to imagine that anyone but stalwart Rockefeller supporters would continue to think Rockefeller should be President after Prescott Bush portrayed him in such a despicable light. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev referring to the wealthy Rockefeller as a parasitic capitalist, who lives a life of luxury, drinking, carousing, and changing wives, certainly reinforced Bush’s bitter denunciation of a man who was “not fit to be President.”

The fact is, a Gallup poll back in January of 1963 had Rockefeller well ahead of Goldwater, with 46% of Republican voters who would like to see Rockefeller nominated as the GOP candidate, and only 26% for Goldwater.

Seeing as how Kennedy was killed as part of a two-pronged assassination plan to have Goldwater elected in 1964, a plan that failed to come to fruition when they failed to assassinate President Johnson on October 31, 1964, a good question would be:

How hard was it to find a young mother who would seduce and marry the wealthy fifty-five-year-old Rockefeller, thus assuring that Goldwater would be the Republican nominee in 2004.

In the book 'Oswald's Best Friend' by Bruce Campbell Adamson, Prescott Bush stated (I don't have the exact quote) I never forgave Kennedy for the firing of Allen Dulles. I think Neil Mallon would be a good place to start for someone who wanted to dig into the intertwining links between 'Texas oil-men' and the assassination. It has occurred to me that as far as myself personally, I plan to dig deeper, solving the assassination mystery is not a 'lost cause' by any means. If a JFK Researcher makes that statement, you should ask him why he is doing the research.

[Tim Gratz]

Wonders never cease to amaze.

Now we have Anthony Frank positing that as part of the assassination plot the CIA planted Happy Rockefeller on Nelson. One can only shake one's head.

And by the way, had LBJ been killed, RFK likely would have been the Democratic nominee and the Republicans might have well passed on the 1964 election. No way would the assassination of LBJ have resulted in the victory of Barry Goldwater.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

And by the way, had LBJ been killed, RFK likely would have been the Democratic nominee and the Republicans might have well passed on the 1964 election. No way would the assassination of LBJ have resulted in the victory of Barry Goldwater.

This is something we can agree on. Barry Goldwater was dead in the water when JFK was assassinated. LBJ was from that point certain of being elected in 1964. If the far right were involved in the assassination of JFK, then they had to be confident that LBJ would deliver.

[Tim Gratz]

John, we do agree at last.

Absent a real revelation of LBJ's perfidies, Goldwater (or any other GOP candidate) was dead in the water after the assassination.

My feeling is that Goldwater liked JFK personally but despised LBJ.

The only possible scenario for a GOP win in 1964 would be if there had been a major expose of LBJ but after it was too late for the DNC to replace him as a presidential candidate.

And LBJ certainly did not give the far right what it wanted re the race issue, or the Great Society itself for that matter.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

And LBJ certainly did not give the far right what it wanted re the race issue, or the Great Society itself for that matter.

Therefore we need to look at what he did give them: the Vietnam War and the protection of the oil industry, CIA and the FBI.

[Terry Adams]

Three months before George H. W. Bush announced that he was a candidate for the Senate in Texas, his father, former Senator Prescott Bush, made a tremendous contribution to the effort to have Goldwater become the Republican nominee for President in 1964.

On June 8, 1963, an Associated Press story carried by the Washington Post said: “Former United States Senator Prescott Bush has denounced the recent marriage of New York Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller and said he does not think Rockefeller is fit to be President.”

“‘Have we come to the point in our life as a nation,’ Bush asked, ‘where the Governor of a great state, one who perhaps aspires to the nomination for President of the United States, can desert a good wife, mother of his grown children, divorce her, then persuade a young mother of four youngsters to abandon her husband and their four children and marry the Governor?’”

“Have we come to the point where one of the two great political parties will confer upon such a one its highest honor and greatest responsibility? I venture to hope not.”

This vitriolic denunciation of a “Governor” who was “not fit to be President” sounded like a campaign speech but seemed remarkably out of place, because Prescott Bush said all of this at the commencement exercises of Rosemary Hall, an exclusive girls’ school in Connecticut, where “Bush spoke on ‘shifting standards of behavior.’”

To top it off, when he gave the speech, he solicited support for his view.

“Bush said that whether Rockefeller’s actions are approved will depend on educators, opinion makers, churches and others, and on ‘whether our people are ready to say phooey to the sanctity of the American family.’”

As if that wasn’t enough, one week later Bush made what little support he received public, and he tried to accentuate the significance of it.

“Former Senator Prescott Bush says he has received telegrams and letters showing ‘overwhelming approval’ of his criticism . . . The former lawmaker said that out of about 10 letters and telegrams ‘only two expressed opposition to my views and all the rest were favorable.’ He added that he received mail from New York, Minnesota, Indiana and other Midwestern states.” (10 letters? Overwhelming approval?)

On October 24, 1963, Washington Post columnists Evans and Novak devoted their column to a “Goldwater surge” in Connecticut, and cited that “the odds soared against Rockefeller after his remarriage and after former Republican Senator Prescott Bush castigated him as unfit to carry the banner.”

Citing that Connecticut “nestles in the center of the Party’s eastern liberal heartland,” they quoted one liberal Republican there as saying, “The Goldwater crowd has a horse off and running with lots of money riding on the nose. We don’t even have a horse.” They also speculated “the odds are now at least even that Senator Barry Goldwater, conservative idol from far-off Arizona, may wrap up Connecticut’s sixteen votes at the San Francisco convention next summer.”

What makes Prescott Bush’s criticism even more interesting is the fact that the New York Times Index for 1963 listed more than thirty references under the subheading “marriage” of Nelson A. Rockefeller, but they show that Prescott Bush was the only U.S. politician to criticize it.

Members of the clergy also criticized it, and most interestingly, a reference on November 7, 1963, said, “Premier Khrushchev, in apparent reference to the Governor, scores ‘parasitic capitalists’ who ‘live life of luxury, drinking, carousing or changing wives.’” This was 15 days before his KGB officers in the CIA assassinated President Kennedy in an effort to get Barry Goldwater elected President of the United States.

A Washington Post article on November 21, 1963, mentioned “Mrs. Rockefeller” and said her “marriage to the Governor on the heels of divorces by both brought some protests within Republican ranks.”

“Some protests within Republican ranks” is another reflection of how unique Prescott Bush’s vituperative attack was.

On November 21, 1963, the Washington Post reported that “Senator Thruston Morton, chairman of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, said Senator Barry Goldwater is far ahead in the running for the Republican presidential nomination,” and he “said he doesn’t know where Nelson A. Rockefeller can count on delegate votes outside of New York.”

This article, on the eve of President Kennedy’s assassination, clearly shows that the effect of Bush’s widely reported attack reverberated nationally. It is hard to imagine that anyone but stalwart Rockefeller supporters would continue to think Rockefeller should be President after Prescott Bush portrayed him in such a despicable light. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev referring to the wealthy Rockefeller as a parasitic capitalist, who lives a life of luxury, drinking, carousing, and changing wives, certainly reinforced Bush’s bitter denunciation of a man who was “not fit to be President.”

The fact is, a Gallup poll back in January of 1963 had Rockefeller well ahead of Goldwater, with 46% of Republican voters who would like to see Rockefeller nominated as the GOP candidate, and only 26% for Goldwater.

Seeing as how Kennedy was killed as part of a two-pronged assassination plan to have Goldwater elected in 1964, a plan that failed to come to fruition when they failed to assassinate President Johnson on October 31, 1964, a good question would be:

How hard was it to find a young mother who would seduce and marry the wealthy fifty-five-year-old Rockefeller, thus assuring that Goldwater would be the Republican nominee in 2004.

Tony, I would greatly appreciate some more information on the attempted assassination of LBJ.

Terry