I’d wouldn’t grade him too high, but I have to admit he did pretty well in an unprecedented situation.
Those were the good old days when it was annoying to have the opposite party in the White House, but it was not like you’d expect the country to fall apart. Then we got Bush junior in the White House, and the country did fall apart.
Bush Senior controlled Cheney and Rumsfeld. They controlled Bush Junior. I voted for him in 1988, and don’t regret it. After all, he even raised taxes. 
How could you forget that there was a Republican in office before GHWB, so total years of Republican years were 12. Not saying that its anybodys fault, but the numbers speak for themselves. Lost my job in the 1990, could find or get one till 94. Had to do the retrain thing, back to school. In my experence, lifetime, best of times is Democratic, worst of times is 2 years into Republican, don’t think its all their fault just saying.
He left a mess inside Barbara that had some very significant consequences
The Savings and Loan collapse was probably the worst of it; the foundation for the crisis was laid in the Reagan administration, but it didn’t collapse until GHWB was in office, so he caught all the flak. The collapse of what had been thought to be solid financial institutions led to a crisis in the real estate market, and home construction dropped by almost 50%. As a result, GHWB went from “most popular president ever” to “hanging on by his fingernails” in the space of about a year.
Anyone else remember that in 1991, on an episode of SNL hosted by Keifer Sutherland, they had a sketch that involved Democratic candidates in “The Race To Avoid Being The Guy Who Loses To Bush”? Transcript. His re-election seemed so certain then…
That’s a relief. I thought the Democrats perfect record for telling the truth had been broken.
GHB din’t leave a mess,but the economy wasn’t good,that was why Clinton was elected in the first place, and for another term, even after the scandal. I think it was the same reason Obama was elected, Jr left a near depression,the costs of 2 wars,our reputation around the world was also not too good. Should Romney win, things willl not get better,GW’s lowering the tax rate for the Rich didn’t create jobs here, and I doubt that Romney can magically create the jobs he says he will. We will see how rich everyone is in 2014! The country is very divided and in reality Bush Jr. was picked by the supreme court, then people didn’t want to change presidents in the middle of 2 wars.
On the contrary…Obama added to the mess and made it worse in almost every way. Take Afghanistan-Bush left office with about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. The US was winding down…then Obama decided to play “nation building”-he got more than 120,000 troops sent in, and got involved with war with the tribes on the Pakistan Border. Now, we have a huge death toll, and no way out of the mess he created.
And for you war enthusiasts, we have troops in Africa, involved in tribal wars there… this has escaped all notice-just wait though-spectacular results will be achieved.
On the economic front, GM will be asking for more money soon…the Volt has been a sales flop, and the government has lost over $33 billion on GM stock.
Things are looking up!
This, in particular, is a point I’ve supported in the past. GHWB may not have been anyone’s ideal President but he was a thoroughly competent government professional. He’d spent his whole life learning and networking with people who were learning how to deal with the sort of crises that President’s face. He was also realist enough to know that the budget isn’t some sort of magic thing that you can change by wishing hard enough.
There’s a lot to be said for competence and realism in the role. Especially contrast that with the others since 1980. Reagan, Clinton and Obama to a certain extent all relied on charisma to get things done. But when that goes off the rails it can be hard to recenter. And GWB was just a bad President.
It might be possible that GHWB is viewed as one of the more effective Presidents in 100 years. It wouldn’t surprise me if that were the case.
In terms of ‘a mess’ left for Clinton?
Somalia (though it seems so CUTE a quagmire at this point)
The tail end of a recession (though it seems to CUTE a recession at this point)
The Branch Davidian mess? That would certainly count.
In short, if it’s a mess I’d swap it out with our current one straightaway.
I disagree with your assessment; but as I said, I don’t want this thread to turn into a debate.
Can you elaborate? I know the economy turned bad towards the end of his term, but it was actually picking up by the time Clinton took office, no?
It doesn’t affect your point, since that’s certainly how it got portrayed in most of the press, but what I recall at the time is that some people (scanner manufacturer developers, I presume) were showing him a UPC scanner that could still read a UPC code that was torn into two or three separate pieces.
It wasn’t picking up when Obama took office,nor was the expense of 2 wars on the table. The expense of the Iraq war, and the stirring up of all the radicals in the region didn’t make things easier or less costly!
When people are so angry over a book (or a man) that they can kill thousands of innocent people who didn’t(as far as we know anyway) say or do anything bad it makes one wonder?
To me it’s not at all clear that a prevailing economic condition necessarily has much to do with what particular president is serving during the period.
Of course, presidents like to take credit for economic booms during their terms but I can’t see any direct causal link in most presidencies.
True, but people seem to think they have a lot to do with it, seeing as they generally reelect presidents who presided during economic upturns.