dy156

I have taken way too many history courses, and there have been some truly great men that have led the country. Many of the "great presidents" have also done things that hurt the country. Personally, I really like George H.W. Bush(41). I have said it before, on another thread, but he really was a great president and a great man. Despite the fact that many have criticized some of his actions, I think historians will start to see his presidency in a different light, and his "ranking" among historians will start to go up, much as it has with Harry Truman.

As for his pre-presidency bio, here was a guy, the son of a Senator who could have easily done nothing more than run the family businesses. Instead, he joined the army airforce, and was the youngest pilot in the service at one time, survived being shot down in combat, went to Yale, married his swetheart, then, rather than stay in the East where his family name and money would help him live comforably, headed west to make his own money. He did well in the oil industry, starting from scratch, then moved to Houston, where he was one of the first to get involved in off-shore drilling. He (unlike his son) was a very successful business man prior to the start of his political career. He served in the House, and then was appointed as the US delegate to the UN, and then head of CIA, ambassador to China and then the head of the NSA.

As president, people give Reagan credit for ending the Cold War, but it was Bush that helped get the aftermath cleaned up, so to speak, and led the country in dealing with our allies and former enemies as the new nations emerged. As we have seen in Iraq, this restructuring was probably just as difficult as the "winning" of the cold war.

Speaking of Iraq, Poppa Bush had little trouble in convincing all of our allies and even nations that didn't like us so much to go along with him, even, in the case of Israel, to hold their fire to accomplish the task of getting Iraq out of Kuwait. Should he have gone after Saddam then? In hindsight, maybe, but that was not the designated plan, and that was not what all the other nations had agreed to do. I think, at the time, it was the right call, and this restraint, remarkably different from his son, is something that I wished George W. had learned.
Bush lost the election to Clinton largely because of the economic recession that coincided with the election year, and that whole "no new taxes" pledge. In fact, while there were new taxes, there were reductions in old taxes, and that tax bill at the very least played a small role in setting up the economic boom of the '90's. Clinton inherited Alan Greenspan, who was Fed Res. Chairman under Bush. Bush also helped establish steps that prevented the stock market from continuing to crash, which would have hurt the economy even more. The recession was, for the most part, over when Clinton took office and benefitted from an unprecedented boom that had been engineered by the Bush Administration.

That he lost the election to Clinton was, in my opinion, the result of a frightfully bad campaign on Bush's part facing a Clinton campaign that was revolutionary at the time. Bush was not a great campaigner, and it showed.

So many of the great presidents are perceived as great because they led our nation through very difficult times, e.g. infancy, civil war, great depression and WWII. Who's to say how well Clinton would have led the nation through WWII, or Reagan through the Great depression? Based on decisions made, accomplishments, personal history and character, and leadership shown, I bet George H.W. Bush would have done a damn fine job in just about any trying time in this country's history, and that's why I'm writing about him in this "who was the best president?" thread.
Just thought I'd share my $.02.