U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-04-2018, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Central New Jersey
1,834 posts, read 633,333 times
Reputation: 3147

Advertisements

American Hero
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2018, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
801 posts, read 213,051 times
Reputation: 2062
He only got elected because of Reagan's coat tails and didn't do much while in office for his forgettable one term. He chose a forgettable moron for a vp as well, so I'd say the answer to the question is he will just be remembered for being a one term president and father of a terrible 2 term president. He had a far more exciting and interesting life than most will live, but as presidents go - meh. He did seem to be a very honest and nice guy with very high ethics, a rarity in politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2018, 11:55 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
6,867 posts, read 9,482,452 times
Reputation: 6112
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassTerp94 View Post
From a purely historical perspective, how will George H.W. Bush be remembered? While he was relatively influential in terms of foreign policy, domestically his presidency wasn't particularly notable.

I feel he is sort of a modern day James K. Polk. More consequential and important than most one-term presidents, but in 100-150 years the average American won't know much about him, save for perhaps being the "other George Bush"-the father of the more consequential and two-term 43rd president.

Rest in peace and Godspeed, Mr. President.
Very nice guy, class act, war hero. And his wife Barbara was down to earth and seemed like everyone's grandmother.

But the problem was while he was brilliant at foreign policy, he neglected domestic policy. And even with foreign policy, despite all his achievements, he made one crucial mistake. Whatever the diplomatic reasoning, he let Saddam Hussain stay in power.

Bush at one point was registering approval rating in the high 80s (compare that to Trump or Obama) but he still lost the 1992 reelection campaign because of his neglect of the domestic economy and his letting Saddam Hussain off the hook.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 12:00 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
6,867 posts, read 9,482,452 times
Reputation: 6112
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
He only got elected because of Reagan's coat tails and didn't do much while in office for his forgettable one term. He chose a forgettable moron for a vp as well, so I'd say the answer to the question is he will just be remembered for being a one term president and father of a terrible 2 term president. He had a far more exciting and interesting life than most will live, but as presidents go - meh. He did seem to be a very honest and nice guy with very high ethics, a rarity in politics.
Maybe it is worth noting that while Ronald Reagan chose Bush, his primary opponent in 1980, to be his running mate, Bush himself did not do the same thing when he was running for President in 1988. Bush did not choose Bob Dole or some other high ranking Republican to unify the party, instead he chose Dan Quayle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 05:15 AM
 
Location: Under Moon & Star
1,727 posts, read 621,716 times
Reputation: 9742
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Very nice guy, class act, war hero. And his wife Barbara was down to earth and seemed like everyone's grandmother.

But the problem was while he was brilliant at foreign policy, he neglected domestic policy. And even with foreign policy, despite all his achievements, he made one crucial mistake. Whatever the diplomatic reasoning, he let Saddam Hussain stay in power.
It wasn't 'diplomatic reasoning', it was simply a matter of objectives. The Gulf War was fought to restore Kuwaiti sovereignty. That was achieved. It was then far cheaper to contain the Ba'athist regime than to take it down and replace it. This was demonstrated in unmistakable terms a dozen years later. It was also understood that removing Saddam Hussein from power would disastrously destabilize the Middle East. This, too, was demonstrated when regime change was undertaken.

History is not going to conclude that one of Bush's failures was not letting mission creep turn a clearly-defined war into some completely unnecessary fiasco. And nothing that occurred post-1991 made regime change any more worth the cost. Those who asserted otherwise have had every last one of their excuses for that assertion shown to be false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Bush at one point was registering approval rating in the high 80s (compare that to Trump or Obama) but he still lost the 1992 reelection campaign because of his neglect of the domestic economy and his letting Saddam Hussain off the hook.
Did you live through 1992? Because the fact that Bush didn't march on Baghdad had precisely zero to do with the failure of his reelection bid.

No historian and no history book is ever going to claim that Bush didn't get a second term because he declined to topple Saddam Hussein.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 09:14 AM
 
1,028 posts, read 690,383 times
Reputation: 3658
He lost not only because of the economy but instead of keeping his promise of no new taxes he signed the bill to raise them. Now the press are praising him, but during his term they hated him, called him a coward and a lot of other negative comments about him.

He isn’t a coward and was a good loving family man who served his country with honor and I believe if he kept his promise about not raising taxes those who were angry with him wouldn’t have voted for Perot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
801 posts, read 213,051 times
Reputation: 2062
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Maybe it is worth noting that while Ronald Reagan chose Bush, his primary opponent in 1980, to be his running mate, Bush himself did not do the same thing when he was running for President in 1988. Bush did not choose Bob Dole or some other high ranking Republican to unify the party, instead he chose Dan Quayle.
I remember reading at the time that Bush wanted to have a younger good looking vp to appeal to women voters. While this seems absolutely assanine reasoning in choosing a person who would be a heartbeat away from the presidency, I believe it since Quayle had nothing else to offer.

Last edited by duke944; 12-06-2018 at 09:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 09:20 AM
 
5,117 posts, read 6,143,032 times
Reputation: 9719
I was in the Army and a GS civilian employee for every president from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama. Looking back, President George HWBush was the best to work for. Quick clean missions. Clear steady vision and guidance. Excellent international statesmanship and communication with world leaders. And I particularly like what he didn't do, (e.g. topple Suddam, go into Serbia, go after warlords in Somalia, etc).

He was a wise head of state and he set a high bar of standards. and I have found over time, that my appreciation of his stewardship has grown with my own learning and growth.

The things I don't care for (e.g. inclusion in the 'world order', chumminess with the 'in club', NAFTA,etc) really don't amount to a hill of potatoes in the big picture.

I think history will remember him relatively well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
801 posts, read 213,051 times
Reputation: 2062
Speaking of potatoes, remember this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdqbi66oNuI
When a grade schooler is smarter than your vp choice you know you f'd up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Iowa
2,631 posts, read 2,924,723 times
Reputation: 3176
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Very nice guy, class act, war hero. And his wife Barbara was down to earth and seemed like everyone's grandmother.

But the problem was while he was brilliant at foreign policy, he neglected domestic policy. And even with foreign policy, despite all his achievements, he made one crucial mistake. Whatever the diplomatic reasoning, he let Saddam Hussain stay in power.

Bush at one point was registering approval rating in the high 80s (compare that to Trump or Obama) but he still lost the 1992 reelection campaign because of his neglect of the domestic economy and his letting Saddam Hussain off the hook.
Short term, it was disappointing to the US public that Saddam was not removed, but the goal was to get him out of Kuwait, and frankly, that's all we could afford to do at the time. Budget pressures were looming and the petrodollar system was not as advanced in the early 90's as it would become. Interest rates were much higher then, including the amount we had to pay on borrowed money with debt securities, T-notes, bonds, ect ect. Bush built a coalition of allies, and got hundreds of millions in funding from them, to help pay for Desert Storm. HW Bush legacy looks much better today when we see how difficult it was to establish a new government in Iraq in the 2000's. not to mention the Arab Spring events and ISIS which followed. We can easily get mired down in so many wars in the Middle East, despot dictators are a dime a dozen there, and most of those countries have little respect for freedom and democracy.

We must stay focused on the countries with vast oil wealth, because those are the ones who pose the most danger, have the potential to fund terrorism. Iraq was worth it because they have the second largest oil reserves behind Saudi Arabia, and Saddam made the decision to abandon the petrodollar system in 2003. He had become a mortal enemy of the US and would have used Iraq's oil wealth against our interests every step of the way from then on, and carried that policy down thru his sons, becoming similar to the Kim Dynasty in North Korea, only more powerful because of the oil. You can't have ISIS getting their hands on vast oil reserves either, that would be a long term disaster for the free world. Personally, I think we should be getting a percentage of Iraq's oil for past military endeavors, to repay the US taxpayer for the necessary efforts we had to make in Iraq.

HW Bush did manage to take down a strong man, Manuel Noriega, in Panama, which was a success. His dealing with Russia at the end of the cold war was perfect, in not rubbing it in, and setting us up for a good relationship with Yeltsin, which did bring capitalist ideals to Russia and helped them shake communism for good. As it turns out, Russians do prefer an authoritarian style government and this is what holds them back from being fully westernized. The advantage is ours, because the business climate in Russia is retarded from mafia policy, and they can't grow outside the energy sector in any meaningful way. They are a rival held in check, and their people are still much better off than they were under the old communist system.

I think the biggest mistake of the HW Bush administration, was giving China most favored trading status after Tiananmen Square. When you look at how powerful they have become and look at the future potential they have, we may have created a monster that could destroy the petrodollar/federal reserve system someday, and bring eventual collapse to the US economy. I think it would have been much wiser to set up factories in Central and South America to produce low end consumer products for the US. They are far less dangerous to us, than China, and would also work cheap and probably allowed companies as much leeway on environmental laws as China did for their industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top