The last qualified President Americans elected into office was George H.W. Bush

I am aware of that part of Bush's career, but I regard that a part of the Reagan election campaign and the Reagan administration. His Presidency was an honorable one. In view of what has transpired since, he was particularly effective as a military leader in the Gulf War. Despite generals, public, lawmakers, and the media screaming for him to finish off Saddam, he did exactly what the U.N. mandate called for. He knew, as a result of the Gulf War, Saddam would be a toothless tiger. There was no reason for more people to be killed, including American troops trying to take Baghdad. The First Gulf War is regarded by historians as the most efficient war in history. Bush did exactly what he set out to do with a minimum loss of life. At the outset of the war, Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world. The war lasted six weeks.

I particularly remember the yellow ribbons. They were all over the place. The malaise following the Vietnam War was over. We were so proud of our military and our President.

A year and a half later, Americans voted him out of office. I can still remember coming home from work and Clinton had already been projected the winner. I hadn't even voted yet. I literally cried in frustration.

 

Both Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush had experience as governors. Bill Clinton's presidency is remembered fondly mainly because of the economic good times. Kosovo and Bosnia were minor wars. Probably long forgotten. G.H.W. Bush had the sense to tell his generals this is what I want, now go do it and let me know what you need. Hence, quick success in Kuwait and Panama. Although Iraq would come back to haunt us big time. But I do think the first Bush made the right decision not to go on to Baghdad and overthrow Saddam. The first Bush realized Saddam was the only thing holding Iraq together. Much like Tito held Yugoslavia together. Something his son never realized.

I never voted for Bill Clinton, I voted for Ross Perot twice. Regardless, I think he was a very good president. He brought the deficit down to almost zero in his last year. Two minor wars, economic good times. I think where the second Bush blew it was getting us involved in nation building in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. Taking out Saddam which left that country in turmoil. Say what one will about Saddam, but Iraq was a stable country under him. The second Bush ran a very good war driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan. He did so with the Northern Alliance fight on the ground with a few SF and Paramilitary advisors, along with our air power. That is where in my opinion, it should have ended. Our air power could return to help out the Northern Alliance when the Taliban started to come back.

For me, Bill Clinton was an above average president, G.W. Bush and Obama below average. The best president in my lifetime, I was born right after WWII was IKE, Dwight David Eisenhower with JFK at number two. Trump, far too early to tell. But no one can deny that he is off to a very bad start to say the least.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-it-true-part-deux.495478/

It was exemplary of his detachment from real people and how the economic down turn was effecting them. A less regal candidate could get away with not knowing the price of milk.
Bush the Senior could not because he was already perceived as detached. True?
The same detachment that cost Hillary.

Moi

r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

That says it all, I guess. But it all begins with leadership at the very top, the Presidency. A lot of people living today, including most millennials, have no idea what it is like to have an experienced leader in the White House. Those old enough to remember Bush, Sr., Reagan, Carter, Johnson, and Kennedy, have forgotten what it is like to have an experienced leader in the White House.

Why? For the past quarter century Americans have chosen a raw rookie to be our President, having little or no political experience, little or no experience in Washington and working with Congress, and little or no leadership experience. In the past four years, we have elected two real nice guys (Obama and Bush) and two not so nice guys (Clinton and Trump). All four have been a disaster.

Whose fault is that? The next time you are looking in a mirror, you are looking at him/her.

 

Thank you. Yup, we have had our differences, and we will have more of them in the future. Sorry about that. However, your comments here are appreciated.

 

Little or no experience of what? Sucking off the public teat?

 

Don't cry on my shoulder.
I have voted every time since 1968, and out of all those times, only TWICE did who I voted for win - Obama.
I never like Clinton, I wanted Perot. I voted for Gerald Ford - a decent, honorable man. With very few exceptions, I voted AGAINST a candidate rather than FOR a candidate.

 

Of the four, I regard Clinton as the most successful. I didn't vote for him either. In Texas, the real power is in the hands of the Lt. governor.

I didn't mention Eisenhower because I thought many here couldn't relate. What do I think of Eisenhower? He is up there with Washington, the Roosevelts and Lincoln. That is what I think of Eisenhower. I am a self-described Eisenhower conservative.

 

Oh, c'mon, can't I.

 

As time goes by, we are learning more and more about what IKE did behind the scenes. IKE who started out as 22nd in the presidential rankings has now cracked the top ten at number nine. IKE is probably best know for 8 years of peace and his warning about the military industrial complex.

Yeah, IKE was from a different era. A time when Republicans and Democrats didn't hate one another. No polarization. Everyone liked IKE to include most Democrats.

 

I agree.

 

Bush wasn't President. Chaney was. He gave Bush a few non-issues to handle, such as gay marriage, and did all the real work behind his back.

 

Interesting how white supremacists and other right wing types used to defend government brutalism and repression in those days. Somehow, they changed their little minds after Waco and decided that the government was the bad guys after all.

 

Ahem - Bush did such a marvelous job with the economy that it cost him his job.

 

One very short (six months) and mild recession from 1990-91. And the recovery that Bill Clinton would largely get credit for began more than year prior to George H.W. Bush leaving office.

 

You have actual evidence of this or is this the typical leftist talking point?

 

Given I'm not a "white supremacist" or a "right wing type" I don't know what you're speaking of.

 

I agree and disagree. Trump was certainly elected because of Obama, but not because it was Obama's fault, but because the right had massive brain farts when a half black guy was elected and then re-elected to the presidency. Donald Trump, who's a massive opportunist and the leading birther, decided to become a birther in 2011 in a (successful) attempt to pander to GOP voters...and well the rest is history.

 

IKE was basically a big government liberal. He would be considered a "RINO" by today's GOP voters, even though those same voters voted for Trump, who's also a big government liberal.

 

Trump's lifelong held political views were very liberal for sure. He changed a few to run as a Republican. Trump's long held views put him more in tuned with the Democrats than the GOP. But he couldn't have run as a Democrat last year as Clinton was chosen to be their nominee as far back as before the 2012 election. Heck, Hillary had 13 super delegates pledged to her before the year turned to 2013 and over 300 by the beginning of 2015 way before Sanders decided to challenge her. Her nomination was in the bag.

I think the term RINO is thrown at those fellow Republicans whom don't agree with you or the person who is calling someone a RINO 100% of the time. Conservatives used to throw that term at moderate Republicans. Today, they are the new RINO's because of Trump.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/14/conservatives-are-the-new-rinos/

 

Clinton caused the recovery, not Bush. Bush and his clan were bigly involved in the Savings and Loan fiasco that cost taxpayers over a trillion dollars.

 

Why then did the recovery begin well before President Clinton took office, and more than a year before any of his economic policies took effect.

 

What about it? Your point?

 

Of the Presidents elected since 1988 (after the Reagan Era) GHW Bush is light years behind both Clinton and Obama.

But, I do find him preferable to his son and the current Snowflake-in-Chief.

 

Cheney had a big influence on Bush 43's presidency until his second term, that's about all. The narrative that Cheney was pulling strings was just another liberal fantasy they used to further poison public discourse.