MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Did I Really Once Think That George H.W. Bush Was the Worst President of My Lifetime?

A presidential derangement syndrome for all seasons

The SimpsonsThe SimpsonsThe weird thing about George H.W. Bush's term in the White House, looking back a quarter-century later, is that back then I thought he was the worst president of my lifetime. Bear in mind that I was born when Richard Nixon occupied the Oval Office, so worst president of my lifetime was a pretty high bar to clear. But I was in college in the Bush years, old enough to pay attention to what was happening in the world and young enough to lack perspective on just how bad things could get. There's a certain sort of apocalypticism that comes easily to you when you're 20 and you want to stop a war.

The conflict in question was the first Gulf War. I'm just as opposed to it now as I was then—more so, given what was set in motion by stationing U.S. troops on Saudi soil—and I stand by most of my other reasons for cursing H.W.'s time in power. I think he was wrong on issues ranging from drugs to taxes to the S&Ls, from the Iran-contra pardons to the invasion of Panama. But it soon became clear that he was far from the worst president I'd live to see. He wasn't even the worst one named Bush.

So here's to the times he moved in the right direction. Here's to keeping his head as the Communist bloc collapsed, and here's to overseeing an actual reduction in military spending after the Cold War ended. Here's to a relatively even-handed approach to the Palestinian conflict. Here's to easing up the saber-rattling in Nicaragua and letting a Central American–led peace process play out. None of those policies were perfect, but I can imagine how another leader in a similar situation could have done worse. In some cases, I don't have to imagine it.

And here's to demonstrating that you can win a war and still lose the next election. Though I don't think the lesson took.

Photo Credit: The Simpsons

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Everyone keeps forgetting Bush Sr.'s contributions to the Uruguay Round of GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA.

    I guess Clinton gets credit for not screwing them up, but the extent to which the U.S. has enjoyed free trade over the past 20+ years is largely due to the efforts of George H. W. Bush.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That was the end of the Cold War. That was why the future couldn't be communist anymore--because we were to have free trade between nations instead. It was a huge achievement that he created.

  • Eddy||

    Uruguay Round.

  • DiegoF||

    Yeah I was wondering if anyone was going to do that. As it happened, the most momentous breakthrough until the Rand McNally round. (This was the only thing I could find on the first page of Google results.)

  • jdgalt1||

    Bush's election loss in 1992 had nothing to do with the war. It was caused by Ross Perot and the spoiler effect. The lesson that should be learnt from it is for independent or Libertarian candidates to refrain from running against any Republican unless the Republican is worse than the Democratic candidate, at least until we can enact Ranked Choice Voting.

  • Jesse Walker||

    I didn't say he lost because of the war. I said the war didn't guarantee his victory. (Or that's what I was getting at, anyway.)

    That said, it's an open question whether Perot hurt Bush more than he hurt Clinton. I think the biggest reason Bush lost in 1992 was the recession (which was actually over before November, but public perception hadn't caught up to that yet).

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Liberating Kuwait was the right thing to do. Period. And if you think that Saddam would have stopped there if left unchallenged, then you're incredibly naive.

  • ||

    And...?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Liberating Kuwait was the morally right thing to do. Leaving troops in the region was stupid.

  • Robert||

    Yeah, liberating the oil Kuwait was slant-drilling from under Iraq.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    ^This. People forget Saddam had a semi-legitimate reason for invading Kuwait. Peoole also forget that Bush 41 initially gave him the go-ahead and told him the US would not interfere. I am not saying Saddam's actions were justified, but it wasn't all black and white.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your link fell off.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    "Liberating Kuwait?" What a laugh. Those national boundaries were drawn by Westerners hoping to fragment the area and split up power and keep them beholden to the west so oil would remain cheap. Kuwait was nothing, just an artificial creation, a leftover.

    Desert Storm was all about saving the Saudi's royal ass. If you're going to pick sides in a local dispute, at least pick the less harmful side, and Saddam was far more benevolent than the Saudi royal family. The MidEast would have been a far less volatile place with Saddam chasing the Saudis out.

    Morally right my royal fucking Saudi ass.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The MidEast would have been a far less volatile place with Saddam chasing the Saudis out.

    Please. Saddam had just gone bankrupt fighting Iran. You really think he would have maintained that momentum all the way to the Hejaz?

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Saddam was bankrupt? I guess the Kuwaitis invited him in then. All those soldiers on the border with Saudi Arabia were fake news, I suppose.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Kuwait was nothing, just an artificial creation, a leftover."

    The Kuwaitis I helped liberate don't agree with you. Saddam was a tyrant, amd he invaded a sovereign nation (an ally) and conquered them. Stopping them was the correct action, and diplomacy didn't work.

    "Saddam was far more benevolent than the Saudi royal family"

    An analysis not based on facts. The Saudis are bad. Saddam was far worse.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Saddam didn't force ultra-fundamental religion on anybody; the Saudis did and still do. Women wore western clothes with Saddam in charge; Saudi women have just barely gained the right to drive.

    There's not a single area where Saddam was worse than the Saudis. Gassing the Kurds was no worse than what the Saudis are doing right now in Yemen.

  • Armchair Lawyer||

    "Gassing the Kurds was no worse than what the Saudis are doing right now in Yemen".

    Wow. Talk about false equivalence.

    Saddaam was estimated to kill more than 250,000 of his own countrymen through genocide, purges, etc. That's before we even get into the Iran-Iraq war. Yemen isn't even in the same ballpark.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "There's not a single area where Saddam was worse than the Saudis"

    If you really believe that then you've clearly never been over there, as you have no sense of reality. I got to see a lot of the Iraq military's handiwork first hand. I have also spent a fair amount of time in Saudi Arabia.

    Saddam and his boys were sadistic monsters. The Saudis have nothing on them. Freeing the Kuwaiti people was absolutely the right thing to do.

    It's too bad your limited perspective deludes you to the contrary.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So, nuke them all?

  • Trollificus||

    From orbit, etc...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Why would we nuke any of them? They are Muslim countries, run by Muslims. So of course they're bad. Most of them are not threats. Iran's current regime being a notable exception. Best cure for that is a more secularist internal revolution. Unfortunately, Obama worked hard to prevent that.

  • Robert||

    The exit polls show Perot made no dif between Bush & Clinton on election day, but some say Perot's entries into & exit from the campaign were timed to be momentum-breakers vs. Bush.

  • Robert||

    Asked in exit polls who they voted for, & then who they'd've voted for had Perot not been running, Bush's & Clinton's % increased nearly equally, & the changes state by state wouldn't've changed a single electoral vote.

    But observers also say that Perot's effect was mostly mos. before election day, getting people to not prefer Bush at times Bush otherwise stood to increase attraction for votes, & that Perot seemed to time these moves, jumping into, then out of, then back into the race, just to hurt Bush's ultimate chances.

  • Robert||

    In other words, if you look at the effect of having Perot as a choice only on election day, you get 1 answer that's easy to quantify. But, knowing that people don't just make their minds up in the voting booth, if you look at Perot's being a choice throughout the campaign, you get a different answer, but it's hard to quantify. The polls seemed to show points of inflection in the Bush nos. when Perot got in, got out, & got in again, but who knows if there was cause & effect there? We know Perot wanted to hurt Bush, but it's hard to tell whether he did.

    It seems whoever comes in #2 at an election blames #3 for spoiling, so you probably would've gotten the same complaints about Perot from Clinton backers had Clinton lost.

  • Juice||

    The lesson that should be learnt from it is for independent or Libertarian candidates to refrain from running against any Republican unless the Republican is worse than the Democratic candidate

    And vice versa? lol

  • zrrifle||

    Another reason from what I remember (and I recall Bush blamed himself), is that he did almost nothing and waited until the last minute to start campaigning, while Clinton was campaigning his head off all over the country. It gave many of us the impression that Bush didn't really care if he won or lost.

  • Juice||

    Not everyone has to write a blog post about the guy, you know.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah really. Let's pick at the guy right after he drops dead.

  • DiegoF||

    Where did Mr. Juice say people should shit-talk him? He's just saying there are too many Bush pieces, positive or negative (and in fact Gillespie's was quite negative); rightly or wrongly, they seem to strike him as redundant.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I was criticizing Jesse Walker for writing the article, not Juice.

    Apologies to Juice if it came off that way to him.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I called it. I said that all the media propagandists would come out of the woodwork to talk about Bush Sr.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Figures, Lefties like you dont know what propaganda is.

    They use it so much, that techniques of lying come as second nature.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn the Troll exposes his multiple socks.

  • Zeb||

    Wow, what amazing predictive powers. The media is doing exactly what they always do when an former president dies.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    That's OK. Half of the young "reporters" don't know that we had two Bush presidents.

  • DiegoF||

    Here's to a relatively even-handed approach to the Palestinian conflict.

    "Fuck the Jews; they didn't vote for us anyway."

    --James A. Baker III, U.S. Secretary of State 1989-1992

  • Jesse Walker||

    One of those poorly sourced quotes that will probably live forever, no matter how shaky the evidence that he said it.

  • DiegoF||

    It was anonymously sourced, and was later confirmed--not by a member of the "Jewish lobby," as Bush called it in a 1991 press conference, but by a Jewish friend and ally of both Bush and Baker, Fred Zeidman. Zeidman claimed it was taken out of context, which I think is a far more promising way to defend Baker. (Not that someone who openly treated Israel like garbage is in the best position to be defended, but everyone deserves some charity.) Most private quotations attributed to public figures from "respected" sources should be as probable as this one.

    Which, I agree, isn't saying much. We should be a lot more skeptical about such attributions in general. This one just ain't particularly high on the list.

  • DiegoF||

    Incidentally, I would never criticize Bush's overall (very long) career record as being inimical to the Jews or anything like that. It's actually not at all a criticism of Bush, may he rest in peace, and more a criticism of you (whom I like just fine, for what it's worth) and your cheering for Baker's open antagonism toward Israel (for instance, calling them the biggest obstacle to peace) as "even handed."

  • titmus||

    This.

    There's no merit in being even-handed between right and wrong.

  • DiegoF||

    "He understood that the Soviet Union was our enemy."

    --Eulogizing Bush on MSNBC right now

  • Mr. JD||

    It is truly remarkable that the party that cheered "The 1980s called. They want their foreign policy back." thinks that it can accuse others of not being sufficiently worried about Russia with a straight face.

    Even Trump is harsher towards Russia in policy than Democrats of any recent vintage.

  • buybuydandavis||

    From the people who cheered on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ...

    He who controls the past controls the future
    He who controls the present controls the past

  • Jerryskids||

    Go Dawgs!!!!

  • Echospinner||

    Can't really say who was best or worst in my lifetime.

    In terms of likability and political style Reagan and to some extent Bill Clinton I think were pretty good. Reagan talked a good game of small government even if it was mostly just talk, something he excelled at. Clinton had this kind of aw shucks way of pulling though his worst messes. HW Bush gave you the impression that he was a steady hand on the wheel, if true or not. That is something I miss in today's political climate.

    But none of them have had much to offer for a libertarian.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Reagan doubled or tripled the national debt. The year after he left office, co-workers thought it a fantastic deal to get mortgages for only 21%. That was all on Reagan.

    All talk, all bluster. Anyone who actually *believed* that communism was inefficient and doomed to failure would have let capitalism and free markets roar ahead and left the communists to modernize and liberalize, or sink their own boat. That would have done far more to bankrupt the USSR than bluffing them with Star Wars at our own expense.

  • SIV||

    Democrat-controlled congress controlled spending and a lot of that debt went to defeating the Soviet Union.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Blame President Obama for his budgets but blame Congress for Ronnie's budgets? Congratulate President Ronnie for outspending the USSR and blame Congress for raising the budget over Ronnie's veto?

    Partisan hackery, I call it. Try again.

  • SIV||

    Obama wholly owns his budgets from when his party controlled both houses of congress.

  • buybuydandavis||

    David Nolan - Sock = Hihn

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "THIS is why the Trump tax cuts will FAIL on industrial base and offshore jobs. Compare with Canada
    Our corporate rate 21% vs 15%.
    Our depreciation on factory equipment 7 years vs 5 years.
    Our special rates on dividends vs ZERO in Canada
    Canada indexes capital gains for inflation. We tax inflationary gains."

    I agree on all that. Although I put more of the blame on not having a more aggressive cuts package on our weak, RINO run, feckless GOP congress than anything else.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    You didn't read squat that I wrote. For instance, your "The PRIME rate was 21%. He inherited that, and ended it" shows you didn't read my "the year after he left office".

    My remark about free markets meant the US, idiot. And yes, the USSR did have a few free markets, very small, with an inordinate influence on the economy, and maybe the USSR would have expanded them,but any idiot could tell what I wrote.

    Which was that if Ronnie had actually BELIEVED that communism was inefficient and doomed to failure on its own account, he wouldn't have felt the need to bluff them into spending more by spending more himself.

    Blaming the Democrats for Ronnie's budgets is a joke. You can't blame the Democrats for everything, bud. Either Ronnie was in charge for all the congratulation you want to give him, or he wasn't and the Democrats get those too.

    Obama spent too much, but Ronnie had his hands tied. Gosh how original.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "You didn't read squat that I wrote. For instance, your "The PRIME rate was 21%. He inherited that, and ended it" shows you didn't read my "the year after he left office"."

    In 1990, the prime rate was around 10%. Fixed mortgage rates were 9-10%. So I don't know what you think was circa 21%, but it had nothing to do with any kind of mainstream mortgage program. If you don't believe me, go to bankrste monitor or any of other sources of that kind of data.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I quoted different things because Mr. Alphabet upthread keeps jumping around, so I don't know what he was getting at. The point is that when Reagan left office, or a year later (1990) there were no mainstream mortgage loan products, or major indexes that were "around 21%" that he keeps claiming.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He also said 'the year after Reagan left office' more than once. I'm not sure why you're fixating on any of this where I'm concerned since I'm only trying to correct him using historical data sourced from Bank Rate Monitor. I'm also rounding a little as rates fluctuate throughout each year.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Yes, Reagan beat inflation in his first years. I was reporting that after 8 years in office, co-workers were scrambling for 21% mortgages. Try reading next time.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Bullshit. Thirty year fixed rates were around 9% in 1989. The only time they were near 21% was 1981.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah, which is why I said "anywhere near". And some areas, and some loan products featured higher rates than what you're quoting for a time

    For once we're pretty much on the same page here. That alphabet guy is just way off.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    I guess if there still is Reagan Derangement Syndrome 30 years later, we can look forward to the same with Trump 3o years from now. Well, that's only fair, since we still have Hillary Derangement Syndrome 30 years later.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You don't appear to know what you're talking about. Maybe you should be quiet.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And for once this is not directed toward Hihn.

  • Red Tony||

    This whole conversation was an idiot fight between Hihn and ahful.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Indeed. I was trying to straighten the guy out when Hihn jumped in.

  • Red Tony||

    Is Hihn honestly trying to claim credit for starting a piss fight?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I even backed him up in refuting the nonsense the guy was spewing. But a Hihn can't help himself. Even Tony and PB have more self control than that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And this kind of sit is why everyone loathes you here. Can't even agree with you without being attacked.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Since I've actually owned and managed a mortgage company, you might not want to make such an assertion. I promise you my understanding of moartgave rates and mortgage lending is vastly superior to yours. And just because you got a particular rate around 1980 on a particular loan in a particular geographic area doesn't mean that throughout an entire year, throughout the entire country, that every loan would have near identical rates. I can provide anecdotal examples from members of my own family from that time period with interest rates that are different from yours.

    Mortgage lending is not very homogeneous that way.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Interest rates were that high during Carter's administration.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "But none of them have had much to offer for a libertarian."

    Some crazy racists think that defeating Soviet communism was a plus.

  • Robert||

    For worst during my lifetime, hard to pick between Kennedy, Johnson, & Nixon. For best, if I can prorate the current term, Trump.

  • Robert||

    What if it came to a golf-off between Eisenhower & Obama? Or a music playoff between Nixon & Clinton? Or poker between Nixon & Bush Jr.?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Bear in mind that I was born when Richard Nixon occupied the Oval Office, so worst president of my lifetime was a pretty high bar to clear."

    Hey, I can top that. I think. I was born fairly late in the Eisenhower administration. My only memory of the Kennedy administration is the day that it ended - I was in the first grade. Nixon resigned right before I started my senior year of high school. So from the time I can remember until I was almost a legal adult, the Presidents I experienced were LBJ and Nixon. I mean, damn, is it any wonder I learned to be cynical about government?

    Seriously, Bush may have been the best President of my lifetime, warts and all. It's either him or Reagan, I guess. They were flawed, but not nearly so much as the other post-JFK administrations.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I'm a year older than you so l mostly agree. But Carter did the the least damage so there's that.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Carter: malaise, selective service, Department of Education, Iran hostage crisis, stagflation...

  • Armchair Lawyer||

    It's actually pretty easy to double the deficit in a single year, during a recovery (or economic expansion). 1958 to 1959 is an easy example. 1966-1967 is another

  • Armchair Lawyer||

    OK, we're starting to play word games and being ultra-selective here with our statistics.

    "In the 7th year of a recovery?"

    Long economic expansions are less common in the United States. One of the longer ones has been the current one, and the 1961-1969 expansion. So, the 66-67 doubling was in the 6th, not the 7th year of an expansion. In addition, if you're going one war, but not another, it seems odd

    "Inheriting the longest recovery ever..."
    Again, that's an N=1.

    "Then adding more debt in 2 years than Obama did in 8 years".
    This is just inaccurate, unless you insist on including future flows. If you do you're clearly not including the ATRA of 2012.

    Moreover, you've switched from the deficit to the debt, which are different terms.

    I'm happy to talk about this honestly, but you need to set aside your biases and look at the numbers honestly. For example, there's no year to year deficit doubling under Trump.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    I honestly can't remember a damn thing about the guy. His term came and went without much to remark on besides Kuwait and "Read my lips!". I tend to view him as the big vacant lot in between the Reagan and Clinton estates.

  • SIV||

    Bush issued an executive order banning the importation of "assault weapons". I joined the NRA the same week.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Bans on assault weapons have been constitutional since 1939 (Miller)"

    I must have missed the constitutional amendment passed in 1939 that overturned the 2nd. Remind me which one that was.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Which war, Jesse? The war on plant leaves (death sentence demanded by Holy War Bush)? It says sth abt voters that Slick Willie also wanted the death sentence for weed and still beat Mr CIA.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hey, Hank's even crazier than you are. I got nothing when it comes to his ranting and raving.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Actually it was almost a backhanded compliment. But take it however you choose.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes. You're unbalanced. A few people here won't even respond to you because they pity your mentally unstable condition. You attack anyone for the slightest deviation from your opinion, or for some perceived error in minutia on even the most trivial point. You even attack people who agree with you. Then turn around and okay the victim card and cry "bully" when people hit back. And I'm not even going to get into your bizarre and irrational employment of sock puppets.

    That's you. It's also why everyone here thinks you're unbalanced, or even completely nuts. Maybe some kind of narcissistic personality disorder combined with OCD and paranoid personality disorder.

    Since your moods tend to vary greatly, I'm guessing you are medicated at least part of the time. Am I close on any of this? It wouldn't surprise me to find out you've had a professional diagnosis somewhere in the direction I've just described.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Not only is she completely and totally batshit crazy, she's also a pathologically lying cunt.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You've never kicked anyone to the curb. You've never won a single argument against anyone here, ever.

    Do you understand that you're seen as a crackpot nutcase, amd a pathetic joke? Most people don't even read your ranting bullshit. You're just an insane shitposter.

    My guess is that harassing people here is pretty much your whole life. Given what a deluded self important fool you are, there is no way you could maintain relationships with friends or family. And you probably belong in a mental institution.

    I'm guessing the only reason you haven't ended your own life is that your narcissism won't allow it. Then you would have to acknowledge what a laughably homogeneous failure you are.

  • SIV||

    Young Mr Walker was right at the time. Bush 41 was the second-worst president of my lifetime in the early 1990s (LBJ worst by far, natch)

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    This is so disappointing. I was hoping he was going to run against Trump in 2020.

  • Red Tony||

    Bush/Weld 2020, as Libertarians?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Maybe in a bizarro world or Qwardian universe.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The Bush twins are old enough now. Bush/Bush?

  • Eddy||

    They're 35 already? Remember when they needed Secret Service protection to stay out of trouble for underage drinking?

  • Eddy||

    Alternate joke: "Wait, before I give the order to launch, are you the President or the Vice President? It's hard to tell you two apart."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You can never get enough Bush....

  • CE||

    No, that would be George W. Bush.
    For all the wars and blowing up the debt and creating the demand for TARP and for ushering in Obama.

  • Sevo||

    Bizarro:

    "In her insightful and politically charged new novel, Barbara Kingsolver finds deep resonances between the Victorian era's attitudes towards science, and our own. Unsheltered begins on the eve of the 2016 presidential election, when Willa, a freelance journalist whose family has fallen on hard times, discovers that the house they've moved into has a "nonexistent foundation." Hoping to enlist restoration help from a historical society, Willa traces the origins of the house to Thatcher Greenwood, a science teacher who lived there in the 1870s, and his neighbor, a real-life woman biologist named Mary Treat, whose research supported Charles Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Just as Darwin's theory challenged the Victorian belief in the Judeo-Christian creation myth, so too, in Willa's era, does global warming challenge prevailing myths about the future of civilization."
    https://www.amazon.com/Unsheltered-Novel-Barbara
    -Kingsolver/dp/0062684566/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8=
    1543696699&sr=8-1&keywords=unsheltered+a+novel

    Pretty sure drawing equivalence between Darwin, climate change and a failed building inspection is gonna need some Hihn-level idiocy.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, idiot.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Thanks for civil forfeiture, you prick.

  • Entelechy||

    What part of pusilanimous doesn't Jesse understand?

    When Bush was in charge, the Afghans were on our side.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There was a time under Bush Sr., that much of the Muslim World kind of liked the USA.

    Bush Sr had gotten 20+ Muslim nations to fight along side the USA to expel Saddam's forces from Kuwait.

  • Bubba Jones||

    On behalf of Kuwait

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The older Kuwaitis still love us.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Lefty Brains:
    1) The current leader of the Republican Party is literally Hitler
    2) The last leader really wasn't so bad

    Year after year after year after year

  • libertynugget||

    Nixon and HW Bush were the worst presidents in your lifetime???
    Did you die and resurrect from 78-82?

  • libertynugget||

    woops, meant 76-80

  • DiegoF||

    You mean the Democrat who deregulated a shit ton of stuff and didn't get us into any wars? As in, the only one since Grover Cleveland? He was actually in charge from 77-81.

  • DiegoF||

    (And I am the dude who opened by bitching about Bush's attitude toward Israel, so you can imagine how inclined I am to dole out affection here!)

  • No Longer Amused||

    Please, Carter and Obama were far, far worse.

  • DiegoF||

    Mr. Carter and friends celebrate America's soon-to-be-worst president.

  • Bubba Jones||

    GHWB triggered decades of US war in the middle easy and contributed to the rise of al qaeda.

    This derailed W's effort to reform social security.

    So, I think it is ok to think he did was among the worst.

    Iraq liberated Kuwait from an autocracy. Change my mind.

  • DiegoF||

    Iraq liberated Kuwait from an autocracy. Change my mind.

    I would never do any such thing, as I'd be embarrassed by the fact that your claim is certainly correct. Molotov and Ribbentrop did the same for Poland in 1939, and the world still remembers them.

  • Eman||

    I think a truly libertarian website would have more articles about GHB.

  • inoyu||

    HW Bush, a ww2 era president, lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton, baby boomer. Very important. Here come the millennials.

  • Liberty Lover||

    HW Bush WAS the worst president in your lifetime at one time. Then Clinton, GW Bush, Obama and Trump followed. That changed things "in your lifetime".

  • colorblindkid||

    To be fair, every president since him has been progressively worse.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Rest assured though that Walker never thought this for a moment about Obama, because he, like most of the Reason "libertarians" worship, adore, and venerate him like he's a god.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    True, but what most Americans expect from the presidency has also gotten progressively worse.

  • Trollificus||

    Judging from the adoration directed at Obama, all that's required now is a nice speaking voice and a tan.

    Oh, and rolled-up sleeves help.

  • Uncle Jay||

    George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.
    Pick your poison.

  • ||

    hi everyone i say found a powerful formula that combines the highest quality ingredients to address your weight loss from multiple perspectives, 24 hours per day. By
    increasing your metabolism both during the day and night, increasing your energy levels, and promoting and restful sleep get more info here... www.argeosaly.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online