In some areas, he was pretty good but he made a couple of serious blunders that cost him the election.

He did great in the Persian Gulf. he shouldnt ban off shore drilling

Following on the heels of the greatest American manipulator of public opinion, he was an utter disaster, a man without the populist touch. If I may be forgiven for taking the pop-culture approach to H.W. here, then, he looks like a worse buffoon than anyone the Democrats have put forth. The two most memorable reflections in pop culture are the bumbling character of Walter Sobchak in The Big Lebowski; and, delivering the summary judgment, Thurston Moore singing "Youth Against Fascism" in 1992:

The president sucks
He's a warpig f**k
His shit is out of luck

The one who got all this mess started

He was kinda an idiot in office as he didn't kill Hussein when it was justifiable.

hmmm...head of the CIA...2nd re-election was not "of the ppl"...again, nuff said

This guy is just a waste like his son and his whole family.... Its just war after war.... this country's history is just war.. and if we get more presidents like him and his son... thats all that there is going to be... WAR!

Just for siring W.

A lot like Reagan, but with war. Still smarter than his son though....and at least he stepped up and help the gulf coast out (with Clinton I might add) after Katrina. I guess Daddy really HAS to do everything

His primary reason to go to Iraq was to free Kuwait-not attack a corrupt dictator and put its country into shambles like his son is doing. He did say "No new taxes," but he did do them for a good reason. He is more caring to the people than his son and did a good job in dealing with enviornmental issues that he ranks to me, as part of the top 25 presidents in history. He is not better than Clinton and Reagan in the late 80's to now, but exponentially better than his son.

Father of the Worst President Ever. Payed his boys way through college, war, sports and politics. Left us with the rubble.

Some of these reviews display, once again, that certain indivduals labor under the illusion that a Republican and a conservative are the same thing. Bush 41 was a big governement Republican and another goon for the "new world order crowd". Further, he broke his now infamous "read my lip" pledge. Lastly, he and his administration promised help to the Shiite if they would rise up against Saddam. Though an insurrection was started, no help was ever given to them. Welcome mass graves in southern Iraq.

Update: One more time...Bill Clinton was closer, in reality, to being a Reagan Republican than either Bush 41 or 43. I agree with Oskar's review overall; but I cannot believe that some of you still think that either of the Bush Presidents is even remotely anything like a true conservative.

While I didn't like him at the time--I was quite a bit farther left in those youthful days--I've come to appreciate his mastery of foreign affairs, his wisdom and intelligence (even though he said a lot of anti-intellectual things during the election season, which I now recognize as a tactic to win votes). I still don't like his running up of the deficit, because I want a balanced budget with spending limited as much as is consistent with maintaining the level of services we expect in a prosperous country. I know my liberal friends will hurl things at me, but I've come to like this guy.

As several reviewers below have noted, Bush I was a maestro at foreign policy but weak on domestic issues. With an approval rating of 90% after the end of the first Gulf War, he could have passed anything he wanted though Congress, including an effective deficit-reduction bill. Instead, Bush dithered and babbled about a 'capital-gains tax cut' as the solution to the recession, and ignored or dismissed Americans' concerns about the economy. Bush I managed to alienate both right-wing Republicans and independents (symbolized by Buchanan's primary run and Perot's independent candidacy) and lost what should have been an easy election. He failure was due, ultimately, to his own shortcomings-not Perot or Clinton. Despite his weaknesses, Bush I was a decent president-a far better one than his son.

He was a good man and did a good job. He ran afoul of a crazy billionaire, Ross Perot, who ran against him and siphoned off enough votes so that Bill Clinton could win with 41% of the vote.

Steady, Smart

Bush the father doesn't get enough credit for the good sense he had as president, and for having diginity and some measure of class; how could he have fathered the idiot son who now occupies the White House? He had the good sense to stop short of invading Iraq, and made strong alliances throughout the world.

His mind was on the golf course. His so-called great resume was actually pretty weak for a presidential candidate. Like his son, he tried to represent only a small segment of the American people - mainly the rich and the ultra-conservative. (See royal family comment with his son's rating.) ....Cy

I worked a medical/ security detail for him when he was in Florida. He is a very personable president. He made some tough decisions while in office and some hard/ quick commands during war. War time presidents will always be a product of years of criticism and speculation but I believe he did a good job while in office.

Strong honest leadership. He did what he thought was right for the American people and refused to budge on issues he was passionate about.

Hey badgirlsobad: how about some facts? You can't criticize someone without pointing out their flaws. Just because you might not like someone does not justify rating someone poorly. This is an administrative job, not a popularity contest. I wish everyone would back up their claims with facts, otherwise a lot of Republican presidents would be higher on the ratings.

Ok here are mine: Bush protected Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion under Saddam. Clinton was notorious for inaction. He did nothing to protect the Tutsis from the Hutus in the Rwandan Genocide. No action against Al-Qaeda after 93 WTC bombing, 98 African Embassies, USS Cole, etc. Bush continued Reagan's economic policies, which fueled Microsoft and other high-tech companies into the 90's explosion, which Clinton unrightfully took credit for. You do the math. No matter how you twist and turn the numbers, you're gonna get the same answer. Democrats' lack of facts says a lot about them.

A decent man- who because of his background was out of touch with the needs of ordinary Americans- smarter then his stupid slow witted spoiled brat son 'W' - G H W B tried to ride the coat tails of the 80s boom. He also fell into the pocket of the extreme far right- with their bigoted messages of hate and intolerance.

One of the biggest CROOKS and ELITISTS this country has EVER seen as POTUS! And of course, the father of 'W', the WORST POTUS in U.S. history!

Good on defense bad on the economy.

He gave us GW, what else is there to say?

Strong on foreign affairs, fairly weak on domestic issues. Fell prey to the Clinton Propaganda Machine which told the lie that Bush presided over the weakest economy in fifty years. That simply was not true. Still, he was an average president. Out of the forty-two presidents, I'd likely rank him twenty.

Cheap, dimestore facsimile of his hero, J. Edgar Hoover. A closet case if there ever was one. Hide your children, because THIS monster has designs on them...Did somebody say Bohemian Grove?

Maybe a bigger crook than his retarded son.

He f ed up by not taking down Saddam in the 90's. But, at least he had the sense to approve tax increases when needed, unlike his dimwit son.

If you pick the name of a bad Star Wars guy of course you have problems. H.W. kicked Saddam in the balls, hard in the Gulf War. Iraqi Wipeout

UPDATE: Thank you Andrew Olsen, thank you very much for the props. I appreciate it. ... Anyway, I don't hate Bush41, but what he did during the 1988 Election was unforgivable. He injected race into his campaign by citing the case of Willie Horton and won that way. C'mon! That showed Bush 41 was insensitive and vile. OLD STUFF: Unlike his retarded son, at least Bush41 can be reasoned with and he's much smarter than his baby boy. But still, Bush41 was a weak leader. Didn't advance the causes of this nation, domestically. Out of touch with reality. To prove it, he was stunned at seeing an electronic price scanner at a supermarket checkout.

It is because of his failure to finish the job in Iraq that we are in the situation we are in now

I can guarantee, he will have left a much better environmental legacy than his son, who actually has eliminated many of his fathers initiatives, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. (So now all those people who live around the Great lakes will suffer. (not because of GHWB)

Outside of beating Saddam Hussien back out of Kuwait, there really wasn't much accomplished during Bush 41's term. A second term might have brought great things, but we'll never know.

I was not impressed with his tenure in the White House. History will treat him as one of the worst preseidents to lead this nation. Out of touch with the common man, woman, and child. I remember when he ran for re-election against Clinton; it took an act of congress to get him to approve extended Unemployment benefits for unemployed American workers. He put too much emphasis on US foreign policy and not enough on the US economy.

Liked him better then clinton and kerry. Jar-Jar you have problems

Compared to his son, this empty suit seems like a statesman. While the elder Bush had no qualifications beyond his resume listing of time served, at least his placeholding acquainted him with the world beyond the borders of the USA.

i admire his courage in ww2....however, as president, he sucked and deserved to be force-fed his least favorite food.....broccoli

More corrupt than the Harding administration.

One of the most corrupt presidents, now he's using his idiot son as a puppet. Sold weapons to countries who now use them against us. Sounds like he is a master of the setup, making himself look like a hero. Now he's doing it for his son.

Not as bad as Jr., but he was a liar and a horrible economist.

Not a great President, but SO much better, so much more moderate, than his son. He gets three stars for his principle, if not his policy. Some will say, he deserved to lose, he broke his No new taxes promise. I say, no he did what he could see needed to be done, even though he knew it would upset his base. He thought about his tax stance, and changed his mind. Thinking about outcomes, and the ability to be flexible enough to change based upon new information, are good qualities to have. Acting upon reliable new information, even when it costs political face, is what we should expect our leaders to do. That is what makes Bush Sr. a far better man than his son.

At the time, I would have suported senior Bush all the way. He stopped a mad man from taking over Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and eventually the world. Supported by most major countries worldwide. He was a tad bit dull, and didn't do much to help the economy, which is why he didn't get reelected. Still, his removal of Saddam from Kuwait makes up for his losses. He had no idea that Saddam would break all UN and US resolutions, and that the UN would turn around and support him.

Military servise, lets not forget the New World Order. The whole Bush family is corrupt. Check history, starting with the nazi's

This man is ok. Unlike his dummy son.

Anybody who serves in the Airforce, is willing to get shot at, takes a swim in the Pacific Ocean and goes back up in the air to serve his country get's an A in my book. Thank you for your heart and devotion to this country.

He was not a bad president, but the economy was not good under his stewardship. However, I do think he has more substance and more brains than the current Bush occupying the White House. I'm rating him a 4 star primarily because I think he is a decent man with a lot of heart. He celebrated his 80th birthday by taking a parachute jump. After his jump, he said he wanted to prove that even if you're 80, you've still got a life. I was really impressed, and I think it's wonderful that a man his age still has a such a sense of adventure.

A good man but not as strong in his convictions as his son.

Not half the man his son is.

Much Better-n-JR. A knowledgable foriegn policy guy who commanded respect around the globe. Domestic policy was so-so, but passed. He flew P-61s in the Pacific, while jr escaped to 'Bama in an obsolete F-102. Dunno what happened - I'm guessin' Big Mama screwed up the nest.

Not very good, but a decent human being. Weak genes though, because it seems Dubya takes after his close-minded and often bitchy mother.

Did an ok job as president during a very difficult political enviornment. Caved in to the opposition way to often. ie.. pulling out of iraq early and the infamous read my lips comment. Needed more backbone to be most effective. Would have been re-elected though if not for Perot, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Well he was a little better than his Dumb as a Rock Son.

Like father, like son!

War criminal. Tief.

Pathetic. One term was way too much.

One of the finest men to become President, but he was too politically inept to win a second term. The legacy of his administration was liberating Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, remarkably in a month's time, destroying some liberals claims that the Gulf War would be a repeat of Vietnam. He should've gotten a mandate from the UN to overthrow Hussein as the Iraqi population was rising, as Bush had so much geopolitical capital at the time. The economy during his term wasn't nearly as bad as everyone suggests. It was a minor burp, yet Bush failed to communicate the positives of the economy and instead let the Democrats script the debate. Don't forget Read My Lip: No New Taxes. Quite simply, the Democrats played Bush like a banjo. First, he makes that statement during the Convention. Next, the Democratic-led Senate forces him to break that promise in the name of deficit reduction and economic recovery. Finally, these same Democrats air campaign commercials emphasizing Bush's failure to keep that promise. Amazing that Bush was played like that, but between getting outmaneuvered by the Democrats and failing to communicate about the economy, Bush's heart wasn't in the reelection and perhaps he deserved to lose. That said, there's no question that Perot siphoned votes away from Bush, and '92 would've been a very close election, maybe just as close as '00.

Better than his son!!!

In my opinion, Bush Sr. assembled the most competent cabinet and administration in modern history, though this was mostly due to the eight preceding Reagan years in which the chaff was largely removed. While Bush Sr. only had four years to finish much of the unfinished business from the previous Regan Administration, he was largely successful in doing so (eg implementing the peace dividend by starting the long-term process of standing down the Cold War military position). Unfortunately, Bush Sr. also thought he was above politics which resulted in his ignoring campaigning which ultimately cost him a second term. If Bush Sr. had stayed in office from 1992-96, then there would have been some legitimate chance that real debt and tax reduction would have been completed when it was the least economically painful to do so which Clinton failed to do. (One must comprehend government accounting to fully understand this.) Moreover, we may have been able to begin creating actual social security reserves that will be needed if the program has any hope to be saved. Instead we got an increased social state (that is impossible for us to afford in the long-term) and more generational tax inequities from continuing to shift the burden of current general expenditures to future generations. Some critics suggest that the U.S. should have finished off Saddam during the Gulf War, but these critics seem to be the same people who complain about a lack of international coalition today (ie the Iraq War and occupation). One should remember that the coalition was built on a limited engagement (ie ousting Saddam from Kuwait) and substantially going beyond these constraints would have most likely resulted in serious damage to American relations in the Middle East (though one could argue, perhaps, that Bush Sr. should have negotiated fewer limitations).

He should have finished this war years ago.

The Bush family, known for their support of Hitler and the Nazi regime until censure by the US government in the early 1940s, has been linked to dirty deeds of all kinds and numerous crimes against humanity via war for profit. Bush is a dishonest power monger who believes the way of the world is to conquer by force. He is a criminal and true believer in world domination through murder for profit. He is a member of the Carlyle Group and was formerly in leagues with the Bin Laden family in schemes for profit though arms manufacturing and oil domination. Only after 9-11 did the Bin Ladens sell their holdings in Carlyle and were carefully and quietly flown out of the United States under Bush family protection. See people who should burn in hell for more information.

Like father, like son!

Not as bad as his moron son, but still pretty bad. Iraq is happening today because of this bastard ordering a cease fire in the early 90's and allowing Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Iraqi people.

Good man, he just lacked the tenacity of his son to get things done.

Excellent with foreign policy, almost clueless on the domestic side. However, he did sign the legislation giving broad rights to handicapped American - the ADA. Thousands of American's benefitted from his 1,000 Points of Light initiative. Excellent job liberating Panama from Noriega and Kuwait from Hussein.