The Bush Presidencies represent a unique historical challenge for historians and political scientists alike. Not since John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams has the nation been led by father and son presidents. The Bushes are different from the Adamses. John Adams and John Quincy Adams ruled a good twenty-four years apart with John Quincy assuming the presidency in 1824 after a controversial election that was settled by the House of Representatives. Although John Quincy did not receive a majority of popular votes or a majority of elector votes he assumed the presidency due to the influence of the House. He was soundly defeated by Andrew Jackson four years later. In contradistinction to John Quincy Adams, George W. Bush was declared the electoral vote winner in the 2000 presidential election after a bitter contested election settled in large measure by the Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore. Unlike John Quincy, George W. Bush won a second term albeit by the smallest margin in history [1]. George H W Bush was not successful in his re-election quest while John Adams was in his. Psychological insinuations and theories are more rampant today affecting the analysis of the Bush presidencies unlike the Adams' presidencies. However, the Bush presidencies present opportunities for comparing and contrasting father and son presidencies governing within eight years of each other. In addition, the son governs as the father watches. This new and significant book is dedicated to comparing and contrasting this father and son combination. The response to our call has been quite fruitful. There seems to be a conventional wisdom developing about this father and son relationship. It seems to emphasise differences between the father and son. These differences are largely due to the different approaches that father and son took towards Iraq. Thus it has been observed that the father is a bit disappointed in the son for the path taken in Iraq. George H W Bush is concerned for and worries about his son. Our authors find not only differences but great similarities between both presidents. This is as one might expect given blood lines, environmental upbringing, family ties, education and other variables affecting these individuals. The analysis here both adds to and contradicts the conventional wisdom view of the Bushes'. Our authors present a first attempt at analysing this unique relationship in various policy areas. The authors believe that this relationship will provide future scholars with many research questions concerning the nature of the presidency.