I would also put the first (tho not the second) George Bush into the Carter/Clinton category.

He never really struck me as someone with a view to how the country should be run. He just wanted to be President.

An excellent point. George H.W. Bush may have had some ideas in 1980, but by 1988 he was basically just running to serve out Reagan's third term. But he did a pretty good job from a foreign policy standpoint, and aside from the tax cuts, I liked his domestic policy as well.

I always compared George H.W. Bush to a competent bus driver. He knew how to drive the bus. But he didn't set the route, and that's an important part of the job.

I thought Clinton was an terrible president. He didn't do as much damage as Carter simply because he had to face a Republic Congress. He was another person who seemed to have no goal in life but to be the alpha dog. His narcissism and inherent dishonesty more than offset his high intelligence. Fortunately, since he had no principles to speak of, he moved towards the right when he saw the results of the 1994 election. Unfortunately, his impact on national security was disastrous, ranging from using the military for issues unrelated to national security, to damagine the CIA, to failing to recognize the dangers made obvious by the first attack on the world trade center, to fighting wars in a manner designed to avoid any American casualties regardless of the loss in effectiveness, hence confirming the view of Islamofascists that Americans were cowards and would never fight mano a mano.

amen, John

"But he did a pretty good job from a foreign policy standpoint...."

Bush's major foreign policy stance was to discourage Boris Yeltsin, attempt to strengthen and support Mikhail Gorbachev, and prevent the Soviet Union from collapsing. "Stability uber alles" was the Bush 41 foreign policy priority, be it with the Soviet Union, the Middle East, China, or anywhere else. Perhaps this counts as a "pretty good job." Perhaps not.

John Moore says: "...to fighting wars in a manner designed to avoid any American casualties regardless of the loss in effectiveness, hence confirming the view of Islamofascists that Americans were cowards and would never fight mano a mano."

Yes, the Clinton stance on casualties was quite a contrast from the brave military risks Bush 41 and Reagan, took, wasn't it? Who can forget the inspiring determination President Reagan showed in Lebanon? If only Bill Clinton hadn't let us all down, things would have been different.

Bush's obsession with stability aside, I would call the work he did dealing with the first invasion of Kuwait some pretty impressive diplomacy. Of course, he blew the landing, but the judges still have to give him a decent score.

Yes, I agree that Bush 41 did an excellent job with responding to the invasion of Kuwait, and the counter-invasion.

I don't think Bush 41 was a terrible president. I agree he was a care-taker/place-holder who famously lacked "the vision thing," and I think he, having lived in a bubble most of his life, lacked understanding of what life for most ordinary Americans is like, but that's a common failing of politicians. He was intelligent and "competent," for what that's worth; it sure puts him ahead of President Harding. Nor did he have any of the flaws of his mentor, Richard Nixon. He's possibly most comparable to his predecessors, Presidents Ford and Eisenhower, neither of whom are favorites of mine, but neither do I hold them in animus or contempt. (And lest you feel I'm being too partisan, I have some criticisms of Kennedy, Carter, and as a person, LBJ was a monster whose lack of grasp of foreign policy came as close to domestically destroying our country in my lifetime as I ever want to see. And one of the Presidents I most admire, contradictory man that he was, is Teddy Roosevelt.)

I'd argue that the vast majority of our Presidents over the past fifty years have been caretakers. Since Truman, it's hard to think of anyone besides Reagan who has been much more than someone who handles the little details with varying degrees of success.

I strongly dislike the man, but LBJ's civil rights programs made extraordinary and necessary changes.

I know quite well we'll disagree about the goodness/badness of the Great Society programs, but possibly you'd also agree that they were quite significant initiatives (though Truman pushed for some similar programs in the Fair Deal, and tried unsuccessfuly to pass a health care plan; the difference between the two was that LBJ had huge backing in Congress, and Truman didn't)?

Call LBJ what you will -- and I'd call him a real sonofabitch whose foreign policy did terrible things to our country, and I'd call him a lot more besides -- but "caretaker" is not applicable.