Thinking of some other unfaithful political figures— John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Jack Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, LBJ, Franklin Roosevelt , Thomas Jefferson, etc puts this in perspective.

For the most part, those traits (good man, poor man) basically came from my gut and were a reference to character.

Unlike most conservatives, I actually think Obama has goodness at heart. I could be wrong.
Bush was a twit, but his intentions were good and his sincerity real. I could be wrong there too.

But you are correct. Most of us would match perfectly on the other two traits: executive and political ability.

I still want that one great man (or woman) to lead my nation and support the Constitution. He or she is out there somewhere.

Bush II: Good man – poor executive – poor politician

Carter: Good man – good executive – lousy politician.
Reagan: Dirt bag – Alzheimer patient – great politician.
Bush I: Even Bigger Dirt bag than Reagan – competent executive – lousy politician.
Clinton: Dirt bag – decent executive – great politician.
Bush II: first class dirt-bag – barely qualified to be a dog catcher – great politician
Obama: Don't know – don't know – great politician.

And are they the same qualities that would make up a “good woman”?

With respect to “Why in the heck can we not have a person that is Great in all respects,” just an observation that, perhaps, while executive and political abilities are relatively easy and objectively to evaluate and grade, evaluating a man as to whether he is a “good” (or bad?) man, is much more difficult and much more subjective.

For example:

I believe most, regardless of political persuasions, would generally agree with your ratings of the various Presidents on executive amd political abilities, but many will disagree with you, and with each other, on whether for example, Bush was a “decent” man. (Just look at some of the comments above).

What is he differense between a “decent” and “good” man anyway?

Is Clinton a “poor” man because of his infidelity? How about all other qualities that make up a “man”?

Just a thought

“the US presidency has been on auto-pilot much of the last half-century.”
Amen.

Two standouts, however…
Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.
Ronald Reagan was decisive, consistent, and successful on the conservative front.
Barack Obama is decisive and consistent on the liberal front (jury is still out on his success, though I doubt it will be much).

Carter: Good man – poor executive – poor politician.
Reagan: Good man – great executive – great politician.
Bush I: Decent man – poor executive – poor politician.
Clinton: Poor man – good executive – great politician.
Bush II: Good man – poor executive – poor politician.
Obama: Good man – poor executive – great politician.

Why in the heck can we not have a person that is Great in all respects.
Is that too much to ask?

They process everything through just one filter: “how will I get the most admiration/attention right now”. Everything else, including past misdeeds, is vaulted away from their wakeful selves. They are easy to manipulate if one has that bent of character. The two men, Bush and Cheney were the perfect fit in that Cheney's ruthlessness pandered to Bush's narcissism just enough to keep him happy. The only thing that fell apart between Bush and Cheney towards the end was that Bush's numbers began a rapid exponenetial decline. It has nothing to do with principles or morality on Bush's behalf at all. It has everything to do with no longer feeling the glow of the limelight.

There is nothing…NOTHING to admire in a malignant narcissist like George W. Bush. It's really worth a read on the mechanics of NPD.

“Bush, from his own accounts,never lost a minute of sleep-even after we knew that we invaded the wrong country.”

I clearly remember how shocked and disgusted I was when I heard Bush say something to that effect. To make matters worse, his supporters rationalized his remarks.

No argument from me that Cheney ran the show for the first 4-6 years at least on foreign policy, war policy and domestic security. I'm not as convinced that Cheney was up to his elbows in the tax, budget and deregulation issues (energy policy excepted).

That Bush was elected president & didn't have the balls to be president until the disaster(s) of Cheney's policies were coming home to roost is condemnation itself of Bush's presidency.

“Let me see if I have the “logic” of this op-ed piece straight. One way to be a good, not great, president is to bring the country to the brink of ruin over seven plus years of disastrous policies and policy execution, and then attempt to reverse or salvage those disastrous policies in the final few months of your adminstration”

Tidbits, that's one of the reasons I found this piece so “unusual.”

Thanks for commenting

Think of the pictures of LBJ during Viet Nam. He couldn't sleep because he knew he was sending young men to their deaths. It destroyed him. Bush, from his own accounts,never lost a minute of sleep-even after we knew that we invaded the wrong country.

Maybe it was done on purpose to appeal to the moron demographic, which unfortunately is large enough to constitute the support base for a major political party.