That was your best shot?
I asked for a positive argument making the case for Bush's excellence; yet buried deep inside the stock diatribe about Al Gore and veiled references to Clinton, all I got was:
You want to know what Bush did right? He went ahead and actually did something, instead of the endless political wanking that others have been doing for years.
"He actually did something". Man, you set the bar pretty low. Do results count for anything, or is just the appearance of activity sufficient for you?
You might remember one unique event that none of the past "others" experienced: September 11th. The something that Bush did was excruciatingly obvious--any President who didn't pursue Al Qaeda to Afghanistan would've been impeached for derliction of duty and gross stupidity.
It's fairer to judge Bush by his actions when the situation evolved out of pure reaction, and into a realm where decision-making was required. What did we get? Iraq, and a contrived "front line of the war on terror" that's in direct conflict with the revisionist justification that we invaded Iraq to help the people. It's a fine example of Bush's strategic genius: Invade a country to ostensibly liberate the people, then turn their country into a permanent war zone by declaring that the plan all along was to sucker the world's terrorists into coming to Iraq to be killed at our convenience. "Bring it on", screeches Dubya. What a genius.
Bush has performed so poorly that random chance alone favors his successor being an improvement. There's a lot more room above Bush than below him.