I'm sure some of the posters w/ a history background can provide a pretty good analysis on this subject. I'm not too deeply based in history, I graduate w/ a public admin degree, with lots of poli sci work, but very little history. However, I have done some historical reading of late (mostly on clinton, nixon, lbj, ike, polk, jqa, tr, mckinley and the founders).
At any rate, I'll stop at Coolidge because I don't know much about him, but he seems as if he was a pretty ineffective leader. He did have an excuse, unlike W., cause iirc his son died while he was in office, and as a result he has major depression problems, which explains why he slept 11 to 13 hours per day and didn't do much. From what I've read it appears he was a quite incompetent w/ the pending Depression and did a worse job than Hooever. But perhaps I'm giving W. too much credit??
Nixon is probably the closest rival to Bush in the past 75 years. He was a very corrupt person and red baiting extraordinairre, but he actually was a person of merit and vast intelligence. Iirc he finished 3rd in his class at Duke Law and didn't have everything handed to him in life. Of course, his family was far from dirt poor like he tried to portray.
Bush has about every bad trait a President can have: Anti-intellectual, who seems to get a kick out of being one. Horrible diplomat and arrogant sob who mocks anyone who disagree w/ him. Corrupt pol ~ Plame, Wmd-gate, Kenny Boy, etc. Terror baiter, which would make tricky Dick proud. Takes responsibility for nothing, e.g. 9/11 and not finding wmd's. He essentially inherited the presidency from his father and everything else e.g. Harvard MBA, deferrment from Vietnam, business financing, etc., etc. The guy has done very little in his life and I could go on and on, but I'll stop at this point before this gets any windier.