Interesting that the "conservative" President Bush has essentially gotten in the most trouble where he hasn't been conservative. Principally, this means going into Iraq without much caution and failing to limit spending in other areas leading to a serious drag on the economy.

Carter, on the other hand, seemed often paralyzed by inaction. In effect, he was too conservative and refused to part with the dogma of the Democratic party. A more aggressive stance against Iran may have been warranted, and he clearly wasn't willing or able to address the economy adequately.

Who was worse? Domestically, I'd say it was clearly Carter by a large margin, and that's saying a lot. Internationally, Bush was worse. His inability to mount convincing arguements to enlist international support for any anti-terror efforts were a colossal failure. Then there was the whole idea of pre-emptive war. Supporters always come back to the idea that he has somehow faced down an enemy, which I think vastly overstates the capability of terrorists to mount additional strikes.

Carter was, I think, well intentioned but inept. Bush doesn't have enough clarity of vision to see when he's wrong and change course. And he's inept. In the short term, that makes him our worst President. Granted, if the Middle East achieves some sort of political stability within the next 10-15 years (IF, I'm saying), he'll probably get some of the credit just for having stirred the pot. Reminds me of the old basketball training camp slogan "Pain Produces Change."

That's how I see it, anyhow.