Either bush wouldn't make it into the top 10% of the worst! I would say FDR(new deal and his poor handling of the economy), hubert hoover(his handling of the economy. Coincidently, the 1929 crash happened 8 months after he entered office, and ran through his entire term.), CLINTON(Groom lake polution/regulations, relaxed corporate regulations, foster, lewinsky, glass steagle repeal, line item veto, etc....), CARTER(iran crises, energy crises, moronic attempts to try to save the hostages, etc.....), would rank as worse. Nixon may deserve a spot as one of the worst also. Though I Clinton did the SAME thing using equipment that nixon didn't have in his time.
BTW it is interesting that only ONE, besides nixon, was "republican", HOOVER. He had NO loyalty to the republican party, and acted like a democrat, and earlier was.
In fairness though, it seems truman(another democrat), may be on the other end of, excuse the expression, the spectrum! He decided not to run again though. He probably meant well with the social security, and the rest just had to be done, or was good. Also, it looks like calvin coolidge(republican) may also deserve a spot as one of the BETTER presidents. Though his term end in 1929 is suspicious, and he had a good run, his policies seemed sound. maybe the facilitated the later solutions to the collapse.
And WHAT would you say bush did? Pronounce nuclear wrong? That is the way some COMMUNITIES pronounce it! It wasn't a sign of stupidity. That he stumbled over words, etc....? Ever listen to kerry or OBAMA? They do, or have done, the SAME! Heck, I do at times ALSO. That he "got rid of the budget surplus that 'clinton had'"? That is a specious argument, as it was a fabrication. He could have told the same lie. That he gave tax cuts? And the deal with the iraqis was basically a show of force. He had to do something.