Such popularity is usually fleeting. People often forget that in the aftermath of 9/11 George W. Bush had the highest approval rating of any president on record despite losing the popular vote. He was reelected with a popular majority but still left office with the lowest approval rating of any president since Nixon. Obama's a unique case as the first "Black" president, people are more hesitant to criticize him lest they be accused of racism. However, even in his case and with most presidents with a higher than average degree of popularity the minority that is against them is *really* against them. He certainly has not united everyone, in fact most are more polarized than ever between those who think he can do no wrong and those who think he's turning America into the USSR-American style.

So what do you think when people like Obama come along and everyone says they'll make every thing better and unite everyone etc. etc? Are there exceptions to everyone hating the President when its a popularity contest?

Part II: For as long as I've been alive pretty much half the country *hates* the president no matter who it is. That makes it very hard for a country to come together even in times of crisis; if it's not "their" guy in office the other side always suspects the motives of the president no matter what he does. It's just all too political I guess would be the simple way to put it. Then of course there are the reasons of history, tradition, religion etc that most countries have. Monarchies have a far higher "style" than republics ever could and, even if the monarch has no "real" power they still provide a valuable service by keeping certain powers out of the hands of other people. That's probably the best short answer I could give.

There's enough to make them hard to sort through. I don't find it ideal that the choice of Head of State is the result of a popularity contest in which about half the country is going to be opposed to the guy. I don't like such an office to be gained through vote-buying, lies being told, promises being made, special interest groups being catered to etc. At the same time, being from a country where the Head of State is also Head of Government, I don't like how the President never has to answer the tough questions while in office by the opposing party (something like PM's Questions would be unthinkable for a US President to endure) and I don't like how divisive the presidency is, especially these days.

Excuse my curiosity, but Is there any particular reason why you think a republic falls short of being the best way for a country to be governened?

For a variety of reasons I simply see monarchy as being right, maybe it takes first hand experience with republicanism to see the shortcomings. Even Texas (which was a republic during our era of independence) has historically been monarchist far longer than it has been republican. We were claimed by the Kingdom of France for a time, were part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain for centuries and were also part of the short-lived Mexican Empire. I'm also right on the Texas-Mexico divide so I have a foot in each camp. I also tend to always be contrary which helps; in my school days I gave my teachers plenty of aggrevation by taking the side of the Tories when learning about the American Revolution. I could also look at that conflict a little more dispassionately since it had nothing to do with Texas; we had our own War for Independence and only joined the Union in 1845 (by treaty) and that was, interestingly, after a brief flirtation with joining the British Empire!

Hi. I saw you were from Texas and just thought I'd ask why you're interested in monarchies when the US spent so long getting out from under one...