>>>We are presently watching the 1995 movie "Nixon", with Anthony Hopkins. I think that you will see a similar movie in the future about our present president. This movie sure brings back memories!
>>
>>In retrospect, where there any really good presidents lately ?
>>Kennedy: gunned down quite early. Kept Cuba missile free - and comes off good in the movies.
>>
>>Reagan: had the fortune of boom years and was in office when he could still remember his lines. But was he perhaps one of the reasons for the boom ?
>>
>>Bush the older: not really a good debater, but was intelligent enough to stay out of Iraq for the duration. And he kept his promise to free oil...
>>
>>Clinton: If the worst they tried to hang on him was a true-to-the-letter-but-not-the-intent description of a young girl treating one of his members, that is not too bad in my book.
>>
>>Ford: Kept in touch with the ground...
>>
>>Nixon: Impeached him and made non-flattering movies already... (No I don't usually believe in movies<bg>)
>>
>>Bush the younger: Enough flames here already. But at least one foreigner who usually thinks high of the US thinks this one is definitely below average.
>>
>>Carter: How did that happen ?
>>
>
>One of the things that has disappointed me most about GWB and his administration is exactly what you say. His disastrous actions in Iraq and his general go-it-alone attitude have done damage to our international reputation it will take years, if not decades, to undo. We aren't just talking about Islamic jihadists and banana republics, who already hated us. Opinion polls of even our closest allies -- countries like Germany, England, and Japan -- show a sharp dropoff in approval of the U.S. since Bush took office.
>
>How was Jimmy Carter elected? As is so often the case, it was largely (IMO) a sign of the times. You have to remember we were coming off the "long national nightmare" of Watergate and the subsequent resignation of a sitting President, something that had never happened before. The culture wars were just heating up, American voters moving to their respective polarized positions rather than being mostly clumped in the middle as had been the case since WWII. In the aftertaste of Nixon's imperial presidency, Carter's down-home public image resonated with a lot of people. We were pretty naive about political marketing back then and the the thought of a peanut farmer from Georgia with wacky relatives and an apparent comfort being photographed wearing blue jeans went down easy. Plus he was running against Jerry Ford. Don't swallow all the stuff going around at the moment about Ford, in the wake of his death, even though he was an exceptionally decent man. He was never elected anything
>higher than Congressman from Grand Rapids and his pardon of Richard Nixon soured many voters on him permanently. Many of us thought the fix was in (which remains an open historical question). So Carter was elected in a close race. In retrospect he was a pretty crummy President but I can understand why it happened.

I agree with you 100%.

The office of the President of the United States is truly the most powerful political position in the world. It has responsibilities, which become more and more complex with time.

It seems frightful that a human holds this office and must make the “right decisions”, for not only our nation but also the entire world. I am not sure where the balance is on this topic but it could well be that democracy will be limited by the abilities of our President, and the complexity of the World.