The failure of the republicans and Clinton bashing is that the prestige and
influence of the Office of the President has been stupidly ignored at the
peril of the economy. Washington scrxwed his slaves, Eisenhower had a
mistress, Rosevelt played around, Kennedy chased every hot celebrity in a
skirt, on and on . . . these things were ignored until afterwards in order to
let the person who was elected run the office. Since when was the pope
or preacher elected to run the country? IMO, the republican leadership has
run as much afoul of their responsibilities as leaders of the will and
confidence of the public as has the folly of the president. Two wrongs
don't make a right.
Politics aside, (a good way to get into protracted arguments that satisfies
no-one), the damage to the President has served as the primary catalyst
to the market slide, IMO.Politics aside, (a good way to get into protracted arguments that satisfies
no-one), the damage to the President has served as the primary catalyst to
the market slide, IMO.<<
Rob, eight times in this century the US has enjoyed two consecutive years of 25% plus advances. The following yr. stocks declined. We have just seen two great advances in 1995 and 1996, but instead of a decline in 1997 we got another great advance. On top of this advance we just saw another double digit advance in the first 7 months of of 1998. This is unheard of. The S&P selling at more than 25 times earnings in July( normal range 12 and 20). Rob, it's earnings that drives stocks up, not the Presidents sex life. Historically earnings grow 8% a year on ave., thus a large increase in the earnings would be unrealistic to support lofty stock prices. It's the coming slow down in the world economy that is bring down stock prices, not some slut the President had sex with. Although it didn't help this country morally one bit. |
