Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (242708)	3/19/2008 6:05:20 AM
From: skinowski	Respond to of 793939

There is a way of thinking that people - somehow - elect politicians who are "appropriate" for the period. Gloomy and somber Carter marked the tail end of the post-Vietnam "malaise" and of the 1970's bear market. Optimistic Reagan was elected when it was time for us to recover our confidence and pride. Bush I signified a transitional period of sorts; as a proud military man he knew it was important to stop Hussein in Kuwait. Bubba was the man for the moment as we were heading into a bubble and "irrational exuberance". Bush II is one of not too many American politicians capable of understanding what the concept of "religious war" means. I realize that all this is very general and "non-scientific" -- but they do seem to come on stage as they're needed. From this point of view, it could be somewhat disturbing that so many among our public are willing to gamble on a person who is seen as having "potential for greatness". "Great" leaders tend to mark crappy times. (At this point I'll take off my psychoanalyst hat and go do some real work... -g)