So Bush gets credit for Sept 2002 to Dec 2003, but isn't responsible for 2000 to 2002, or for Jan 2004 to present? That seems a little selective. I think it's a little more fair and more rational to maintain my point, which is that the performance of the markets during his tenure has been up and down, mostly down, and that it's probably not accurate to lay that at his doorstep. But it's also not accurate to give him credit for stimulating the markets, because the markets don't seem to have been stimulated.