When W's father was President, W and Jeb would do lines of coke at Camp David. That fact was written in a book. No one was sued to refuit it.

You know, I never cared that much about Bush's alcoholism as his recovery seemed genuine. I think he most likely used cocaine, but I think he kicked that one too. And I never have pretended to like the man. I see no point in making the most extreme case against him possible, regardless of the truth, or likely truth.

The bio of a candidate's young years is interesting....that's all it is to me. Nothing less nothing more....I'm a reader of biographies. Too much emphasis on religion...on who's more American....it's nuts....shallow. But of course this is only my opinion and a strong opinion at that!

And, finally we have come full circle to where this began. What the Pope did when he was 14 is irrelevant. What Obama did illegally as a teen is irrelevant... what Bush did is apparently irrelevant as he was elected.

Yep, GW quit and I never held his past alcohol abuse against him. What's past is past....I just don't like him as president...not in any way. .

Thats not the point. Some how Obama's booze problem as a youth is an issue. That bridge has been crossed with Bush. We have a two term President who was a coke head (or still is, I dont know).

Irrelevant as it should be, IMO. In the past...let's see what's going on today.....that's all that matters, for me at least.

I actually take Obama's "exoticness" of background as a point in his favor. He is likely to understand foreign views of this country in a way that even many of the most learned "experts" would not. Yet he clearly has an American background and is no less "American" than anyone else. What I know about his religious background also comforts me, as he seems very thoughtful. He also happens to seem close to me in theology, but that is trivial to me, if he were of a very different religion than mine, or of no religion at all, but equally thoughtful then I would be equally intrigued with him.

"Of no religion at all" is key in today's political climate....like an atheist or even an agnostic would have a chance to win the presidency...what a shame.

Truthfully, Obama's or Mccain's background means little to me in terms of the presidency.I'm only interested in their policy positions and how effective I believe they would be as president.

I agree that this is a shame. I can certainly imagine seeing an atheist candidate as better than a Christian candidate, even in terms of just basic motivation, before you get to positions on the issues and public records.

Let's just all agree that the Pope poops too and let it go at that. It is only those folks that insist
that the Pope's residence doesn't need a fart fan that bothers me.

Fine Rla, but I think that you were the one who brought him up in the first place. Why does he have to be relevant to this discussion?

What I find ironic Arne is the fact your nation exists in fact because of those who were determined to escape religious persecution. Now religion dominates once again. Sometimes I wonder if your forefathers are not rolling in their graves. I am certain they didn't consider many of the things which now dominate your political scene as being at all relevant to governance.

As for other topics.. every action causes a reaction. Much of the garbage is from habit or in retaliation. It serves no useful purpose in assessing leadership capabilities.. Track records do.

I, for example, don't find it at all commendable to use one's time in a POW camp as a gold star for leadership. Its self serving and aimed at an emotional level. Its not an earned merit badge for the position of POTUS. How many leadership decisions was he called upon to make during those years ? The fact is he voted with Bush 95% of the time in the Senate. That speaks volumes about his leadership qualifications in my opinion.

And even now when running, he can't run on his own record in government, he has to run by tearing down his opponent. Now those are relevant facts !

History speakes volumes. McCain destroyed 5 US aircraft during his Navy flying days. He was protected just like Bush was with his family name. McCain is where he is today because of his family name. Do we want that again?

BTW we only have Bush's word for the fact that he is no longer a coke head. Everyone will have to evaluate how good that is.

I also find it quite worrisome that his own campaign felt obliged to say that he did not speak for the campaign. Deja vu... a rerun of the last eight years is an election away. Who's McCain's Cheney ?

It's more obvious every day that John McCain has bargained away his soul in his hunger for the presidency. I'll take new blood any day over a bought man.

Betty, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but at what point should the MSM not talk about a candidate's background? Should they refrain from talking about the candidate's age, where they grew up, what university they went to, if they went to college? After all it would seem shallow to base one's vote on such things.

I think it inevitable that people will take relatively unimportant facts about a candidate and hype them beyond all possible reasonable relevance. I don't think it reasonable to try to prevent that from tightly limiting the kind of information that the MSM will report on. Frankly I would rather that they report a bit too much than a bit too little, and let the voters determine what is important. I do think it ridiculous when they allow themselves to be caught up into these silly controversies without any attempt to provide proper perspective.

I agree with you about McCain's years in a POW camp as not qualifying him. But shouldn't we at least know about that period in his life?

same that everywhere you read McCain has beaten his wife and McCain never sued anyone.
Therefore that too is fact.

McCain is an a-hole from day one. Too bad the public doesn't seem to care, nor care that at the Olympics, Bush looked and acted like a falling down drunk

But then, W and McCain are just puppets to the 41.
If they actually could think by themselves, they wouldn't have been hired for thier position (ala Clinton was also hired).

41
same for Bush, same for McCain

41 ran Cheney too

cheney just works for the family
clinton just works for the family
w just works for the fmaily
mccain now works for the family

That's the point Arne. You never will know about those years. Only the urban legend. All this brouhaha about his refusing release is BS. He had no choice. Its military regulations. Had he accepted release he would have been subject to military judgment and even though his father could have pulled strings he would always have been known as the guy who jumped the queue.

The other things you mention are all a part of public record and biography.

The thing is I just cannot imagine that his years in the POW camp would not be reported on, any less than John Kerry's in Vietnam. To me these are just background facts, whatever they say about the candidate. If McCain's years in the POW camp indicated the greatest courage possible (I actually see more courage in the service of John Kerry and Jim Webb in Vietnam, but I am making a general point here) to me that would not make a compelling case for electing him, not at all. Maybe for giving him an award and dinner, but not the Presidency. That is my judgment, and others will make their own judgment about what those years should mean.

seems McCAin is as qualified as Tom Eagleton was
both had things done to them that disqualifeid Eagleton...

why the hypocricy

How do we know McCAin wasn't manchurianed back then? after all, he has done the biding of the family since then.

No, I am quite sure that McCain never had electroshock therapy.

Agreed, but McCain is making a point of bringing it up constantly. Every time he does it, I lose even more respect for him. Does he have nothing else he considers worthy of merit ? The sooner the Nam generation is in the history books and no longer in contention for election to high office the better. It has poisoned the political scene in the US for 40 years now. That's way more than long enough IMO.

And I say that even though I believe John Kerry is a statesman and would have made an excellent president. I don't base that on the fact he served in battle.

Oh please Graham. If I didn't know better I would think that an Obama hater put you up to say this to provide an opportunity for one of their own cheap shots, that would still be considerably less ridiculous than this speculation.

Well I am not defending McCain here, I am saying that the MSM was doing nothing wrong in reporting on those years in the POW camp.

You know, we might not like it brought up - but a lot of people, especially of that generation of the US do give him a lot of respect for even serving. Here, everyone looks for the smallest minute thing about either candidate while the bulk of the people that vote will never ever delve that far.

I really try to look at both candidates from the viewpoint of my next door neighbor and a few of my extended family - who decide how they will vote based on what they hear on TV in sound bytes. Like it or not - a huge portion of the voting population doesn't know one nth about either candidate compared to anyone here and everyones opinion here isn't reaching them.

Just an aside, have any of you wondered where our handful of active military people went? They are around, they just aren't here... and I understand why.

How many people thanked God for their sanitation men today? And their teachers? And the taxi drivers?
This bullcrap about the troops needing our concern every moment of every day is ridiculous.
Everyone of that age served. Most younger people didn't. George Bush and Dan Quayle didn't. Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't.

This is like a Jewish guilt trip.

I for one am tired of it. I could care less, its not in my top 1000 reasons to elect a president, if someone served.

Matter of fact, if a kid today volunteers, I would question that person's judgement and never vote for that person for president. It would disqualify that person in my mind.

The draft ended in 1974. 34 years ago.

I look around, and most people who believe 9-11 was done by Bush have moved to another place, because of marine and others. So equal=equal.

And magmak1 was the one who was correct years ago. He predicted the US would be back to fighting the Cold war and Russia and china...100% on the money. Too bad his thoughts and jimirays
were not welcome here anymore because of the military type viewpoint. (though he is much more polite than I am so he would never say this).

Well Terra, I wonder about other groups of people not being here. And remember that I happen to be a son of a vet who had his own strong views about issues of war and peace, views not always even anywhere close to being in alignment with those of some here who like to use military service as a trump card in debates.

I really don't think one disrespects John McCain's service by arguing that it does not make a compelling case why he should be President. I strongly disagree with that. I refuse to be shamed by such arguments, as I see giving in to that as accepting the shaming of my father for the views he held.

terra- McCain is using the same people in his campaign that degraded John Kerry.
Instead of guilt trips, why not ask why McCain is alllowing that
can't have it both ways

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
Phillip Butler | March 27, 2008
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_2,00.html

As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.

When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!

John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.

People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John's treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case - new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3) John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.

John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he...

markets himself to be.

Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

I have a problem with the unexamined life represented by the warmonger Republican mindset. I listen to the McCains and those who love war. They always make a canned quip and pay a cheap lip-service to how they hate war, and then they show not the least retrospection on what they learned about it as a person. They never seek a peaceful alternative to any dispute. They are bellicose and their language is always the language of provocation and confrontation. They are always bullying and saber-rattling and wear their service like a badge, as though they are more American than most. They have a track record of supporting policies designed to make them rich at the expense of many other people.

Then taking on the mantle of Christian faith and indeed Godly omniscience they declare as truth what they nor anyone knows is truth. And then turn right around and promote the most non-Christian of acts, War.

Reducing complex issues to sound-bytes should be a red flag to any thinking person. They count on people being impressed that everything is black and white, and while that makes some people feel they are showing clarity of thinking and that they then know clearly where that person stands, they are shown over and over again to merely lie clearly.

Why would anyone want to put such people in positions of authority?

Because too many Americans are not able to analyze a poltician's positions and statements expressed in more than one sentence or one phrase? Sad, but true. And, some of these same people feel threatened by a politician who is better educated more articulate more charismatic than themselves. There used to be a time when most Americans admired high achievement and intelligence even if they didn't possess those qualities.

Sorry Arne - I should have put that thought somewhere else. It was not meant to support the McCain argument, but I can certainly see now how it looked that way. The though of a few people just popped into my head because I'd heard from one of them - and it was sad to think they felt they couldn't come here even though their views are pretty much in line with ours, sorta kind of.. which has absolutely nothing to do with support or non-support of McCain.

My apologies.

Graham, all I can say is I would have agreed with Mag and Jim...

In 2004 they said there were phantom religious voters

You know what, that was a lie

Voters are smarter, howver the propaganda media says we are all dumb, so it hides the theft afterward

John Kerry and Al Gore won.
Nothing more was needed in either year

Obama won already.

If he is not seated it was stolen

not some stupid phantom voter that does not exist.

then you would have agreed with me. My viewpoint is theirs. I just am not as polite or easy to understand.

I think Bush is in the WH...so technically speaking, neither Gore or Kerry won. It remains to be seen with Obama. I'm sure hoping he wins.

Okay. And I am sorry if people felt unwelcome. But of course poltical discussion can be rough, and if we just fobade all the arguments will rough edges then the discussion here would be much less freer. While we moderators need to enforce civility I think that everyone has to have some tolerance here.

As we speak McCain is pandering to a VFW meeting. "I will Win the War in Iraq." He's stoking the Georgia/Russia conflict and trying to revive the Cold War. We have been dumbed down deliberately as I've said before and there is mistrust for anyone who understands nuance. The lies are constant but they are said in clever ways that make people want to applaud even though what he's saying may bring war and death to those applauding people's own loved ones.

His economic policies and his close political buddies are at the root of much of the decline of the middle class. Yet he will use clever rhetoric written for him by privateers and their think-tanks to evoke applause from the very people they have and will rob. He uses words like "accountablity" and "bi-partisanship" and in fact stands forsquare behind the least accountable and most partisan administration in American history. Nor does the press hold him to account for his history of corruption, explosive temper tantrums showing mental instability, ignorance of facts, outright lies, and flip-flops of and on the most serious matters of principle, knowledge, and law.

Unfortunately, people like him will continue to be put forth by the Powers that we allowed to be as proposed leaders, until the public demands of the press and those leaders, truth, accountability, knowledge, and integrity. I won't hold my breath but we are in trouble as a nation until we do.

Amy- the point being, if they will steal it, nothing one does or doesn't say today even matters.
obama can win by 2 million, yet if they set the machines back 3 milion, McCain will be called the new president

either it will be honest and obama will win, or dishonest and McCain will be seated. Either way, Obama will win like Gore and Kerry did.

the only way around this is- for Obama to start fighting as dirty as McCain and for the dems to steal it back

If I were an unscrupulous Right-winger I would be doing anything I could to promote this illusion among Democrats, progressives and liberals. The more who believe this the better for the Right.

Obama has a really good chance of winning if all those newly registered voters actually vote and if their votes are honestly counted.

I don't know that you're not
You say you're not
But sometimes your own words get in your way

as does the one line in your signature.

Thanks Graham. I think nothing says that one's argument is just devestating than when someone who disagrees with it resorts to a pathetically weak ad hominen attack.

Of course I am not counseling this line of helplessness and desperation, so there is no evidence of me being a Right-Winger. And I am not saying you are. I am saying that you are unwittingly playing right into their hands.



Oh really now? Please enlighten me.



You mean where I quote the very sensible words of one former poster here who you personally dislike? I'm sorry that you two had an ugly little tiff, but I happened to have regarded him as one of the most sensible posters here, and I would love to see him back. (And your heroes are welcome back too. I cannot remember any of them here who left other than voluntarily.)

he had soemthing in common with mccain- he LIED and it led to magmak and jimiray and others directly leaving this board.

If you are saying that he likely would have supported McCain then you are the one who is lying. (Why link him with McCain otherwise?)

Anyway, I don't see how he is responsible for voluntary decisions made by Magmak and Jimiray. He may be their reason, but that does not make him responsible. He made an error in carrying a joke too far. And his joke was clearly a joke.

I agree with the points made by David Waters in his commentary on the Saddleback Church forum.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...ld_have_as.html

What Rick Warren Should Have Asked
Even a cable TV commentator could watch Saturday's Saddleback Church Civil Forum and figure out why John McCain did so well. In a sanctuary filled with conservative evangelicals, McCain decided to preach to the choir while Barack Obama decided to talk to the pastor. Obama had a conversation; McCain's goal was conversion. Fortunately for McCain, Karl Rove could not have designed a better set of questions for him.

In his opening remarks, Rev. Rick Warren, Saddleback's pastor and forum moderator acknowledged that "faith is just a worldview and everybody has some kind of worldview and it's important to know what they are." Intentionally or not, understandably or not, Warren's questions were grounded in the priorities and worldview of American cultural conservatives.

But as pastor of a church in a worldwide Christian community, Warren had an opportunity to go beyond conservative political talking points and ask questions grounded in the church's alternative and countercultural worldview.

Some examples:

1. Warren asked: "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it.?"

This is a first-grade multiple-choice question. No candidate in his right (or left) mind would say anything other than "Yes, and we defeat it." For the church, the question isn't whether we confront or defeat evil but how.

A better question: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, said 'The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.' Do you agree? As Christians, how should we confront violent evil such as terrorism?"

2. Warren asked: "The Civil Rights Act of '64 says that faith-based organizations have the right to hire people that believe like they do. Would you insist that faith-based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?"

Like the abortion and gay marriage questions Warren asked, this is a litmus-test question for conservative evangelicals who want the right to hire people whose beliefs fit their missions and worldviews.

A better question: "As Christians, we are called to help orphans, widows, the sick, the poor and others in need. Should we ask or expect the government to pay us to do what God calls us to do?"

3. Warren asked: "America right now ranks 19th in high school graduation. We're first in incarcertaions. Eighty percent of Americans recently polled said they believe in merit pay for teachers. . . Do you think better teachers should be paid better?"

Another no-brainer. Who believes better teachers should be paid less? Or less than other teachers? This was another litmus-test question that plays to the church-supported home-school and church-school crowd, and ignores the complex realities of inner-city public schools, the shortcomings of voucher plan and so on.

A better question: As Christians, we are called to help those in need and children in particular. How can we ensure that each and every child attends an excellent schools, regardless of their geographic location, test scores or family incomes?

A followup: As Christians, how can we create a redemptive rather than a punitive criminal justice system?

4. Warren asked: Define rich. I mean, give me a number. Is it $50,000, $100,000, $200,000? Everybody keeps talking about, 'Well, we're going to tax the rich.' How do you define that?"

Give me a number? An odd question for anyone other than a tax attorney to ask. Are we talking $50,000 in Southern California or Southern Sudan? Rich for people who spend hundreds of millions running for public office or rich for people who work three jobs and can't afford health insurance?

A better question: Jesus never said anything about abortion or homosexuality, but he said plenty about wealth and poverty. As a Christian, define the difference between need and greed. How much is enough?

I still think a church is no place for a campaign event, and a clergy person has no business posing as political moderator. But if the church is going to insert itself into the electoral process, it should do so as the church and not as a political action committee.