I thought I had posted on this thread, but it doesn't seem so.

I find this whole line of argument tiresome, just as I find it tiresome to read how McCain was a hotdog who crashed a lot of planes and kept his wings because his dad and granddad were Admirals. Both points seem to be drawing concusions based upon inferences and implications.

You know that the parties are different on very important points. But we don't seem to do much arguing on the issues, now do we? Instead, we say: look, look, Obama was a radical. Look, look, McCain was a selfish, rich kid, hot dog.

I just think it is insane to think that they are the same person that they were. Who is the same person that they were 20 years or more years ago? Growth is good.

Anyone who believes that persons are what they were 20 or 30 or 40 years ago is either stupid or disingenuous.

Are you the same person as you were 20 or 30 years ago? If you are, I'll stamp a big "fail" sticker upon you. I'm better. I grew. If you are the same person, or think that others must be, you are really just missing out on that great life experience called "growth."

Life happens. Let's assume that Obama was willing to embrace things when he was young which he wouldn't now. And McCain shows a history of being a egomaniac, as exemplified when he was young by being a hotdog who crashed planes and when he was older, by his affairs and by being so detached that he didn't know that his wife had a serious problem.

We can argue about which one was worse.

But when it hits the highway, I don't care whether what candidates did decades ago. I care about the positions that they ascribe to now.

Can we focus on the issues here?

And if you can't, just be a little bit honest in the whole thing. Your candidate isn't wrapped up in candy corn . My candidate has stayed pretty true to my parties positions, and you might want to paint him as a communist (or is it a socialist), he hasn't said anything that would support that he is either.

Your candidate is pretty solidly conservative, although your own party seems to want to make him out as a demon.

But, it is about about the positions that the candidates take. I'm good with that.

Deal or no deal? You want to mess with the messy history or you want to focus on the issues.

And if you say, "no deal," can you explain why not. Cause I don't know. As a partisan of my party, I don't know.