BRIANC1046

come on.. the guy promised he was against nation building and new military entanglements in his 2000 campaign.. look what we are doing in IRAQ.. didn't live up to that promist.. He said the war on terror couldn't be won.. then a month later.. he promised it could be won.. the man declared himself a war president on Meet the Press. then in another speech in Iowa promised nobody wants to be a war president and said he was a peace president.. He has not lived up to his promises about N. Korea, Clean air restrictions, protecting the social security surplus, tobacco subsides and the level of assistance to Africa (aids) just to name a few more..

just 1 or 2... how bout he was against the homeland security department.. then he changed his mind and was for it.. he was against the 911 commission then for it.. promised there would be not deficit, then created the largest in American history.. promised he was against the Mccain-Freingold Bill in the 2000 GOP primary, tried to kill it in Congress and when he saw he couldn't he signed it when it passed.. Bush promised the war in Iraq would cost 3 Billion dollars.. try 87 Billion and counting.. you need more broken promises? give me 2 promises that he has lived up to

so your answer is to tell all the homeless to get a job? You could win office with that platform.. Brilliant!

what is your answer for all those people who don't have jobs? the ones who are less furtunate?

gonna be ridiculous tonight

defintely is an important issue... The likely impact of the presidential election on the Supreme Court Michael C. Dorf FindLaw Columnist Special to CNN.com Wednesday, July 7, 2004 Posted: 12:36 PM EDT (1636 GMT) During the 2000 presidential election, Democratic nominee Al Gore told voters that the choice between his candidacy and that of Republican George W. Bush would likely determine who named the next three justices of the Supreme Court. Gore's prediction did not come to pass. The court's membership has not changed since 1994, when President Clinton named Stephen Breyer to fill the seat vacated by Harry Blackmun. But the justices are not getting any younger. Justice John Paul Stevens is 84; Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 79; and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 74. By the time of the 2008 presidential election, all but two of the current justices will be older than 70. Even if, as we should hope and pray, they continue to enjoy good health, it is hardly unreasonable to think that one or more of these public servants would choose to retire some time before then. Voters who are still undecided between President Bush and Senator Kerry would do well to contemplate how the Court could differ depending on which man prevails in November. Extrapolating judicial decisions from the commitments of the president who nominates justices is fraught with uncertainty. Nonetheless, whatever Ralph Nader may say about the interchangeability of Republicans and Democrats, when it comes to judicial appointments, a clear contrast emerges. The most prominent issue: Abortion When presidential candidates talk about the people they would nominate to the Supreme Court, it's most frequently in the context of abortion rights. Ronald Reagan first campaigned for the White House on the issue in 1980, and once in office he attempted (unsuccessfully) to overturn the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade through the appointments process. Since then, Republican candidates have typically followed Reagan's lead, energizing the religious right by promising Justices who will turn the abortion issue over to the state legislatures and Congress. Meanwhile, Democrats have appealed to their base by calling attention to the slim majority on the current Court in favor of retaining a constitutional right to choose abortion -- and the possible implications of the addition of a few more Justices who oppose such a right. Four of the last six elections resulted in Republican presidents, and seven of the Supreme Court's nine current members were appointed by Republican presidents. Yet Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. One might think, therefore, that the issue is settled. But in fact, it is not. Three justices -- Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas -- remain committed to overturning Roe. Meanwhile, two of the Court's three oldest members -- justices Stevens and O'Connor -- are part of the six-justice majority for recognizing a constitutional right to abortion. Should President Bush have the opportunity to name anti-Roe successors to these two justices -- or to any two or more of the six justices who oppose overturning Roe -- there is little reason to doubt that he would seize it. The result would be a Supreme Court majority for eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. Bush and Kerry on abortion President Bush has made no secret of his pro-life views, or of his willingness to use the judicial appointments process to advance them. He has nominated outspoken critics of Roe v. Wade to seats on the lower federal courts. Moreover, he has frequently pointed to Justices Scalia and Thomas -- both strong critics of Roe -- as models for his own likely choices to the high court. Senator Kerry has been equally direct in the other direction. During the primary season, Kerry pledged that he would only appoint pro-choice justices as President. We can expect that in competing for swing voters, both President Bush and Senator Kerry will downplay their respective positions on abortion, seeking to portray themselves as centrists. But no one should be fooled: A Bush victory will greatly increase the likelihood that Congress and the state legislatures will be able to ban most abortions at some point in the next four years. In contrast, a Kerry victory will almost surely preserve the status quo of legal abortion prior to the third trimester of pregnancy. Affirmative action, school vouchers, and states' rights On other issues as well, the differences between Bush and Kerry could prove decisive. For example, last year, a 5-4 majority upheld preferences for disadvantaged racial minorities in law school admissions in Grutter v. Bollinger. The Bush administration had filed a brief urging the Court to invalidate the program. A Bush victory in November could spell the end for affirmative action in higher education, and also more broadly -- for instance, in nearly all employment contexts, as well. Two years ago, in the case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a different 5-4 majority upheld a Cleveland private school voucher program, despite the fact that 96 percent of the students who received the vouchers redeemed them at religiously affiliated schools. Should Kerry be elected, his nominees would likely side with the Zelman dissenters in insisting on a stricter separation of church and state. Depending on how much weight would be given to this recent precedent, the new Supreme Court might overrule Zelman, and reject school vouchers, at least when they are used overwhelmingly at religiously affiliated schools. The Supreme Court also is closely divided on questions of states' rights. In the past seven years, the court has invoked states' rights to invalidate all or part of the following acts of Congress: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Violence Against Women Act; and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This year, however, in Tennessee v. Lane, a 5-4 majority of the Court upheld a different provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and last year, in Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, a 6-3 majority upheld the Family and Medical Leave Act. Whatever these latest precedents portend, it is fair to say that Bush justices would be much more likely than Kerry Justices to invoke states' rights to strike down civil rights legislation. To be sure, while in office, President Bush has not exactly ceded power to the states. His legislative centerpiece, the No Child Left Behind Act, imposes extensive new federal mandates on state and local educators; he supported the creation of a vast new federal bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security; and his Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft has sought to supercede voters' decisions in California and Oregon legalizing medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide, respectively. But we can distinguish between the policies Bush favors as president and the legislation his judicial appointees would likely uphold. Looking to his two favorite jurists, we see that justices Scalia and Thomas sided with the states, and against the federal government, in each of the divided rulings discussed above. In contrast, Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer voted with the federal government in each of these cases, and Kerry appointees would be likely to follow suit. Same-sex marriage and sweeping executive power Two other politically divisive issues -- same-sex marriage and executive power in the war on terrorism -- are unlikely to be much affected in the courts by the coming presidential election. In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, a 6-3 majority of the Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting same-sex sodomy. Only five months later, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court invoked the reasoning in Lawrence in support of its ruling in Goodridge v. Dep't of Public Health, finding a right of same-sex marriage under that state's constitution. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to follow the same path as a matter of federal constitutional law -- no matter who appoints the justices in the coming four years. After all, the Lawrence decision contains language specifically distinguishing "formal recognition" of same-sex relationships -- read "marriage -- from private consensual conduct. Moreover, both President Bush and Senator Kerry oppose same-sex marriage. Although the president's opposition seems more vociferous, whichever man wins in November, the Supreme Court is not likely to recognize a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage any time soon. What about the War on Terror? Senator Kerry's campaign Web site criticizes the "Era of John Ashcroft," objecting to practices like "holding detainees indefinitely without cause." It is thus fair to say that a Kerry Justice Department and Defense Department would adopt different policies and practices. But there is little reason to think that the outcome of the election would have much effect on the view the Supreme Court takes of aggressive executive action. In last week's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, eight members of the Court rejected the Bush administration's position that it could hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely based on its essentially unreviewable determination that the detainee is an "enemy combatant." Only Justice Thomas sided with the administration, while Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Stevens) went furthest in denouncing the Bush approach. Accordingly, should Bush win the election and name several deeply conservative justices to the Supreme Court, he may find to his chagrin that in this context "conservative" means something like "desiring to conserve our ancient liberties." Nominations often have unpredictable results Even on the issues on which the court is currently divided, a president has only a limited ability to affect the course of the law via the appointments process. Presidents only nominate Supreme Court Justices (and other federal judges), who must be confirmed by the Senate. While it is quite possible that President Bush would have a Republican Senate in his second term, or that a President Kerry would have a Democratic one, it is highly unlikely that either party will be able to capture 60 seats, the number needed to end a filibuster. So a filibuster will remain a potential threat to block the most extreme judicial nominees. Even absent the risk of a filibuster, presidents may be loath to expend the considerable political capital necessary to gain confirmation of a highly controversial nominee. For that reason, either Bush or Kerry might be inclined to name moderates to the high court. In addition, justices selected for their views on one set of issues may prove unpredictable on others. For example, during his first term in office, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was frequently at odds with the Supreme Court. When the opportunity arose, he named justices that he knew would uphold the New Deal. But within a decade, the legality of the New Deal was settled law, and questions of civil rights and civil liberties came to dominate the Supreme Court's agenda. All of FDR's justices had been "liberal" in the sense that they were willing to uphold the expansion of the federal regulatory state, but when it came to the new issues, they divided in ways that could not have been predicted based on their prior careers. The same phenomenon could occur over the next generation. Justices chosen for their views on abortion, affirmative action, and the scope of the president's war-making power could be asked to address questions involving new forms of surveillance, human cloning, and other issues that, by their very nature, cannot be foreseen today. Attitudes towards today's issues may prove highly unreliable predictors of attitudes towards tomorrow's. Still, when all is said and done, it is likely that, if the next president gets to nominate several justices to the Supreme Court, it will make a difference whether that president is named Bush or Kerry. Sure, a Kerry pick could prove to be a closet conservative on some issues, or a Bush nominee could have a libertarian streak, but what are the odds that Kerry would move the court as a whole to the right or that Bush would move it to the left? As Damon Runyon used to say, "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

he explained why this yr. does make a difference.. we have up to four justices who could either pass away or retire.. obviously Kerry and Bush would pick very different people and abortion would be an important issue.. Do you have any idea how much influence these judges have on our lives?

Who's coming out? Gonna be a sick night..

very interesting.. rassumssen thinks the Newsweek and Time polls are off also.. and found some problems with their polling.. Differences Between Polls Full Week Tracking Update Sept 2 Bush + 2.8 August 26 Bush + 0.3 August 19 Kerry + 1.2 August 12 Kerry + 2.8 August 5 Kerry + 1.9 RasmussenReports.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- September 6, 2004--We have been flooded with e-mails asking (in varying tones of politeness) why our poll results seem different from those released by Time and Newsweek. There are two basic explanations, one involving our polling data and one involving the newsmagazines. For those who need to know the answer before the explanation, the bottom line is that the President is ahead by 4 to 5 points at this time. That's a significant improvement over the past few weeks, but not a double digit lead. Our current poll (showing the President ahead by just over a point) includes a Saturday sample that is way out of synch with all the days before it and with the Sunday data that followed. In fact, Saturday's one-day sample showed a big day for Kerry while all the days surrounding it showed a decent lead for the President. It seems likely that Saturday reflects a rogue sample (especially since it was over a holiday weekend). But, it remains in our 3-day rolling average for one more day (Tuesday's report). If we drop the Saturday sample from our data, Bush is currently ahead by about 4 percentage points in the Rasmussen Reports Tracking Poll. That's still a smaller lead than shown by Time and Newsweek. Those polls appear to have the mirror image problem of a Los Angeles Times poll in June reportedly showing Kerry with a huge lead. That LA Times survey included too many Democrats in their sample. Today, it seems likely that Time and Newsweek included too many Republicans. Time reports that Republicans will vote for Bush by an 89% to 9% margin; Democrats for Kerry by an 80% to 9% margin; and, unaffiliated voters for Bush 43% to 39%. Four years ago, 35% of voters were Republicans, 39% were Democrats, and the rest were unaffiliated. If you apply those percentages to the Time internals, you find Bush up by about 3 percentage points. If you do the same with the Newsweek internal numbers, you find Bush with a six point lead. Those results are very close to the Rasmussen Reports data (excluding the Saturday sample). All of this leads me to conclude that the President is currently ahead by 4 or 5 percentage points. For those who say turnout might be different this time, I agree. It might be different. One of our great challenges between now and Election Day is to figure out how much (if at all) the turnout will change from historic norms. Partisans from both sides seem convinced that there are special circumstance that will increase turnout for their team. Others speculate that their may be a smaller number of unaffiliated voters since events of the past four years have caused people to take sides. Whatever the turnout differences may be, they will not be big enough to match the implications of the Time and Newsweek polls. As always, it's useful to use common sense when reviewing poll data. If a poll suggests that 10 or 20 percent of Americans are changing their mind on a regular basis, it should be viewed with caution. Most of the time, you will find that the partisan mix of the polling sample is changing more than the actual perceptions of voters. Yesterday, we released a brief assessment of the Bush Bounce. Based upon our 7-day Tracking data (less susceptible to one-day rogue samples), it appears that the President has gained more than five points over a three week period of time. Given the Swift Boat issue and the Republican National Convention, that seems to be a reasonable measure of the shift.

go to gallup.com and read how their political polls are conducted.. they have been polling for many years now.. and they clearly explain how they get a correct representation of registered voters.. I've yet to see the same explanation from the Time magazine poll.. we still don't know exaclty how it was conducted? your right.. I was not aware that the gallup poll was that small also..

i see the gallup as being un-biased.. the goal of Time and Newsweek is to sell magazines.. has there been a shift? quite possibly.. a double digit shift.. i think we all agree no.. so, why are you STILL trying to defend the Time and Newsweek poll? Lets wait and see the shift when Bush needs to act on his feet at the debates.. Kerry's intelligence will defintely help him here.. Maybe they'll make Bush some flashcards for the debates

jtk4, one of the main reasons i questioned the study was due to the fact that I was wondering the same thing? the most respectable poll came out today, the gallup, and showed Bush with a very small boost after the convention.. Bush Gets Small Convention Bounce, Leads Kerry by Seven The CNN/USA Today/Gallup post-Republican convention poll -- the first national poll conducted entirely after the completion of that convention -- shows George W. Bush has received a small increase in voter support. Bush’s share of the vote among likely voters increased by two percentage points, from 50% to 52%.. far from Igloo's dream of a double digit lead..

well actually.. i just completed my masters thesis.. which was after 4 semesters of graduate research methods.. so, i condider myself semi-knowledgeable about research methods.. how do you think i knew about SRBI.. my professor works for SRBI and i know they are known for consumer surveys.. not political polls.. i still don't consider that survey very significant.. yes, the rasussen poll should be alarming to Kerry. no doubt.. your post did not start with this.. it started with the Time poll.. which has no credibility.. that is all i've been arguing.. and by the way.. a lot of these polls are done by graduate students and even undergraduate students.. ex. Quinnipiac ..

first off.. calling people names over the internet is pretty gay if you ask me.. If you insist on calling people names.. do so in person.. don't hide behind your computer.. second.. yes.. I know what a random sample is..your exact quote was " They don't JUST poll conservatives in GOP states.......it is a cross sampling of various demographics based on scientific polling methodologies......what do you guys think that these pollsters are fucking idiots running two-bit organizations.....jesus christ but no.. this study did not do any cross-sampling.. it did not discuss anything about demographics... that Rassmusen poll of the battleground states is much more significant in determining a winner of the election

conducting a poll of 1,000 people in a battleground state such as Pennsylvannia, Ohio, Florida, Michigan would be more significant to me.. thats where the election is won or lost.. in the battleground states.. i mean.. 1,000 undeceided voters from Texas could tell you the convention convinced them to vote for Bush.. but.. Kerry doesn't care about those votes.. He knows he isn't going to win Texas.. Just as Bush has no concern for the undeceided vote in California or Maine..

Your article states a random sample was used.. Where do the demographics or any other factors come into play? Just because they are professionals doesn't mean there right.. Metereologists are professionals and there right about 10% of the time.. and also the company that conducted the poll.. SRBI.. Is known for doing studies on customer satisfaction.. never heard of them doing any studies on politics.. and I honestly don't believe there are many undeceided votes left.. These candidates are too different.. if you respect the polls and surveys.. wait for the gallup.. until then.. don't waste my time.. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................

who cares about any of these polls? These polls sell newspapers and create stories for news stations.. the nbc poll had Kerry leading 8 days ago.. now you really think after Bush's speech that many people are now voting for Bush? neither poll is accuate.. 900 hundred people... come on.. as we see last yr. the popular vote means nothing anyway..

lied about atrocities? When are we going to stop denying the fact that we raped and tortured the Vietnamese? I don't hold anyone to blame for that.. Its war.. It happens.. But why are we still in denial? He didn't lie about that.. My highschool gym teacher will tell you it happened..

not to mention he got where he is today by taking massive amounts of steroids.. He used to call his morning pills of d-bols.. 'the breakfast of champions'.. If you ever watch his movie.. Pumping Iron.. The movie ends with him smoking a joint.. I still can't believe he is a Govenor.. I really don't have a problem with it.. but I can't believe no one else does.. Here's an article taken from Espn.. Conan the Politician -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Tom Farrey ESPN.com It all started with steroids. The rise to governor was built on his movie fame. The movie career sprung from his notoriety as the world's top bodybuilder. His claim to that perch was based on his winning a record seven Mr. Olympia titles, with the aid of muscle-building drugs pumping up a body that was once no more techno-human than that of, say, your average junior champion curler -- of the broom, not barbell variety. Which Arnold Schwarzenegger was as a boy in Austria. Arnold has been pointed out for his influence in the introduction of steroids in professional sports. As Schwarzenegger rationalized as recently as 1996, "It was what I had to do to compete. The danger with steroids is over-usage. I only did it before a difficult competition -- for two months, but not for a period of time that would harm me. And then afterward it was over." He got what he needed. He moved on. He didn't die. His back erect and his smile as bright as the mid-day sun, Schwarzenegger, now 56 and California's governor, seems the picture of health and vitality. Large-living proof of how synthetic hormones can actually enhance a person's existence. The new, updated role model for steroids, to replace that of the withered Lyle Alzado. The anti-steroids lobby is having a hard time grasping what it means to have a steroids profiteer as head of the nation's most populous state. But this much is certain: If Schwarzenegger has any reservations about how his rise to the governor's office might heighten the acceptance of steroids, in sports and elsewhere in society, then his new job offers the chance to adjust his legacy. "He's in position now to have influence," said Richard Pound, president of the World Anti-Doping Agency, which conducts testing for the Olympics and other sports bodies. "He can address the labeling of (muscle-building) supplements. He can deal with the trafficking of steroids, the use of steroids, the medical classifications of steroids that have no therapeutic application. There are (criminal) disciplinary issues." California is the world capital for performance-enhancing drugs. It's the state that introduced steroids to the NFL, via the San Dianabol Chargers of the 1960s. Much of the steroids trade in this country still runs through California, where stopping the flow from Mexico is a low priority for law enforcement. California companies led the fight against regulating potentially dangerous sports supplements. The latest company under a spotlight: San Francisco-based Bay Area Laboratories Co-Operative (BALCO), now the subject of a federal grand jury inquiry and, according to the U.S Anti-Doping Agency, the alleged disseminator of designer steroids to high-profile athletes. More recently came a report that four Oakland Raiders had received letters from the NFL that they had failed for THG and could faces suspension by the NFL. Arnold took the Olympic torch from gold medalist Rafer Johnson when it passed through L.A. in 2002. But now that he is governor of California, will he help blaze a trail to eliminate steroids from sports? "There are lots of things (Schwarzenegger) could do," Pound said. But it's uncertain he will do anything. Schwarzenegger did not respond to ESPN.com requests for an interview made through his media representatives. His spokesman, Rob Stutzman, has said of Schwarzenegger's steroid use, "If he knew then what we know now, he wouldn't have done it." But Schwarzenegger himself has avoided the topic since entering the race to recall Gov. Gray Davis. His record in combating steroid use is not encouraging. The first time he had a government platform was as chair of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports under George H.W. Bush, whom he had campaigned for in the 1988 election. While Schwarzenegger denounced steroids during that period, it wasn't central to his message as he toured the country and encouraged kids to exercise more. He often had to be prompted on the subject of steroids, even while youth usage rates across the country were tripling in the wake of the Ben Johnson steroid revelations at the Seoul Olympics. Even a few members of the drug-soaked bodybuilding community, which generally regards Arnold as a deity, acknowledge his lack of leadership on the issue. Jeff Everson, a former editor of Muscle & Fitness magazine, wrote last year in the magazine Planet Muscle, "When was the last time Arnold ... appeared before Congress asking for help and support in stopping the horrible steroid use by all bodybuilders?" Mixed message Before he became a celluloid star, Arnold used steroids to become Mr. Olympia. In his public comments over the past three decades, Arnold Schwarzenegger has wavered in describing how often he used steroids and whether he considers the drugs dangerous. Below are quotes from interviews and other sources: To Barbara Walters, in 1974 at the height of his bodybuilding career: "I take steroids because they help me an extra 5 percent. Women take the (contraception) pill. They are somewhat similar. I do it under a doctor's supervision." In the mail-order pamphlet "Arnold: Developing a Mr. Universe Physique," 1977: "Yes I have used them, but no, they didn't make me what I am. Anabolic steroids were helpful to me in maintaining muscle size while on a strict diet in preparation for a contest." To Playboy, 1987: "I don't worry about it, because I never took an overdosage." To USA Today, 1990, shortly after he was named chairman of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports: "It was new then. There were no laws against it. I experimented with it. I'm instinctive. I felt right away it was not a real thing. I felt something in my system didn't belong there. I quit." To U.S. News & World Report, 1992: "In those days you didn't have to deal with the black market. You could go to your physician and just say, 'Listen, I want to gain some weight, and I want to take something.' Then the physician would say, 'Do it six weeks before competition, then it will be safe.' And that's what you would do. The dosage that was taken then versus taken now is not even 10 percent. It's probably 5 percent." To eighth-graders at a school gym in Bismark, N.D., 1992: "We have to rely on a permanent fitness program that makes us fit for life, rather than the temporary high that you get with drugs." To the Saturday Evening Post, 1993: "There is no one who has ever gone the long haul relying on drugs. That extra 20 pounds that you may lift from using those steroids is not going to be worth it. But you will know when you get sick and when the side effects come out. I think it is very important that someone like myself who has been there gets that message out." To the Los Angeles Times, 1996: "I used steroids. It was a risky thing to do, but I have no regrets. It was what I had to do to compete. The danger with steroids is overusage. I only did it before a difficult competition – for two months, but not for a period of time that could harm me. And then afterward, it was over. I would stop. I have no health problems, no kidney damage or anything like that from using them." The New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding, by Arnold Schwarzenegger with Bill Dobbins, 1998: "Certainly, as someone who is in a position to influence young people, I want to make my position very clear. I am absolutely against the use of these dangerous and illegal substances." Via Schwarzenegger gubernatorial campaign spokesman Rob Stutzman, 2003: "If he knew then what we know now, he wouldn't have done it." Yet, it's understandable why Schwarzenegger might want to stay in hiding. He wasn't just another steroid user, like Bill Clinton was just another dope non-inhaler. Arnold helped father the culture of steroids. He contributed to the super-sizing of athletes in this country as much or more than Johnson, Alzado, Brian Bosworth, Mark Gastineau, Jose Canseco or any other chemically buff sweat laborer that later came along. While Schwarzenegger may not have truly come from the sports world, bodybuilding is within the same universe, and he exerted a powerful gravitational force on mainstream athletes during the 1970s and '80s. Before 1969, when Arnold arrived in the U.S., steroid use was rare in pro and college sports. Even weightlifting was considered exotic back then. Mike Katz, a taxi squad lineman for the New York Jets of the Joe Namath era, recalls that only two other teammates trained with weights. Katz had to go outside the team to find decent equipment -- the Jets' workout facility consisted of nothing more than a primitive device akin to a "metal shock absorber on a car" that would be connected to the goal posts and then adjusted for resistance. Coaches considered him "muscle-bound," a term rarely used anymore. "The Jets didn't have shoulder pads to fit me," said Katz, who was also a bodybuilder at the time and worked out with Schwarzenegger during the summers at Gold's Gym in Santa Monica, Calif. "I had to go back to my college at Southern Connecticut State and get my pads, which had been specially made for me. "Then in the 1970s there was an explosion of weight training, due to Arnold." Schwarzenegger won Mr. Olympia, the most prestigious title in bodybuilding, every year from 1970 to '75 and then again in '80 after coming out of retirement. But it wasn't just the string of victories that compelled young men to take notice; it was the conquering, hyper-masculine persona he had created for himself. And it was those glistening, 22-inch biceps that boys and young men stared at as intently as Arnold himself did on stage. Steve Courson was an undersized defensive lineman at the University of South Carolina in 1974 when Schwarzenegger told Barbara Walters, "I take steroids because they help me an extra 5 percent. Women take the [contraception] pill. They are somewhat similar. I do it under a doctor's supervision." Around that time, Sports Illustrated also helped bring Schwarzenegger to middle America with a feature on the Austrian Oak. "Watching him, we all were impressed," said Courson, who won two Super Bowl championships with the Pittsburgh Steelers and later suffered health problems from heavy steroid use. "At the time, his comments on steroids were interesting to me because that's when I started to take the drugs. "He redefined the image of the male athletic body type. Through his intelligent use of training and drugs, he presented an imposing physical figure that had not been seen before." Canseco came along a decade later, as a promising high school baseball player in Miami. "Arnold broke the mold," said Canseco, who came to admire Schwarzenegger through his on-screen roles. "I remember his first Conan movie (in 1982). He was a huge, monstrous figure on screen. Back in high school, I wasn't yet into weightlifting. Arnold had a major influence on everybody." In the Oakland A's locker room of the 1980s, Canseco and McGwire would help bring biceps to baseball. Canseco worked out religiously, while also using steroids. Even today, columns by and retro photos of Schwarzenegger are a regular presence in the handful of muscle magazines that mainstream athletes read for inspiration. More than 100 times since 1967 -- including at least eight times in the past four years -- those mags have placed him on their cover. J-Lo should be so blessed by the celebrity rags. You won't find Schwarzenegger or other bodybuilders endorsing steroids in those physique bibles. Doesn't matter. The photos of otherworldly bodies and endorsements for "anabolic-like" supplements are suggestive enough. A survey published in U.S. News & World Report a decade ago found that 57 percent of teen steroid users said they were influenced to use steroids by reading the muscle mags. Despite the crown once given him by Bush, Schwarzenegger represents mass, not fitness. He conceded as much to Oui magazine in 1977, saying, "I'm a competitive bodybuilder; I'm not training just to be healthy. Ninety-five percent of the people training with weights are into this health thing, and it's a different mentality entirely. As far as I'm concerned, it's bullshit; otherwise I wouldn't drink. I make my protein drink with whiskey. People think I'm crazy, but that's the way I am. I get stoned, I do my own thing." Bodybuilding's pied piper More than two decades after his last competition, Arnold remains a presence in the bodybuilding world. The bodybuilding community hopes that Arnold Schwarzenegger's rise to political office will legitimize a sport has failed to gain such recognition because of its emphasis on aesthetics and too-obvious use of drugs. The editors of FLEX magazine are so anxious to have that happen that -- in a first -- it issued a formal political endorsement. "While FLEX has studiously avoided advocating one political candidate or party over another, the campaign of Arnold Schwarzenegger is the exception that proves the rule," the magazine editorial read. "As the October 7th California gubernatorial recall election draws near, FLEX wants to encourage those bodybuilders in the Golden State to consider the jolt of energy to the sport that would result from a Governor Schwarzenegger. ... "Tax breaks for creatine users? Not exactly. A mandate to wear baggies? Let's hope not. It would simply be a confirmation of the value of the sport that's often relegated to a lower status than other athletic pursuits, despite the near universal application of bodybuilding training and nutritional programs to all sporting endeavors -- except for maybe bass fishing. A vote for Arnold is a vote for respect." Joe Weider, the bodybuilding pioneer who brought Schwarzenegger to the U.S., reportedly contributed $21,500 to Schwarzenegger's campaign. For three decades, Weider used Schwarzenegger to sell his muscle magazines, with Schwarzenegger encouraging readers to buy Weider's various (if sometimes bogus) muscle-building products. Schwarzenegger last competed as a bodybuilder in 1980, but he remains a dominant figure in the community. The Arnold Classic and Fitness Expo in Columbus, Ohio, is one of the marquee events, bringing together top competitors, members of nutritional supplement industry and fans of the sport. The Mag's Shaun Assael previously wrote about the annual paean to pumping iron. -- Tom Farrey He emphasized, "I'm not on a health kick." His tune changed when he became fitness chief, his entrée into politics. Not everyone familiar with the steroids issue is ready to call Schwarzenegger the driving force in creating the drug culture that now permeates American sports. "He's one piece in the puzzle," said Charles Yesalis, a Penn State professor of sports science. But is there any larger piece? Schwarzenegger's impact on attitudes about muscle has been both broad-based, through his movies, and niche, through his status as a rock star in the influential bodybuilding community. He hit society both high and low, and mainstream athletes filled the middle. Rick Wayne, a retired bodybuilding champion who trained with Schwarzenegger, argues that his former rival should not be judged harshly because today's bodybuilders take much more sophisticated and powerful drugs. "He was taking about two pills of Dianabol a week," he said. "That's nothing." Other training partners have said Schwarzenegger took copious amounts of steroids. But let's assume Wayne knows the truth. Is the historical significance of Henry Ford diminished because a 2003 Mustang would blow the doors off a Model T? Schwarzenegger, in past interviews, has claimed that he broke no laws when taking steroids (Wayne says Arnold told him once that he started taking them at age 13 in Austria; Arnold claims he started taking them after arriving in the U.S.). Prior to 1990, when the federal government made the drugs a controlled substance, there was nothing illegal about doctors writing steroid prescriptions for athletic purposes. However, taking drugs to enhance sports performance has been considered unethical since the late '60s. Schwarzenegger, like bodybuilding itself, merely pioneered the path of win-at-all-costs. Maybe you've heard that phrase lately in football and baseball circles. Maybe even on the high school level. "If you're like me, you don't want your children or grandchildren to stockpile drugs just so they can play sports," Pound said. You could argue that steroids are a non-issue among California voters, who elected Schwarzenegger to fix other problems. Maybe, but with youth usage rates up across the country, federal legislators are on alert again. Last month, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., introduced a bill that would ramp up penalties for steroids traffickers and prevent the over-the-counter sale of andro and other steroids precursors. The effort is co-sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a longtime friend of Schwarzenegger who formally proposed in July a constitutional amendment to allow non-U.S. born citizens the opportunity to run for president. Perhaps the chances of Arnold getting behind the drug issue just got a little better. Tom Farrey is a senior writer with ESPN.com. He can be reached at tom.farrey@espn3.com.

at least we are finally calling Kerry a hero

when your running for president you do..

lol.. this is a good one guys

its about time he came to his senses

interesting

so this guy all ready bought the place?