Free Republic

LOL. You can't wear size 34 .... ROTFL!!!!!

Both Agnew and Nixon resigned due to scandal. Kerry could too. There are many possible premises for resignation. The DEM party will not use the Toricelli reason (we can't win with the Torch, and the people deserve a close race), I don't think. Well, on second thought, maybe they would, but that reason would be incendiary.

It would go over okay, but people would be uneasy about it. As long as the justification for the switch is "okay" (Kerry has a health problem, nervous breakdown, or otherwise has a "good" reason to resign), a switch would be accepted. Heck, we accept "switches" due to resignation, see Agnew, Nixon .. resulting in Ford taking the office before running for it. Similar could happen before or during a presidential election.

LOL. Brian Williams? He's still around?

Klein is a pinko. No doubt, he is singing exactly the same tune today regarding Iraq. He was wrong then, and he is wrong now.

Yeah. The disclaimer is a bit verbose. They could have made a more direct statement about the scope of evolution theory that everybody would agree with. "Evolution theory does not address the origin of life." I don't know if proponents of evolution have other agreeable statements, like whether or how plants and animals are related by evolution, etc.

And the people who object to the disclaimer are arguing about something the disclaimer doesn't say.

Well, that seems to be factual. Evolution is on stronger footing when examining a change from one living thing to a similar living thing, than it is when examining a change from dead/inanimate things to a living thing.

Kerry could resign under any number of pretenses, and the relapse is one of the better ones to use.

The ballots are irrelevant. We vote for electors (who are associated with political parties), not candidates, in presidential elections. Then the electors cast ballots for the person of the president, in December.

US Code, Title 3, Chapter 1 <--PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES

I speculated "Edwards" a couple weeks ago too, but without the insights that you provided here. Edwards has a fairly powerful machine behind him, too.

In any event, I think this will be an unsettling election. People will be uneasy with changes in the ticket "at the last minute," or even after the election. But, them's the breaks.

Both aspects are windows into his character. Kerry's willingness to lie for self-promotion is important to know. It's important because it reinforces the fact that Kerry ALSO lied about atrocities, again for personal advantage.

I agree with you, the false witness regarding atrocities is a farther-reaching transgression -- it had a material negative effect on literally millions of people. Innocent Asian civilians were slaughtered by communists, and American soldiers were scorned, when they should have been cheered.

The first citation runs more than 1 page, which is, I think, against protocol.

While the valor creep (good term) is an issue, a bigger issue is whether the award was providently granted in the first place. Elliott says he would not have passed the recommendation up the chain, if Kerry had told the same story in 1969 as he told in the biography authored by Brinkley.

Juan is in over his head. You are correct, exaggeration is one species of lie. Denial is another. For the purpose of voter's impression, any difference between "lie" and "exaggeration" plays the same way in the voting booth calculus. SOme people will see the "exaggeration" as a serious character flaw, others will shrug it off.

I was disappointed too, but don't think it's a big deal. Eventually, the truth of the matter will come out. Not everything needs to be promptly corrected. Look at the interval between "no Swiftee was on Kerry's boat" to the revelation of Gardner.

And all the more anger against Bush, when the media ties Kerry's nervous breakdown to the attacks by the Swiftees.

I am speechless at that. Listen to O'Neill when he was on Cavett's TV program. The author of this piece could not be more wrong, but that parpagraph clarifies the contrast in world views between Kerry/supporters & everybody else.

That argument is wearing thin. Some people have phony drivers licenses and other credentials, and it doesn't undermine the credibility of the entire system.

But if Kerry outright admits to lying, how can the media assert that "Unfit for Command" is full of lies?

I agree, BTW, that Kerry has backed off those two points -- but the ramifications of the admissions are being played down by the media.

The concessions haven't really been made, yet. The media still treats the book "Unfit for Command" as if it is untrue. If the parts of it that are examined are true (i.e., if Kerry concedes any point), then the SBVfT will have BETTER credibility than Kerry. How do I figure? Well, on examined points (not on ad hominems), every SBVfT claim is shown to be true, and every one of Kerry's stories is shown to be a fabrication. The only escape for the media is to stop covering the dispute, again.

Heheheh. That passes for a rebuttal? LOL. So did McCain's "dishonest and dishonorable" comment.