Or ask your own ancestors. After all, evolution pretty much revolves around it. And pretty much all previous cultures loved it.

In any event, smell that liberalism. It's inevitable. As Buckley said, a Conservative is someone who strides history and yells "STOP". There's just one teensy problem with that: Mom nature doesn't listen to you (or anyone else, for that matter). Which is why, of course, we invent gods which we imagine *do* listen to our yelling of "STOP". But that's another subject, I suppose.

Those who will vote for him -no matter how liberal he is just to beat liberals are merely consigning theirselves to the GOP plantation, hopin for scraps and dragging themselves in thefuture to vote for ever more liberal candidates. Face it liberalism sells but so does unbridled sex -ask Spitzer.

The melanoma on Mr. McCain’s left temple was 2 centimeters in diameter and 0.22 centimeters deep, and was fully excised with wide margins, 2 centimeters in each direction, his campaign staff said.

Dr. Altman’s article is most concerned with the 2000 melanoma. At 0.22 depth, it is a Clark Level II. Clark Levels are used for the degree of invasion of the MM into the patient’s skin. So far as Clark's go, .22 only penetrates into the second layer of skin.

Bill -- The thickness of McCain's melanoma in 2000 was .22 CENTIMETERS. That's 2.2 millimeters as we usually measure melanoma thickness. The Clark's level, which is NOT measured at all, but is a skin level penetrated, is not stated.

Nice try, though.

Again, which democrats are asking these questions?

Heh. You figured out that the Times is populated by Democrats and those farther left? Gee, I'm impressed.

Again, which democrats are asking these questions? Again, you're just simply parroting the whole NYTIMES == DEMOCRATS mantra which is really quite old, but sadly a mainstay with the party faithful.

In any event, I'd quibble with the credible challenges to McCain, but the overarching point is the - ahem - primary that the democratic candidates are engaged in, currently. Clearly, this works to McCain's advantage as they are forced to ignore him for the moment. To infer that they have nothing because they're way too busy dealing with each other is hilarious. To claim that the "democrats" are asking these questions is simply ridiculous.

Still, gotta go with what you've got, I suppose. Courage, as they say.

Wow. You really do live in an alternate reality.

BTW, last time I checked, the NYTimes isn’t running for president, so I’m not really even sure WTF you’re referring to, other than just spouting the usual right wing spin. Maybe it’s just reflex by now.

Nonsense. Mind you, I'm no fan of Mccain...
The fact was and remains that the Democrats have yet to mount any credible challange to McCain on matters of policy... and are forced into questions like that little spot on his neck.

I think that's an issue within your own party that you're going to have to resolve without our help.

Wow. You really do live in an alternate reality.

BTW, last time I checked, the NYTimes isn't running for president, so I'm not really even sure WTF you're referring to, other than just spouting the usual right wing spin. Maybe it's just reflex by now.

Oh, an another thing, considering the treatment Edwards got with his wife's cancer - and she wasn't even the one running - I'm pretty sure that this stuff is pretty much considered to be open grounds for discussion.

Well, I guess as long as it's about Democrats. McCain... Well, that's another matter entirely.

Bringing the facts out to the public about a possible future President’s health and cancer history doesn’t seem like a hit piece to me but in depth reporting instead.

Sadly, at this point in our politics, anything that is negative about a conservative is simply a hit piece - even if it's just the simple facts about a situation that could make the VP choice even more relevant than it usually is.