The Occam's Razor part is true, but is truth determined by majority opinion?
No, and it's not determined by Occam's Razor, either. But in the absence of determinative proof about events, the preponderance of evidence, and likelihood, is a meaningful standard for evaluation. Also, yours was the affirmative assertion, introducing this subject of discussion, that the Swifboat Vets' assertions were "all lies." Considering that they represented similar testimonies by a very large number of persons, I'm inclined to regard the preponderance of evidence, about Kerry's military career, as being on their side.
Much less likely, is that they were
all lying.
of all the swiftboaters who called themselves shipmates, only one who made negative statements about Kerry actually served with him on a swiftboat. The others who ACTUALLY served directly under him made positive statements. a MAJORITY among those who were in ACTUAL gunfights with Kerry. That's a pretty good indication that the negative statements of the other swiftboaters were all lies, whether they were war criminals or not.
Not at all. There were various assertions made about Kerry, by the Swiftboaters, pertaining to
their observations about him. That they formed an opinion about him, in specified circumstances, while others formed a different opinion about him, in different circumstances, does nothing to "indicate" that either set, of associates, was "lying" in their opinions or descriptions of events.
As an analogy, I could describe the Moon as a pretty, bright disk in the sky, and if a bunch of astronauts describe it as being, instead, bleak and dusty, then this provides no indication that their descriptions and opinions are "all lies."
I respectfully disagree. She is very much running on a platform of the good Christian wife and mother. The platform of the steadfast personally responsible bucker of the status quo. The platform of the Dobson family model. Pregnant teen daughters and their sexual behavior have become the status quo.
First, I'm not aware that
she has claimed to be running on "a platform of the good Christian wife and mother" or "[t]he platform of the Dobson family model," or that McCain or his campaign team has claimed that she is running on such "platforms." Instead, my observations have been that her "platform" seems to be that she is a "politically conservative" woman with executive experience and political courage in opposing governmental corruption, and that her political activities will particularly include the pursuit of low taxation, the elimination of superfluous and corrupt governmental behaviors and the development of domestic energy sources.
I can only guess that you are assuming that, since she is alleged, by her supporters, to be "a conservative," then this means that they, or she, or McCain, are claiming that she is morally faultless, and that her children are, too, and that any evident absence of moral perfection in the family, is thus "hypocrisy," as if being a campaign argument to be rebutted.
In fact, my observations have been that "conservatives" tend to be quite straightforward in acknowledging that they do
not claim that they are morally perfect, but merely that they value some traditional moral standards, and that they try to exemplify them, and that they wish others to exemplify them.
Asserting that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter does not exemplify such moral perfection, and even that VP candidate Sarah Palin, herself, does not exemplify such moral perfection - inasmuch as having failed to establish such moral perfection in her daughter - pertains not at all to her campaign that has not sought to represent her (or her daughter) as morally perfect, and thus has not misrepresented her, and thus has not exemplified any "hypocrisy" to be "rebutted." Instead, it is - politically - merely unkind insult to a teenager who is not seeking any political office and, at best, impertinent insult to the candidate who has not misrepresented herself and will furthermore have to deal with the difficulty of her family situation (which, btw, is the point of this sort of moral criticism: teenage pregnancy is to be discouraged because it makes life difficult for the teenager and perhaps her family; the purpose of this sort of moral criticism is
not the seeking to score points and gain one's own advantage, in cynical pursuit of political power).
One might argue a justification for personally criticizing the teenager for violating moral standards, or even a justification for personally criticizing the candidate as being an inadequate disciplinarian of her child, but there is no recognizable justification for alluding to the candidate's teenage daughter's pregnancy, as if this constitutes political criticism.
[This is not meant as an insult to my friends south of the 
