To: 2ndDivisionVet
They think she would be easily beatable. They do not think she would have broad appeal to the electorate and thus would give Obama his best chance at re-election. They consider almost anyone else as trouble—Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Huckaby and the list goes on.
Remember: The liberal press would not encourage and compliment ANYONE who would threaten their communnist utopianism.
10 posted on
06/27/2010 4:02:25 PM PDT by
SC_Pete
To: SC_Pete
They tried to destroy her outright, now they will try to "Fountainhead" her....
Or they are under orders to deminish "O" so it can be Hillary vs. Sarah.
Either way, a bit of sannity has hit Matthews, perhaps he is back on his meds....
16 posted on
06/27/2010 4:06:14 PM PDT by
taildragger
((Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
To: SC_Pete
Nonsense. Any one of those on your list would be easily shredded by the MSM if they ended up the nominee. The last 2 years have shown that the left is terrified of Mrs. Palin.
17 posted on
06/27/2010 4:08:28 PM PDT by
Pox
(Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
To: SC_Pete
How's the weather in Chicago? You guys still getting free pizza and hip-hop concerts, or did that end with the inaugural?
27 posted on
06/27/2010 4:34:23 PM PDT by
2ndDivisionVet
(Don't care if he was born in a manger on July 4th! A "Natural Born" citizen requires two US parents!)
To: SC_Pete
The liberal press would not encourage and compliment ANYONE who would threaten their communnist utopianism.
Wait a minute...are you actually suggesting that the liberal press has given Sarah Palin favorable coverage? If so, that would perhaps be the absolute most idiotic thing I've ever read on FR.
But I'm sure you are not actually suggesting that. Even a goldfish has better short-term memory than to suggest something like that.
44 posted on
06/27/2010 5:57:02 PM PDT by
GLDNGUN
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson