True. Hardly a compelling argument. Especially in cases where
no evidence of support for Paul or Romney exists.
It's been done to me and I just have to laugh at the absurdity.
Paul is a nut with his "Reagan sucked" and "9-11 was an inside job" crap.
I laugh even harder when accused of Romney support. I've yet to
come up with an acceptable way to explain that I am an anti-Mormon
bigot who makes fun of Romney's magical underpants. But I'll keep trying.
Then a few of them are outright creepy in how they've made Palin the center of their universe.
Also true. I pointed this out months ago and got slammed for it.
By you yourself, if I remember correctly! ;-)
I'm sure Mrs Palin appreciates the great majority of those supporting her, and winces at the thought of some.
No doubt. I'm sure she does not want blind worshipers.
Also of note is the oh-so-sly "Who do YOU support" tactic.
I'll usually ask for a list of who is running, that I might choose one.
Ain't seen it yet.
But, in all fairness to myself, up to her recent egregious action she had been as perfect a potential candidate as one, in my opinion, could wish for. So any past admonishments directed to you did have merit, I believe.
Though I'm sure I'd still vote for her if she becomes the nominee, I just don't have any intention of ever again donating to her PAC, or any future Palin campaigns.
You know what they say:
Only dead fish, and fools, go with the flow