Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: editor-surveyor
No, because of the extent to which you would go to defeat a candidate. You are the things that you do.

And exactly what is the "extent" to which you think I "would go" to "defeat a candidate"?

Especially odd since I'm not actually against Sarah Palin. I'd be fine with it if she were the GOP nominee. Nevertheless, she also has negative points, and it is unhealthy to just gloss over and pretend like these don't exist, just to maintain her personality cult. I think she ought to get the same shake as any of the rest of the potential nominees who will most assuredly be cropping up between not and June 2012. Part of that "getting the same shake," however, means that her record should be combed over as part of the vetting process, too, just like anyone else's will be.

If you think this is "doing anything to defeat a candidate," then you do NOT have the maturity level necessary to be involved in politics.

330 posted on 01/30/2011 6:37:22 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will believe in abject nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies ]


To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

One who lies is called a liar.


335 posted on 01/30/2011 6:41:08 PM PST by editor-surveyor (NOBAMA - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson