Michele Bachmann's hard fall (Didn't go after Romney to keep VP options open?)

Polutico ^ | Thursday December 29, 2011

[presently no screen name]

LOL! You are bias - I had no candidate through these debates, it’s a world of difference watching the candidates when you could give a flip about any of them. What you cite means nothing when I watched the debates myself.

[altura]

You wrote quite a long post, which I read.

Could you please tell me what you said?

[darrellmaurina]

13 posted on Thursday, December 29, 2011 8:58:00 PM by BunnySlippers: “Her husband is gay!”

I've challenged another Freeper on this to back it up with links. I links to far-left sites and speakers, which in his case adequately documented the other Freeper’s claim that Bachmann’s husband's sexual orientation was being “whispered” about.

OK, that was fair in his case.

Your claim goes farther. You're not just saying people are whispering about Bachmann’s husband's sexual orientation (which apparently is true) but that he actually **IS** gay.

Back it up with links or cut the unfounded allegations.

Put bluntly, this could generate a libel case and get not just you but Free Republic sued. Bachmann’s husband is a public figure and he would probably lose a libel suit, but in the interim you and Free Republic could spend tens of thousands of dollars paying lawyers.

I've made clear repeatedly that I am not a backer of Bachmann. She badly mishandled the issue of the Wisconsin Synod's stance on the Roman Catholic Church. I don't think she's “ready for prime time.” But unfounded allegations of homosexuality have no place on a conservative forum, no matter who the target may be.

Truth is not a wax nose. We're conservatives, and for us truth is not relative. Facts count, and if you can't back up your claims, don't make the claims.

[presently no screen name]

Two links are speaking about the same minor event and another link she was Pressed by a reporter to identify exactly at whom she was leveling her charge....(so subtle they had to ask!)

You are trying too hard to cover her lack of going after mitt. She went after Perry like a bull dog - we know what she is capable of - even downright lying! Santorum kept going after Mitt and so did Perry. They are more conservative and more trustworthy than she will ever hope to be. She can be bought - face it.

[presently no screen name]

When they point to her “record of failure” I see a woman who has refused to sell out just to get something passed in the house.

Besides not having anything to sell (lightweight), she sold out conservatives/America by going very soft on the socialist in the group. She can be a lying pit bull when she wants - I'm still waiting to heard from the lady herself who MB claims the woman said her daughter was left retarded because of the shot.

[VinL]

You’re both right- I was in error. -:)

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[Sun]

“Absolutely false statement.”

How has she criticized Newt other than the “Newt Romney” remark at one of the debates? She happens to be my 2nd favorite candidate, btw, but maybe you can convince me, and countless others, that we were wrong about her going soft on Newt.

What are your facts, sir/ma’am?

[Sun]

Meant to say going soft on ROMNEY.

[Sun]

I have been asking God for good leaders each and every day since since Obama was elected, realizing more than ever, we can’t do it alone.

[TBP]

See above. I posted several instances.

[xzins]

I noticed and commented on Bachmann’s not going after Romney before it was ever brought up in the media.

That one came from the grass roots up, so it has nothing to do with repeating the media line.

After the Iowa Caucus, she is history....unless she comes up with a pile of money from some philanthropist who want to throw good money after bad. Or perhaps someone else with an ulterior motive for keeping her in the race.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Well said.