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

To: exit82
That's the thing, though, isn't it?

Objectively more signs point to "not running" than running. I noticed no one admitting being wrong about her candidacy announcement on July 4. There was a thread this morning about an AK radio show just in case it happened.

Yet, if you suggest she isn't running or might not run, you're smeared as having PDS by those claiming to be supporters. I have to wonder if they really are or not.

You can almost hear, 'How dare you question the truth of inevitability?! Unbeliever! Attack! Attack!,' in some posts.

If she forgoes 2012 or even if fairly defeated for the nomination, a lot of people will go off the deep end. It's scary.

It runs off people who would naturally support her candidacy. At times I wonder if they actually know this and work to that end.

52 posted on 07/04/2011 8:55:53 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Is the new date July 27th?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: newzjunkey

“Objectively more signs point to “not running” than running.”

Riiiigggghhhhttttt.............


63 posted on 07/04/2011 9:28:06 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

Objectively, please list the top 5 signs pointing to her not running.

I’ll give you signs she is running.

House in Arizon.
A movie promoting her as a politician.
A larger grass-roots political organization than any announced GOP candidate.
A bus tour bringing her constant publicity and name recognition.
Hiring her old travel aids from her 2008 VP run.

Your turn.


102 posted on 07/05/2011 1:00:52 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (SP12: They called Reagan "unelectable", too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | 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