Correction: Sarah Palin put her appearance at a Tea Party of America rally in Indianola, Iowa, on hold but did not cancel it, as incorrectly reported in an earlier version of this post.
WSJ, trying to start trouble?
They had a scoop and went with it. Now the scoop has been revised. Big deal.
The real question is what the heck is going on with Sarah? “On hold”? What does that mean?
Out of fairness, the headline should probably be changed. The WSJ has apparently changed its tune and said that the event is on hold, not cancelled.
I like her a lot yet I hope that she does not run and I am predicting right here that she will not run.
I hear works well with Unemployment statistics.
Yep....it was just put on hold because the organizers needed to fix somethings they did wrong......
WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News.
After you said “WSJ full of...”, it’s kinda redundant to ask if they’re trying to start trouble.
Still, it’s amazing to see how many folks around here can get stampeded so quickly.
Plumb goosey bunch, sometimes.
Maybe need to be reminded: FACTS BEFORE FERTILIZER
Oh, that’s right, blame the WSJ. This group is not ready for prime time. You don’t “put on hold” an event that you committed to a long time ago because another person has been invited. You don’t move to another venue in the same town. This is a terrible, terrible move on SP’s and/or her advisors’ part.
A week or two ago, if anyone on this site so much as suggested that she was not going to announce her candidacy at that event in Indianola, IA on 9/3, they were given full court abuse. PalinFRistas and others made plans to be there, some traveling 1000 miles, for what was imagined as an historic event, vowing to crawl on broken glass (or hot coals), etc. to see tht she was elected.
And now, this? Christine O’Donnell gets invited, so the SP appearance is “put on hold?” I am having a hard time believing SP could be that petty. But it’s not a good reflection on anyone who wants to be POTUS, that’s for sure.