Posted on 02/11/2010 2:38:13 PM PST by excopconservative
You can't even move your eyes when Palin on nearby.
on - is , whatever.
Link - http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/02/chris-wallace-palin-serious-political.html
Please read how to post on FR.
A lame attempt to gain website hits.
Like as though they would expend so much effort if she weren’t?
I’m a C4P poster, but this is supposed to go in Blogs.
Best,
Chris
Next time, try copying and pasting the title. It works. :)
bookmark
I dont want eye candy, I want a serious leader who knows the issues and can explain them without teleprompter or signs on hands.
The Palin cheer leading crowd here needs to dial back on the “she’s hot”, “she’s a babe” etc..etc..etc. It diminishes the conservative message when part of many of the Palin backers messages in the Palin threads are about looks and not issues and ability.
(((PING)))
He did have a coy look on his face when he brought up the poll showing Palin the leader of the republicans.
She did well remarking that the polls are fickle and she pays them no attention. (paraphrasing)
What are you talking about? This was about Chris Wallace being accused of rolling his eyes after interviewing Palin inferring that she was not a serious person. It was not about her being “eye candy”.
LOL
The idea that the dumb sh-t known as Joe Scarborough has the temerity to question somebody else's intelligence is laughable.
I’m with you !
Palinism II as referenced Here
Six whole words! You're upset over six whole words on a hand?
I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any living soul alive, that can meet your high expectations of perfection.
He was looking at his time camera, it’s obvious.
Personally I think he was quite impressed with the Sarahcuda.
Lighten up. The woman is nice to look at, nice to listen and just nice in general. That she is also a serious political player just highlights her other assets, so to speak.
Funny. I don’t recall over drolling over her looks. Then again I’m a heterosexual woman. But nice trying to dismiss anyone who likes her as being driven by hormones.
I don’t know who I’m supporting in ‘12. I only know I’m not going to let Palin be driven away as an option if she turns out to best candidate available which given the rumored choices so far (Huckabee, Romney etc) she is. To that end I do defend her more then not because she has common sense, backbone, and we seem to agree on most issues except I suspect not so much on amnesty.
Now, to serious business.
Finally, What Sarah wants to do - short video part of "Part-3" below
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other videos: This is the 30 minute interview with Chris Wallace from Fox (2-7-10), in 3 parts:
See what I mean you proved my point, I simply say that I want someone who needs no teleprompter or words on a hand and immediately some of you Palinites say I have expectations that cant be met.
Yeah, Abe Lincoln needed a teleprompter or words on his hand...or Teddy Roosevelt, or Reagan,...but my expectations are too high for the 21st century I guess.
Too bad we have to settle for whomever people on FR deem our future, three years before the next Presidential election.
She's got plenty of ability and she's excellent on the issues. It can only help that she's telegenic, right?
You got a problem with that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.