You misunderstand, then.
Recall what the fellow claimed above, "the difference is that people are listening to [Sarah Palin]."
The general flavor of the comments in favor of this piece is that Sarah Palin's engagement on the issue has somehow transformed it into an issue with real traction, where before it had none.
That is quite obviously false, which what I have been trying to point out. Sarah Palin has "transformed" nothing -- it's an issue that people have been working on, with some success, for a long time; and she is not alone even among current politicians in calling for tort reform.
Her article certainly doesn't offer any new information; the only "new" thing about it is Sarah Palin's attempt to inject herself into the issue; perhaps she even intended for her devoted followers to anoint her as a "leader" on the topic.
Well up to this point the issue unfortunately hasn't had good enough traction to get it done.
So here is Sarah tyring to use her influence to give it better traction.
I think that's a good thing. Don't you agree?
No one has discussed this issue in the way that Palin has thusfar in this ObamaCare debate.
Palin is the only one, since about April or May, who has discussed tort reform.
She’s on the ball on the issue, while many of the mainstream Republican heads have no balls on the issue (see Mitt Romney).