Your argument would, put another way, claim that we should never have passed laws against "Rape" because they lead to "Tawanna Brawley"-type abuses.
Please. The suggestion is ridiculous, and likely beneath you. Sarah did the right thing making it easier for honorable people to hold their elected officials accountable. Should the Legislature now consider additional laws imposing serious deterrents from abusing this law frivolously? Perhaps.
But suggesting that Palin was in error by giving control of their elected officials back to the good people of Alaska is just sick. As are, so far, all of the attacks on Palin's accomplishments in office. None have withstood even minimal scrutiny... while Sarah still withstands the most massive microscopic socio-political colonoscopy in human history.
And yet shines like the sun.
Deal. With. It.
;^\/
Now I'm NOT one of those who argue against doing 'good' for fear it isn't 'perfect.' Some Freepers have notorious reputations for such arguments. The American experiment has been designing checks and balances to better control problems arising out of normal - imperfect - people. Alaskan political law pre-Gov. Palin needed more checks, post-Gov. Palin it needed some more balance. The Tawana Brawley case illustrates well the problem. The NY legal system was used by Al Sharpton, et al, to abuse the innocent. But the NY legal code also provided for redress in the form of a subsequent successful, albeit imperfectly enforced, defamation lawsuit against Sharpton. Sarah's law didn't seem to offer any limits at all against false accusations, no matter how obviously false or how often they are made.
Amongst Palin's many virtues, I trust you'd agree, is humility. She'd be the first to deny she was perfect or even nearly perfect. I take your soaring endorsement of her as "about as close to perfection as this world is likely to see this side of Rapture" as both well deserved admiration on your part and equally deserved indignation over the many malicious attacks on her. Now I agree, that based on all we've seen to date (and the amount we've seen is unprecedented!), she's extremely impressive and the best we're likely to find. But when talk approached perfection a small dose of balance was indicated. Or some liberal judge might rule premature canonization rendered her ineligible on 'separation of church and state grounds.' In this case I think she was naive in expecting all her fellow citizens would live up to her standards of civic duty. None of her competition can claim as small a mistake. I presumed she's learned from it so won't have to similarly leave her next job before her eight years are up.