So you think it's NOT devious and misleading to imply that Palin "quit because she couldn't take the political heat" when she sidestepped inevitable bankruptcy deliberately intended by Democrat opponents, and which could not happen today because Alaskan law has since been changed to protect its governors from such "legal" financial nukes? When you deny that that was the case, you are deluded, irrational, and/or incompetent. And you reveal a lot about the character (or lack thereof) of some Palin detractors.
And (though I haven't seen it on this thread) you think it's not devious or misleading to describe Palin's ACES plan regarding what the State of Alaska charges oil companies for drilling on state-owned land (pretty much the same way you or I would charge an oil company for drilling on our own private land if it had oil) as an "oil windfall profits tax" (though it involved neither profits nor windfalls)? Again, Palin detractors have FOR YEARS been using the scary propaganda phrase "oil windfall profits tax" to falsely describe ACES. It is plainly an example of Palin detractors being devious and misrepresenting the truth in their attempt to get people not to support Palin.
And yes, I mean it EXACTLY the way I wrote it. You are deluded, irrational, and incompetent if you cannot recognize duplicity among Palin detractors when you see it -- or when YOU ENGAGE IN IT.
Bottom line: Palin detractors have a weak hand, so they have to be deceitful. When you find yourself siding folks who have to lie to themselves as well as their opponents, it's a sure sign you're on the wrong side.
I believe you’re the one who first brought Reagan into our discussion. And I also believe that you and the other Sarahphiles are the ones who almost always bring personal insult and hysteria into “Sarah as candidate” discussions.
Palin quit because she couldn’t take the political heat and she sidestepped inevitable bankruptcy deliberately intended by Democrat opponents who were using a law she’d lobbied for (”championed”) and signed, which was so full of obvious abusable loopholes that her Democrat opponents thanked her for it. No other of the current crop of Repub candidates has had the unfortunate experience of seeing a policy he pushed turn, almost immediately, into such a “weapon of choice” for the opposition. Once bitten, twice shy, the Sarahphiles may say, but that didn’t seem to be the case for her in the Gibson/Couric interviews in 2008, when she, apparently having seen how polite and sweet G&C were to various affirmative action/minority liberals in the recent past, seemed to somehow expect similar sugar from our all-Dem all-the-time TV people. Twice.