I believe you’re the one who first brought Reagan into our discussion.
Yes indeed, I did, when I pointed out that Reagan's landslide victory put the lie to your assertion that the GOP needs a less polarizing candidate than Palin. You replied: Palin ain’t Reagan. And I never said she was -- what I DID say was that the argument that "polarizing" politicians can't win is clearly disproven by history, such as Reagan's victory, and the defeat of moderates such as McCain, Meg Whitman, and Dole.
As for "personal insult," I wrote: “Palin detractors have to be devious and misrepresent the truth in their attempt to get people not to support Palin.” THAT was the extent of what you apparently interpret as "personal insult and hysteria into “Sarah as candidate” discussions.
You wrote of my words: Either didn’t really mean it the way you wrote it, or you’re deluded/irrational/incompetent.
When I used your own words "deluded, irrational, incompetent" to describe your willful bindness to the fact that the heat Palin faced with regard to the resignation was financial, not political, you came back complaining that I was engagining in personal insult and hysteria.
You are a wonderful example of the kind of mindset behind those who dislike Palin.
Many of the Free Republic Palinistas have, over the past few months, proven themselves to me to be obstinate, self-righteous, quasi-fanatical, illogical, hysteria-prone boors.
Everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on September 11th, and everything I need to know about Sarah Palin I’ve already seen. And so has her reality-camping tentmate Kate Gosselin.