No, she expressly said she didn’t know what was behind his actions, though they didn’t fit with his supposed conservative ideology.
If she and we didn’t back any compromised Republicans in 2008 we’d have a purely Marxist country already. As she has said, crony corruption is all-too-common business as usual in both parties. My guess is that in the toughest calls, where she didn’t have confirmed ethical issues, she went with the ideologically superior candidate (Perry, O’Donnell), and where she thought there was sufficient confirmed ethical concern she went with the less ideologically pure option (McCain).
BTW, you’re supposed to be a Santorum guy and Santorum endorsed ol’ Arlen—I don’t think you should be nitpicking any of Palin’s endorsements!
Absolutely I am going to question the Palin people on the McLame, Fiorina, Perry endorsements. Everyone jumped on Ricks case for being a full out RINO POS for that Arlen thing and needed to go away, yet Palin got really involved with these people and not a word. It seems far clearer why Rick backed Arlen when the entire GOP establishment including the sitting President told him to or risk losing campaign cash in a then very Blue state than why Palin picked who she picked and her motivations.