And “probably distorted to begin with” is just another of those assumptions that I’d rather not be jumping to, without evidence. There’s plenty of evidence elsewhere in Palin’s book, & in her conduct otherwise, about things she has distorted, without me having to make stuff up. See, for example, my posts about her 2 million dollar meme.

I’m opposed to Palin because I’ve seen so much evidence as an Alaska citizen & voter that (1) she was a lousy governor, who quit the job midstream; (2) she cares more about promoting herself than about actually learning the stuff she needs to learn to do the jobs she seeks to take on, whether as city council person, mayor, lt. governor, governor, VP, or prez; (3) she holds a lot of political views that I oppose; & (4) she lies. A lot. If only because, as I say, the truth for her is whatever comes out of her mouth at the time — i.e., often I think she believes wholeheartedly what she says, it’s just that what she wholeheartedly believes changes according to circumstances. (For example, her four or five competing stories about how/when her kids learned she was going to be a VP candidate.) (But I also think she lies on purpose sometimes.) Oh yes, and (5) she’s extremely vindictive, as shown in her book, as shown in the Branchflower report (which I read) on Troopergate, which contains lots of evidence of her vindictiveness towards her ex-brother-in-law, and the lengths she & her husband would go to pursue it.

So no, I don’t much like Palin. But I prefer to use facts and evidence to oppose her. I’m not in the business of trashing her simply for the sake of trashing her. Or because it’s the trendy sport of the day.

Doesn’t that end up being accidently true then?