no basis in fact?
Fact: Sarah quit.
Fact: Overwhelming majority who viewed her Gibson and Couric interviews saw Sarah as unprepared for hostile/unfair questions.
Sarah had to do the interviews. The editors created the impression they wanted!
Have you read the stuff Sarah has written? Does it indicate that she has actually read substantial stuff? Why did they try to create the impression that she didn't read anything of substance? Why did they recently ridicule her for reading and citing CS Lewis? As always it showed the critics to be the ignorant ones.
Oh, and by the way, most great strategists do not press an attack into their opponent’s strength. Instead they try to prepare the most advantageous battlefield for themselves.
If you don’t think Sarah is at war with the establishment then I can understand you blinkered view.