My issue isn’t with her but how some read the article
to start with
Because they see it differently than you? No one is denying she went from R to D to I to R, they are just pointing out that a lot of people change parties and it sometimes doesn’t mean a hill of beans in regards to their political positions. You are hung up on thinking that people are using the D to R transformation as analogous to Angle’s R to D to I to R change is a mistake in their reading.
Maybe it is just a mistake in your understanding their point?