On the very day America learned so-called journalists conspired to destroy Sarah Palin from the moment John McCain chose her as his running mate, Politico's Roger Simon declared she's at the top of the Republican Party.
Assuming he's correct, what does that tell us about all those in the mainstream media that have been looking down their noses for almost two years as they worked overtime to smear this woman?
Before we attempt to answer that question, let's see what Simon had to say:
More than 13 months ago, I wrote a column that began: "Sarah Palin can be the Republican nominee in 2012. [...]
Now, more than a year later, I have not changed my mind about Palin's political potential. This is not based on the polls - especially a recent one showing her in a 46 percent to 46 percent tie with Obama in a hypothetical 2012 face-off. I don't believe such polls tell us anything meaningful.
I am basing my belief now, as back then, on Palin's ability to connect with the base of her party. Name a bigger name in the Republican Party today. Heck, name any name in the Republican Party today.
And the most energized wing of her party - Republican tea partiers - has good reason to like her.
After discussing Palin's fabulous performance at February's Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tennessee, Simon hit on some key points:
Whatever Palin has been doing since then seems to be working. And I have noticed a certain change in how the media are viewing her. In a recent column giving advice to journalists, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic wrote: "Be humble about conclusions. ... Sarah Palin may not be ready to be president today, but that doesn't mean she won't be ready to be president tomorrow."
In even better news for Palin, her political opponents continue to dismiss her. Mark Halperin wrote in Time magazine recently: "An adviser to Mitt Romney ... says of Palin, ‘She's not a serious human being.'"
Simon concluded:
Besides, does the most serious human being always win? Did Al Gore? Did John Kerry?
Sarah Palin has something more than intellect. She has the ability to understand, connect with and energize her party.
More than that, she has the ability to connect with PEOPLE, something Gore and Kerry didn't. Clearly, this is an issue Simon's colleagues in the press continue to ignore which has been a common failing in their ranks for decades.
Media elites have been attacking the intellectual capacity of Republican presidential candidates for years. According to them, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush were all too stupid to be Commander in Chief.
But what these so-called journalists have been missing for so many years is that most Americans don't have college degrees and don't necessarily identify with those that do. According to the Census Bureau, only 27 percent of our citizens has a bachelor's degree; only ten percent has a masters or doctorate.
Yet, the elites in the media keep wondering why so-called "intellectuals" typically fare poorly at the polls.
Despite such lack of success, press members continue to bash the intelligence quotients of those on the right.
In 2008, it was Palin's turn, and they've been doing it ever since. These folks had a field day recently with the former governor's new word "refudiate"
To be sure, the attacks on her character, along with a number of disturbingly dishonest press tactics, got Barack Obama elected in November 2008. But in the long run this strategy might have backfired - and badly.
After approaching 24 months of incessant Palin bashing by the media, as Simon noted, her popularity continues to rise. At the same time, polls show Obama and the Democrats hitting new favorability lows.
Irrespective of the press's support for a failing administration, Americans seem weary of this hopey changey thing.
Which bring us to the moral of the story: the more the media denigrate a conservative's intelligence, the more popular he or she becomes.
Makes you wonder if all of these folks with their fancy degrees will ever learn.
