The media sulking ugly

By Thomas Lifson

In the wake of Sarah Palin's smashing debut as a major American political figure last night, some in the media are sulking over the public backlash to their outrageous treatment of her in the first few days of her national role, since being announced 6 days ago as a running mate. Case in point: the normally level-headed Roger Simon of The Politico:

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn't be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

Bitter sarcasm accompanied by studious ignoring of the trashing of Palin by the liberal media is most unbecoming, Roger. Are you unaware of Campbell Brown's snarky comments about Palin as a mother? How about Sally Quinn? Or the three NYT front page stories in one day Palin attack cover

attacking her.

To be fair, Simon has not been in the gutter with this lot. But why haven't we read more about the clash between Sarah and Big Oil? Why haven't we read about the billions of dollars she has added to state revenues at the expense of Big Oil? Why haven't we read about the indicted pols in Alaska?

The media continue to slit their own throats with their arrogance, meanness, and contempt for not just Palin, but all the people in Middle America who identify with her. Like cornered animals, they lash out regardless of the effectiveness.

Sarah Palin knows a lot about dealing with cornered animals, I suspect.