It’s simply amusing. Rosalind Helderman of The Washington Post writes her own obituary for Steelman’s race in Missouri saying the following:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is apparently no Midas after all.
In four GOP Senate primaries and the Wisconsin recall race, her chosen candidate emerged victorious.
And then came former Missouri state treasurer Sarah Steelman. Steelman came in third Tuesday in a three-way race for the Republican nomination to take on Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) in November.
Steelman had been behind in polls leading into Election Day. Had she pulled out a surprise victory, Palin’s support would have certainly been credited as the decisive factor in the race.
The loss could suggest Palin’s other successes this year came as she joined campaigns that were already surging rather than from her influence over the conservative electorate. Palin-backed winners Ted Cruz in Texas and Richard Mourdock in Indiana, for instance, hardly lacked for high power conservative support.
On the other hand, Steelman did outperform her late polls and only narrowly trailed Brunner, who had spent nearly $8 million of his own money selling himself to Missourians. There’s no telling how Steelman would have fared without Palin’s intervention.
First, though there were three main competitors, there were other candidates on the ballot. Second, does the Washington Post or any other media outlet at this point expect us to really believe we’d have awakened to headlines Wednesday morning with the groundswell praise of Palin had Steelman won?
If they can (with a straight face) marginalize her involvement with Ted Cruz – in which Palin was by far the most important endorsement he had received (as well as Mark Levin), what makes any reasonable person believe she’d have gotten credit for Steelman in the eyes of the Lamestreamers?
Further, what is Rosalind Helderman’s definition of “high power conservative support?” And if Ted Cruz “hardly lacked” it, why was it only Palin who went to Texas a few days before the runoff at Cruz’s delight? Where were these other “high power” conservatives?
While local tea party groups fought hard for Mourdock, Palin was one of the first who endorsed him on a national level. Days afterwards, late-comers like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann joined the party.
And finally, Deb Fischer in Nebraska sat behind Jon Bruning by double digits in all the polls leading up to her endorsement from Palin. This turned the election around and Fischer came out the winner.
Notice though, the Washington Post mentions pretty much every other race Palin was involved with but Fischer’s. Of course, they’re being selective to create feed for the Palin-deranged that show up to read their pieces on the former Alaska Governor.
But the most important point of all – the idea that any publication would expect 100% of one person’s endorsements to emerge victorious before giving her the credit she deserves shows how unreasonable they really are. After all, consider the fact that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for giving a speech and winning an election.
The standards are raised for the right and lowered for the left to make it fair in their world. Palin competed for her awards and earned her titles through tough paths. This is different from Obama who got all his prizes and trophies from the elite just for participating.
If Palin wanted to back a sure winner with momentum in Missouri, she could have gone with Brunner. If she had, she could have taken half of Steelman’s votes if she wanted. Certainly, all candidates in the race sought her endorsement. This was proven by their reactions when she endorsed Steelman. Therefore; if Helderman was correct in her cherry-picked measurements, Palin would have endorsed Brunner. The fight would have been much easier.
But instead, Palin backed the only proven reformer the race had, despite the fact of knowing that Steelman’s opponent spent $8M to manufacture falsities to hurt her.
In other words, Palin stood on principle. That is the real narrative here. Just don’t expect the MSM to catch on anytime soon.