MR, Nov. 06, 2008:

McCain couldn't have made a better choice... the right track/wrong track numbers haven't even been close this year. Given the spread Democrats probably actually underperformed. If the election was hopeless then all of the nonsense about how Palin alienated independents is naive at best but more likely just dishonest... the job of the GOP candidate was to limit losses and prevent a Democratic supermajority. That meant boosting fundraising and whipping up out the base - two tasks at which Palin is just diabolical

Dick Morris, Nov 12, 2008:

Sarah Palin saved GOP from landslide defeat... Sarah Palin made a vast difference in McCain’s favor. Compared to 2004, McCain lost 11 points among white men, according to the Fox News exit poll, but only four points among white women. Obama’s underperformance among white women, evident throughout the fall, may be chalked up, in large part, to the influence of Sarah Palin. She provided a rallying point for women who saw their political agenda in terms larger than abortion. She addressed the question of what it is like to be a working mother in today’s economy and society and resonated with tens of millions of white women who have not responded to the more traditional, and liberal, advocates for their gender.

You might be confused about this straightforward fact if you get your understanding of the GOP from major media outlets. Example: the LA Times political blog put a post up on Nov. 8 titled "A lone Republican leader defends Sarah Palin while McCain is mum." This was, as a matter of brute reality, not true.

Is there a chance that the LAT Times' consistently asinine coverage comes from just not knowing that most Republicans exist? It would be an elegant explanation for their polling results. And it would account for their demonstrably false "it was totally unpredictable" coverage of McCain's not at all unpredictable Palin selection.

But really? Can they be so narcissistic that they're just unaware of the basic existence of Meg Stapleton or Randy Scheunemann or Steve Biegun - all of whom came to Palin's defense before this post went live. Does anyone at the LA Times ever go so far as to even look at the WSJ? Or the National Review? Or is checking what conservatives actually say about conservatives just not how the media approaches the GOP any more? Although admittedly - it's less fun than publishing a headline like "a lone Republican leader defends Sarah Palin" and then opening with a sneering "yes, it's shocking... go figure." And in fairness - if you're a cacooned moron who thinks that the world is as you'd like it to be, I guess it would be kind of shocking to bump into reality.

Bloggers for Palin 2012 anyone?

References and previously after the jump..