And how was this seemingly innocuous exchange reported on by the media?
Below are 18 media articles about Palin/Meyers collated at random. 9 are basically neutral, straightforward reporting of the general aspects of the conversation with emphasis on various points that suit the particular outlets audience.
9 are decidedly antagonistic e.g, the snide "former half-term Governor and now reality show Sarah Palin." Some are outright vicious "liar" "ignorant foil" "Batsh*t" and the usual spectrum of unreasonable, unreasoned and almost crazed leftist hate and, it has to be said, fear.
"Lame Stream media" biased journalism "leftist media conspiracy"? The facts, especially when seen is such an aggregation, speak for themselves.
The obvious question that arises is if, as the media/pundits advise, Palin is "through/irrelevant" why would there be so much antagonism across so many media outlets? We can leave out examining the comments sections of the various reports in looking for an answer as they are infested with the genuine dregs of American society who are obsessed to the point to psychosis with "PDS"(Palin Derangement Syndrome.)
Rather Tony Lee at Breitbart appears to have the key to all this;
"Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said where GOP candidates stand on amnesty and immigration will be “huge” in determining which candidate she potentially endorses in this election cycle if she decides to make an endorsement that may well determine who will win the GOP presidential nomination. There is no denying the significance of a potential Palin endorsement, especially in an election cycle in which the conventional rule books have been shredded."
Lee goes on to list a number of campaigns where Palin's endorsement made the difference (Ted Cruz is a particular standout ) Palin endorsed 23 candidates in the 2014 mid-terms with 21 winning and she is, bit by bit, populating Congress with her choices-that is why she is still, 7 years later and holding no elective office, the subject of such ongoing vicious attacks.
