According to The Hill, Sarah Palin is “beginning to irritate some Senate GOPers”.

As the article notes, it could be possible considering the presidential ambitions of some. But other than a few, token observations on Palin’s behalf, the bias of ‘The Hill’ reporters is thinly veiled. And the anonymous “Senate GOPers” used as their source are petty, little people, who hide behind their anonymity. I’m just not going to let this blather slide.

According to Alexander Bolton and Reid Wilson of The Hill:

Several GOP senators offered searing criticism of the Alaska governor when asked in recent interviews whether she could pose a credible challenge to President Obama in 2012.

The “several” (more like two or three) GOP Senators offering “searing” (more like gutless) criticism of Palin remain anonymous. The article states:

“She has to hunker down and govern and show she’s not a joke,” said a GOP lawmaker who represents one of the southern battlegrounds of the 2012 election.

“She’s had some struggles, saying yes and no to the invitation. Her PAC [political action committee] has stalled,” the GOP lawmaker noted.

“[Democrats and the media] did a number on her,” said the lawmaker from the southern battleground. “She has some hurdles, especially among independents and Democrats.

“She lost support among the independents and moderate Republicans, and a lot of them give money,” the lawmaker added.

The commentary starts with the assumption that she is a joke. If that doesn’t lose you, maybe the insight that she may have hurdles among Democrats will lose you. Or the notion that lots of independents and moderates give money. Or that ‘invitation-gate’ represents a real “struggle” for her. Or that her PAC “stalled” in a non-election cycle when Americans are pinching pennies.

The Hill chimes in, adding:

But her high-profile foray to the East Coast has not been without its stumbles — and a scheduling spat with the Senate and House Republican fundraising committees threatens to raise more questions about her viability as a national party leader.

A “scheduling spat” is now grounds for questioning someone’s viability as a national party leader. You don’t have to work in politics to understand what utter nonsense.

More nonsense:

Another GOP senator, who endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) early in the 2008 primary, argues Palin would face a lot of difficulty raising money. He said she had little appeal among the major fundraisers who made up McCain’s financial base.

“I don’t see her being a candidate in 2012,” said the lawmaker. “I don’t think she has the financial base to run. I don’t think she can convert the McCain fundraisers to her camp.

“You need to be able to raise $500 million or you’re not even in the game. That tends to thin out the field fairly quickly. It’s tough coming from a [small] state like Alaska.”

Only someone with amnesia can take that commentary seriously. Palin proved a fundraising bonanza for McCain despite being thrown onto the national scene and having no standing operation and no base of legacy supporters. Claiming that Palin won’t be able to raise money like McCain is laugable.

Another anonymous lawmaker (or a pure fiction of The Hill’s fearful mind) offers:

One GOP senator questioned whether Palin has enough gravitas for voters to trust her in tough economic times.

“If the economy implodes, I don’t see her as having much of a chance,” said the lawmaker, who noted that Palin’s national political ambitions have caused her political troubles at home. “She has also taken on water up there in Alaska.”

If the economy implodes, a successful, fiscally responsible Governor and a conservative outsider won’t have much of chance as compared to whom; the same man who made the economy collapse; or a Republican hack insider who is knee deep in the sludge that helped create the collapse?

Keep fishing.