Last week Charlie Cook, the usually carefully spoken and reasonable political pundit frequently seen on MSNBC, may have revealed something dark about himself with this comment about Sarah Palin: "She's making more money than God ever intended her to make."
Mr. Cook and those who quickly, happily agreed undoubtedly harbor a green-as-dollars envy and resentment over Governor Palin, that ditzy broad who disses them, unfairly out-earning them as a political media personality, public speaker and author. But worse than such embarrassing envy is the idea that anyone, least alone God, should impose arbitrary limit on what someone can earn in the free market.
This is a core belief of many, including obviously the present occupant of the White House: that, at some point, some people simply make too much money. This ought not be mistaken for honest liberalism. It is elitist entitlement of the worst kind - the right for them to determine you are not worthy of more than "x." It's the right of the superior to define you as inferior. And therefore the right to confiscate your harvest on behalf of others or the greater good - with quite a bit lost to general overhead, presidential palaces, and royal privileges. Theirs is an un-American idea, a dangerous idea, an evil idea. And invoking God for it, even in passing remark, is despicable.
If Mr. Cook does have the direct line to God, though, perhaps he could ask Him to explain His rationale for letting Al Gore profiteer to the point he has, amassing so much wealth post-vice-presidency, with gigantic windfalls in Google stock (reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's one-time-only, ever-so-lucky killing made with commodities futures. Or explain His rationale for letting ambulance and skirt chasing John Edwards, a near vice-president, now under federal indictment, get so rich.
Chris Matthews has a different fascination with Sarah Palin. He has been frequently and repeatedly talking about how she moves, how kinetic she is, how amazing and irresistible she is, in motion. As he expresses this obsession, he is nearly leering. The thrill he once said went up his leg while watching and listening to Obama seems to have been supplanted by a different thrill from watching Sarah Palin walking. He is, to borrow old song, spending altogether too much time standing on the corner, watching Sarah Palin walk by, and, buddy, he can't think of a nicer occupation. Can a wolf whistle be far behind? Unrequited lust and anger often go hand in hand. This may explain Mr. Matthews raging against Palin while admiring her kinetic mesmerism nightly.
The entire media doth protest too much about the indomitable, kinetic and very Barnumesque Ms. Palin and her magical mystery tour. If they really wanted to, they could simply have ignored her. She's not an announced candidate. There has been no news made during her bus tour of American landmarks. There was no journalistic obligation to report it, let alone chase it like crazed teenagers pursuing Justin Bieber.
They should now at least give up on Dan Quayling her - she has proven smart enough to wrap them around her little finger, to turn them all into her publicists. She's having a bit of revenge against the Couric clique. Just who's making who look silly now?
A CNN talking-head, I forget which, called the entire Where's Sarah and Her Bus? episode a new low point for journalists. Of course, she was discussing it on CNN - a new, personal low point? It has been fun watching them all embarrass themselves. But it's not funny at all to see greed and envy and resentment revealed, as occurred with Charlie Cook's Freudian slip. After all, you may be one of those people the elites determine make more money than God ever intended you to make too. If so, you'll feel their wrath.