I noted yesterday that, having relentlessly touted (supposedly) favorable Sarah Palin poll numbers -- and having distorted them to make them appear more favorable -- Los Angeles Times reporter Andrew Malcolm has been ignoring poll results that are quite unfavorable for the former half-term governor of Alaska:

What do you call someone who regularly touts poll numbers that make a political figure look good, distorts those poll numbers to make the political figure look even better, and completely ignores poll numbers that make that political figure look bad? Oh, yeah: Andrew Malcolm (R-CA).

I then Tweeted a link to that post, writing with tongue firmly in cheek: “I'm starting to doubt Andrew Malcolm's impartiality: http://bit.ly/5TlQfQ @latimestot"

Well, now Malcolm -- a former Bush press secretary -- has responded to me: “well i sure hope so. about time. Who said anything about impartial on a blog? thanks for the link!-A”

So, Malcolm's response to evidence that he's blatantly shilling for Sarah Palin -- distorting poll numbers in her favor when possible, and ignoring them when it isn't -- is “Who said anything about impartial.” Good to know.