Liberals' "Bristolgate" Gets Even Wackier
Margaret Cho, a liberal who was voted off Dancing With The Stars before Palin, claims Sarah Palin forced her daughter to compete on the show so that she could win in 2012. Here's what she says:
Why did Bristol do Dancing with the Stars? I heard from someone who really should know (really should seriously know the dirt really really) that the only reason Bristol was on the show was because Sarah Palin forced her to do it. Sarah supposedly blames Bristol harshly and openly (in the circles that I heard it from) for not winning the election, and so she told Bristol she “owed” it to her to do DWTS so that “America would fall in love with her again” and make it possible for Sarah Palin to run in 2012 with America behind her all the way. Instead of being supposedly “handicapped” by the presence of her teen mom daughter, now Bristol is going to be an “asset” – a celebrity beloved for her dancing. I am sure the show wasn’t in on this (but who knows anything really).
And just in case you were thinking this is just politics, Cho is sure to mention that even though she doesn't agree with the family's politics at all (her words, not mine), she really likes Bristol as a person. That's good to know. Clearly there could be no ulterior motive here. I honestly thought the liberals had gotten this out of their system when Contessa Brewer credited her success to a Tea Party Conspiracy on MSNBC. I don't doubt she benefited from the Mama-Grizzly-in-Chief's "star power," but the Tea Party, which lacks any centralized strategy unlike liberal "grassroots" organizations, wasn't organizing phone banks to rig a game show. They're too busy with Congress. Did the liberals on Dancing With The Stars ever stop to consider that the show's target demographic might be more aligned with Palin than Mrs. Nancy?
I truly hope this turns out to be a perverse joke on Cho's part. Otherwise, I'm concerned for her mental health. For starters, the 2008 elections were between McCain and Obama. McCain didn't lose the election because his running mate had a teenage daughter. He lost because he ran as a liberal while Obama ran as if he weren't a radical leftist. How many times does this point need to be made? Secondly, Sarah Palin doesn't need her daughter to be "an asset" in order to make "America ... fall in love with her again." Unlike Obama, she's still able to turn out massive crowds despite a unified front of constant opposition from liberals in the press. Those who love Sarah Palin never fell out of the relationship. Those who hate her always hated her. On another note, Cho has affirmed, again, Krauthammer's claim: "liberals are obsessed with Sarah Palin."
Note: If you want to read Cho's original entry, search "Pistol Whipped site:margaretcho.com" on Google. I'm not going to link to the site directly.
[print_link]