For the Elite, Loss is Always the Result of Conspiracy or the Riot of the Unwashed Hordes

I hear Bristol Palin earned 27 out of a possible 30 points tonight for her performance on Dancing with the Stars. that ought to be enough to silence the critics who claim she cannot dance, but I suspect it will not. Last week, they let slip less than subtle hints of racism when Bristol defeated Brandi. If she wins tomorrow night, I suppose the haters will blame Jennifer grey’s loss on her nose job. You know, voters could not tell they were backing Baby into a corner.

But seriously--shooting out your television set, sending envelopes of white powder, making death threats, or even complaining the show’s credibility will be ruined by a Bristol victory is not only deranged, but ought to make the powers that be at the show feel dirty those are the kind of people they are entertaining week after week.

Let me temper that statement a bit. I imagine the vast majority of Dancing with the Stars fans are decent people. What irritates me is that apparently elitist minority who believe the show belongs exclusively to them, so if their pony does not win the race, it is either a conspiracy or the unwashed hordes getting out of line.

Remember a couple years ago on American Idol when the flamboyantly gay musical theater actor Adam Lambert turned his weekly performance into a spectacle. Granted, he hit the mark a couple times, but most people tuned in to see what kind of freak show he was going to attempt top pull off. The same crowd that cannot tolerate Bristol doing well swore Lambert was a shoo in, but he was defeated by the clean cut, All American Kris Allen.

Critics screamed bloody murder that conservative Christians had voted en masse for Allen, not because he was talented or because they switched votes from similar contestants already eliminated, but that their politics and religion just could not tolerate seeing a gay kid win. If the Tea Party had been around then, that is the term that would have been tossed about for Allen’ supporters. If Bristol wins, said critics are likely to find their old Word documents, do a quick search and replace, and run the same articles they wrote back then. It will save time, at any rate.

keep in mind: the narrative of 2004 is Bush 43 stole the election by tampering with voting machines and disenfranchising black voters in a widespread epidemic, but four years later, Barack Obama won fair and square without anyone having rectified the dastardly executed circumstances surrounding Bush 43's previous victory. It is only their guy/gal who is the clear, honest winner.

It sounds like I am critiquing only progressives, but elitism is elitism. Much hay is being made over George F. Will’s blistering critique of Sarah Palin Sunday morning. What it boils down to is will has determined palin is too un-presidential because she shows up on television too often rather than staying in Alaska. Not that staying in Alaska would have improved her in his eyes. Will referred to Palin as Sancho Panza a scant few days after her selection as John McCain’s Veep. Will has also failed to explain how Ronald Reagan, a candidate he did debate preparation with, was not sullied by Bedtime for Bonzo while Sarah Palin’s Alaska is the death knell for her two years out.