Did Letterman Actually Say "They're Paying People To Vote" For Bristol?

Yes he did. In a show where his antagonism for all things Palin ran wild. He made a silly comparison between a possible Trump candidacy and a Palin one and then a boring "Top Ten" list about her forthcoming book and a snide aside about not being able to go to Alaska now.


Then he actually implied that the DWTS show was being fixed in Bristol Palin's favor and yes...he actually said that "They are paying  people to vote" for her.Who "they" are was not stated but if I was a partner in the law firm of Soo, Grabit, and Runn, I would be making a call to the executives of DWTS and the Palin's.
Frankly, Letterman seems to have a fixation problem which needs professional attention.


What these left wing media people still can't get through their heads is that the more they spread their blatant, idiotic and obviously slanted/biased comments about the Palin's they create sympathy for the them as (genuine) victims.


This, the hatred, works on two levels-the in your face gut hatred and the, almost laughable, pure class based antagonism. In contrast the the former, Letterman type we have the, almost delightful in its other worldly, effete, straight down the nose attacks on Palin.This was exemplified by the latest from Sally Quinn in her "On Faith" Wapo column which is dripping with Beltway, cocktail circuit condescension, of the most airy/fairy order, indeed, a classic of its type.

It is so bad it is mercilessly lampooned even by leftists sites, but an important thing has happened which sets it apart-no for the content of the article, but rather for the subsequent comments.

Usually when a pillar of the leftist media like WAPO runs an article about Palin there are screeds of follow up comments pillorying her, usually of the "she's so dumb, and a quitter" moronic sort. The Quinn article is particularly worth delving into the comments section for, as something unique has happened.

Commentator after commentator attacks the tenor of the article, the obvious elitist attitude, and defends the Palins strongly and, interestingly and tellingly, acerbically. There is a new wind blowing, it is noticeably picking up strength, and has been seen in favorable articles by the New York Times for example, in comments from critics who are taking a, resigned to their fate attitude, i.e. that Palin may indeed not only be the nominee, but might even be president.

We live in interesting times which are getting more interesting by the day