Comments on: “Going Rogue” Rises Without Oprah’s Help

By: Donald Borsch Jr.

Donald Borsch Jr. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:13:41 +0000

Fun and fact-filled link to People magazine.

See if you can spot the lie.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20314254,00.html

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:19:46 +0000

How to increase your ratings when they are on a steady decline?
http://www.aikenstandard.com/Entertainment/b0763-BC-US-TV-OprahWinfrey-09-14-0863

Why, just interview Sarah Palin of course!
http://www.thefoxnation.com/media/2009/10/20/oprah-interview-palin?page=2

Oh, and Cody, did you know that Amazon is in a price war with Walmart?
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=12558252#ProductDetail

And it is only a hard-copy version that has a limit on the amount that can be sold at the discounted price. It is called a “loss leader” which is what retailers do when there is a product that is in high demand that can attract people to their outlet (whether it be physical on internet).

Somebody hasn’t taken a marketing class!!!

By: Cody_K

Cody_K — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:22:04 +0000

How to save a book that's dropped to bargain basement prices? http://is.gd/4raDa Why, just go on Oprah of course!! http://is.gd/4thqA

By: PJ

PJ — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:53:11 +0000

Charo:

Your comment, “True conservatives caught on to this anomaly, which is why we stand by her as we watch her popularity grow. You are not a conservative, and to dispute this notion would be nothing more than a show of ignorance. If you don’t get that, you never will.” is actually one of the reasons I check in on this website. I am very interested in why people who call themselves conservatives believe what they do, and gravitate toward certain ideas and away from others. I am also impressed with Natalie’s honesty.

By: PJ

PJ — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:50:35 +0000

Natalie:
Yes, I seriously think that without the national stage provided by the Republican National Convention (funded by the RNC) – being tapped as VP nominee by the McCain campaign for the 2008 presidency – and all the media attention that came along with those events, Sarah Palin would have remained the very popular governor of Alaska, and completely unknown to the vast majority of the United States. There would be no present day book deal, and the Republican Party would not be talking about her.
I also think that Sarah’s straight forward “home spun charm” were her strong asset in Alaska, and her media GROOMERS and political handlers in the McCain campaign thought that would not play nationally. I think she definitely WAS groomed to be a national political candidate, to her detriment, and the detriment of the McCain campaign.
I agree with you that Newt does not really support her. But he does pay her lip service, and did recently defend her when other Republicans were willing to throw her under the bus. (I think Newt is a snake. Brilliant man, no integrity)

By: Mom of Troops

Mom of Troops — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:40:55 +0000

I think Palin is doing just fine with what she is doing. Adrienne is right, she doesn’t need Oprah. However, from the way Oprah’s rating are falling, I would say that Oprah needs Palin.

Ahhhh…karma!

By: Natalie Nichols

Natalie Nichols — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:38:40 +0000

I like that Charo “An Ameritician, not a Politician” is a phrase that we heard somewhere and wrote on a sign at a Tea Party, in support of Palin! Great minds think alike?

In all seriousness, I think you’ve got it pegged. They saw 3 things in Palin that they thought would play to their advantage:

1. She is a woman = weak willed and easily swayed (in their delusional minds)
2. She is a woman = instant “Hillary votes” (also in their delusional minds and a prime example of how weak-willed they think women are)
3. She is not well known = a fresh face, and someone they could meld into what they wanted her to be (at least they had 1 aspect of this right, she was a breath of fresh air)

By: Charo

Charo — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:21:34 +0000

All kidding a side. Remember, Palin was sought out by McCain and the RNC, she did not seek them out. In my opinion, they got more than they bargined for and probably thought they could reign her in, just like most politicians. They probably figured, here is a conservative that we can pitch against the Hillary effect that will probably sit idly by and take in the ride. What they didn’t expect, is someone who could not be bought and would not put her beliefs and convictions up on the auction block. Someone with a true belief in the American spirit versus the political machine.

An Ameritician, not a politician!

True conservatives caught on to this anomaly, which is why we stand by her as we watch her popularity grow. You are not a conservative, and to dispute this notion would be nothing more than a show of ignorance. If you don’t get that, you never will.

By: Charo

Charo — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:04:10 +0000

PJ would argue with a stop sign!

By: Natalie Nichols

Natalie Nichols — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:58:47 +0000

PJ, obviously you didn’t understand my use of the phrase “groomed-to-be-politician.” I was referencing, obviously-I thought, Barack Obama. He has been groomed, almost his entire life, by various liberal thinkers, to be a politician. That is not what the McCain campaign was, to the contrary, which is one of the reasons they lost so badly. It was a severely poorly run campaign. The “good old boy” know-it-alls thought they knew better than to make use of technological advances, such as the internet. They thought they knew better than the likes of Sarah Palin and those of us who now make up the tea party movement, in their thinking that we’re looking for “big tent” politicians. If the politicians who purport to support my views, are highly appealing to someone of say, your political leanings, then that means they are not being truthful to one of us. That might get them votes, but if you haven’t noticed by the name of this site, I’m more interested in political integrity. There is a school of thought that says politicians should be speaking in a more simplified manner to a crowd of less informed individuals and giving a more technically oriented speech to a more educated crowd. That is fine, it’s simple: know your audience. But when the actual content of the message changes according to who is listening, then we’ve got a problem. You might respect that politician, but I will never–I don’t care if they call themselves a Republican, Democrat, or Astronaut! INTEGRITY is the key here.

Now back to your point–excuse my rant. I am going to have to put this bluntly: You’re wrong about Sarah Palin and her supporters. I’ll ask you: Do YOU actually think that if she hadn’t gotten an expensive wardrobe, hairstylist, and makeup artist during the campaign that she wouldn’t be touring the globe and promoting a best seller today? Perhaps you’ve made some other fabulous argument and I’ve missed it. If that’s the case, feel free to clarify. Perhaps you are misinformed and someone out there is pretending that the RNC has supported Sarah Palin, but that is not the case…far from it actually. You think, seriously, that Newt supports Palin as a Republican leader? You’re borderline delusional if these are more than words and are your actual assessments of the state of the Republican party. At every chance, many–as the Steve Schmidt and John McCain quotes show–distance themselves from Palin. Their general consensus is that she is a name that can bring in bodies, but they actually don’t want to support any of the ideals that she holds dear. They think mentioning her name is their way of “throwing us a bone.” If you haven’t realized by now, that is one of the reasons we’re all so ticked off at BOTH sides of the aisle. We’re tired of this, “we know better than you” and “we’re doing this for your own good” “this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you” mentality. Washington has forgotten who the big boss really is. Sarah Palin’s been trying to remind them, but as of yet, they’re not listening.

Enough of the tirade against Fox News. Fox News “news” is fair and balanced. Whether you like it or not, it is. Where liberals can’t seem to draw the contrast is that Fox ALSO has conservative analysts who have their own shows and share their OPINIONS. If it’s too hard to understand, watch MSNBC any given weeknight. You may take much of what MSNBC’s “news” reports, but I dare you to honestly watch Olbermann, Matthews, or Maddow and tell me that they’re just reporting the facts. They are commentators, just as Hannity and Beck are. Use some real statistics to back up your claims, not again comparing apples to oranges. Square pegs still do not fit into round holes–no matter how hard you try to push.