Skip to main content

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ech-ne_n_414965.html

"Washington Independent's David Weigel has the latest on Sarah Palin's booking fee for the upcoming National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee. Palin, who twice turned down offers to speak at the yearly Conservative Political Action Conference before agreeing to appear at the Tea Party assembly, will join WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah on the roster.

The ex-governor's choice to snub a spot on a $175-a-ticket CPAC program that, according to director Lisa de Pasquale, would not "pay honorarium, travel or hotel expenses for any speakers," in favor of the Tea Party event has had many people suspecting that Palin's decision was financially driven."

DUH!
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The Tea Party convention will have a much larger audience than CPAC. I suspect its the number of people she can reach, rather than the appearance fee, that is the driving force. The artice suggests the fee might be from $35,000 to $100,000.

And, your source is an article from the Huff'Puff Post, a news aggregation website reports that another website, the Washington Independent speculates upon with no hard data.
quote:
When the news broke yesterday that Sarah Palin had signed on as a Fox News contributor an awful shrinking feeling in the groin must have hit the execs at the network’s competitors. While the old media continues to try to paint her as a crazed redneck, the fact of her ascendancy as a serious power player is now an inescapable fact. Her autobiography, Going Rogue is a publishing phenomenon, having sold 2.7 million copies as of December 1 of 2009. It’s one of just four political memoirs to sell more than a million copies.



This from — as the left frames the narrative — a failed vice-presidential candidate who didn’t even finish her first term in office as governor of Alaska. The old media and its enablers have tried in vain to discredit, demonize and disenfranchise the woman only to make her stronger. Yet still they hammer away at her relentlessly.

In the new book that has evey tongue in Washington wagging, Game Change, by political writers John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, it’s claimed that some McCain staffers who worked directly with Palin began to worry that she could be “mentally unstable.” This claim has been trumpeted by left-wing bloggers and the usual suspects in the press, desperate to keep up the Palin-bashing so they can ignore Obama’s increasingly evident failures.

Some are even crowing at the news that Palin has joined Fox. They see it as a train wreck in the making. Yet, every time they write her political obituary, Palin has consistently shown them to be wrong. If anything, her hiring by Roger Ailes will be another feather in a cap that must be looking like a chief’s headdress by now. Fox not only has higher ratings and higher earnings than all the cable news channels combined, their numbers are growing while the others wither into irrelevance. No wonder the shrieks of impotent rage are so shrill over at places like MSNBC.

The old media fails to understand why Palin and Fox resonate with the public so strongly. That’s because they’re connecting in ways that the MSM cannot. Palin speaks to middle Americans in a voice they don’t hear from others from the Beltway and the usual media outlets. Fox provides a balance the others often fail to even attempt. The old media can’t understand that people see through the fictions and spin that’s been handed down as gospel for so long. The MSM no longer has a monopoly on dissemination. It’s fast becoming a relic as dated as Harry Reid’s dialogue.

Fox shows that once again, they understand the importance of reaching their audience and giving them what they want. People don’t want stale propaganda or second-hand gossip. And they’re tired of the usual faces shoveling out the talking points of the day while patting themselves on the back for their wisdom.

Palin has shown she is an effective communicator and a telegenic presence. We’ll see if being on TV regularly will limit her future options. But it certainly hasn’t hurt Mike Huckabee, another candidate from the last election who joined the Fox lineup. He’s actually been polling very favorably in fantasy president polls for 2012. Quite an improvement from his also-ran status in 2008.

It seems the Palin bashers only have themselves to blame for making her such a star. And Fox is happy to take advantage of it.


http://bigjournalism.com/jhudn...or-crazy-like-a-fox/

Attachments

Images (1)
  • untitled
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
When the news broke yesterday that Sarah Palin had signed on as a Fox News contributor an awful shrinking feeling in the groin must have hit the execs at the network’s competitors. While the old media continues to try to paint her as a crazed redneck, the fact of her ascendancy as a serious power player is now an inescapable fact. Her autobiography, Going Rogue is a publishing phenomenon, having sold 2.7 million copies as of December 1 of 2009. It’s one of just four political memoirs to sell more than a million copies.



This from — as the left frames the narrative — a failed vice-presidential candidate who didn’t even finish her first term in office as governor of Alaska. The old media and its enablers have tried in vain to discredit, demonize and disenfranchise the woman only to make her stronger. Yet still they hammer away at her relentlessly.

In the new book that has evey tongue in Washington wagging, Game Change, by political writers John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, it’s claimed that some McCain staffers who worked directly with Palin began to worry that she could be “mentally unstable.” This claim has been trumpeted by left-wing bloggers and the usual suspects in the press, desperate to keep up the Palin-bashing so they can ignore Obama’s increasingly evident failures.

Some are even crowing at the news that Palin has joined Fox. They see it as a train wreck in the making. Yet, every time they write her political obituary, Palin has consistently shown them to be wrong. If anything, her hiring by Roger Ailes will be another feather in a cap that must be looking like a chief’s headdress by now. Fox not only has higher ratings and higher earnings than all the cable news channels combined, their numbers are growing while the others wither into irrelevance. No wonder the shrieks of impotent rage are so shrill over at places like MSNBC.

The old media fails to understand why Palin and Fox resonate with the public so strongly. That’s because they’re connecting in ways that the MSM cannot. Palin speaks to middle Americans in a voice they don’t hear from others from the Beltway and the usual media outlets. Fox provides a balance the others often fail to even attempt. The old media can’t understand that people see through the fictions and spin that’s been handed down as gospel for so long. The MSM no longer has a monopoly on dissemination. It’s fast becoming a relic as dated as Harry Reid’s dialogue.

Fox shows that once again, they understand the importance of reaching their audience and giving them what they want. People don’t want stale propaganda or second-hand gossip. And they’re tired of the usual faces shoveling out the talking points of the day while patting themselves on the back for their wisdom.

Palin has shown she is an effective communicator and a telegenic presence. We’ll see if being on TV regularly will limit her future options. But it certainly hasn’t hurt Mike Huckabee, another candidate from the last election who joined the Fox lineup. He’s actually been polling very favorably in fantasy president polls for 2012. Quite an improvement from his also-ran status in 2008.

It seems the Palin bashers only have themselves to blame for making her such a star. And Fox is happy to take advantage of it.


http://bigjournalism.com/jhudn...or-crazy-like-a-fox/


Gotta agree with one thing in that piece:

"Palin speaks to middle Americans in a voice they don’t hear from others from the Beltway and the usual media outlets."

Thank the Lord hers is the ONLY voice that speaks that way! That voice of knee-jerk right-wing neocon ninnyhood is one that is best kept away from ANY media! But in a free country, she is free to expose her ignorance and canned rhetoric all she wants, to the extent, that is, that her handlers at FOX will permit.
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
Ignorant comments? This is pretty ironic coming after Reid's negro remarks. I bet you elitists got a laugh out of that at the country club. After all it's not like some "negro" will overhear.


Hey, Ronnie P., the topic here is Palin, not Harry Reid. HOWEVER, if you wish to enter some learned comments into a discussion of Reid's remarks, you might consider going to a string in the News forum--a string YOU started ("Top Dem leader defends 'negro' remark")--where I have submitted comments that put the lie to charges of raxcism against Harry Reid. My comments have been there since 9:23 this morning and thus far no one has come forth to dispute them. Heck, I will just reproduce them here for your conmvenience and enlightenment:

<<<<When Trent Lott made his birthday tribute to Strom Thurmond, the gist of his remarks was to the effect that things would have been better in this country if Thurmond had won the Presidency in 1948.

Thurmond, in 1948, campaigned on the Dixiecrat ticket and the core of his platform was maintaining racial segregation and opposing civil rights legislaton. Linkhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dixiecrat1.html

Lott's remarks hardly could be interpreted as other than sympathetic with that which Thurmond and the Dixicrats envisioned for the nation's future in 1948, namely a continuing racially-segregated society. The Dixiecrat Party was racist. Thurmond, as its candidate, was a racist (albeit perhaps one who reformed later on). Lott, retrospectively endorsing Thurmond's candidacy, was, ipso facto, endorsing Thurmond's racism.

In the 1948 Presidential election, Thurmond ran as a segregationist on a segregationist platform. Lott said that he was proud that Mississippi went for Thurmond in that election and that the nation would now be in better shape if Thurmond had won (instead of Harry Truman). The racist core of that comment by Lott is very clear. By contrast, Harry Reid's remarks were in a wholly different context. He made those remarks while SUPPORTING the candidacy of an African-American for President. The difference between what Lott said and what Reid said is a 180-degree difference. Lott praised the candidacy of an avowed segregationist. Reid endorsed the candidacy of an African-American.

It is absurd to equate what Reid said with Lott's glowing retrospective endorsement of Thurmond and the racist Dixicrat campaign of 1948.>>>

The floor is YOURS, Ronnie P. Have at it!
Betern nuttin,

I’ve tried to be rather reasonable, but you persist in the meme of Palin’s stupidity. Unfortunately, in me you have an old guy who remembers all the old liberal and leftist tricks. Claiming their opponents are stupid is an old Democrat tactic.

The Democrats claimed Eisenhower wasn’t too bright – Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied invasion of Europe. I still remember an anecdote of a young boy who asked his father if Ike was literate. His dad served in the Third Army and set the youngster straight rather quickly!

The same tactic was used against Reagan and both Bushes. Its almost hoary with age, by now.

I’ve referenced the Biden-Palin debate. Reviewers gave them mixed reviews. The liberal CNN thought Biden won, but that Palin held her own. The London Telegraph was impressed with her efforts.

“Who won the VP debate: Palin or Joe Biden?

Opinion was split over who won the vice-presidential debate between the Republican Sarah Palin and the Democrat Joe Biden, after neither managed to land a knock-out blow.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...in-or-Joe-Biden.html
“Debate poll says Biden won, Palin beat expectations”

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...bate.poll/index.html

Yahoo counted 14 errors and/or falsehoods Biden made during the debate. Hardly presidential material.
http://answers.yahoo.com/quest...0081002214952AAkd8Vj

Then, there’s the latest canard that Palin didn’t know the difference between North and South Korea. Well, there’s another duck that won’t quack. (If you don’t understand that entendre, look up the meanings of canard).

On her PAC website, dated 8 April 2009, she specifically noted the danger of North Korean missile launches.

http://www.associatedcontent.c...rth_korea.html?cat=9

So, sorry, but dog you’ve set on Palin not only won’t hunt, but can’t point the way.
Why does the "left" fear Palin?
I mean, it's obvious she doesn't stand a chance at becoming our future "Prez".
I wouldn't even vote for her for that...unless given the "lefts" utter dis-regard for what I believe in.
Could it be...even with her so called "Ding Bat" responses, and often, knowledge of places/events...that there is something, in her message, that connects with the "heartland" of America?
The ones whom have been silent, but are tired of the same-old-same-old of politics.
I don't see her as a serious contender for anything...however, I see her as a magnet, for those whom have never spoken...to speak out.
"Tea" anyone?
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
Wow. Once again you bare you obsession for all to see, while in complete denial to the facts obvious to ANYONE other than you. Seek help now.


Have to agree with you. It just appears to me that Betterthan everyone is Educated far beyond his intelligence. The biggest clue you have is by looking at his shoes to know he dosn't know spit from shinola.
quote:
Originally posted by JOY4567:
O.B.S.E.S.S.I.O.N.


Obsession? Yes. There is a desperate obsession on the part of those who who have embraced the fool's errand of attempting to validate the unfortunate Sarah Palin as something she most assuredly is NOT. This desperation is exemplified by the manner in which these obsessed partisans summarily reject all negative criticism of the Wacko of Wasilla, even criticism coming from first-hand witnesses within the McCain-Palin campaign organization, the people who saw and heard Palin in action and who desperately worked for months to defend their Presidential candidate from the unpredictable caromings of the loose cannon she so obviously had become, indeed had been from the beginning.

That kind of rejection of obvious reality is true obsession!
quote:
Originally posted by pineywoodscat:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
Wow. Once again you bare you obsession for all to see, while in complete denial to the facts obvious to ANYONE other than you. Seek help now.


Have to agree with you. It just appears to me that Betterthan everyone is Educated far beyond his intelligence. The biggest clue you have is by looking at his shoes to know he dosn't know spit from shinola.


LOL, go piney!!
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by JOY4567:
O.B.S.E.S.S.I.O.N.


Obsession? Yes. There is a desperate obsession on the part of those who who have embraced the fool's errand of attempting to validate the unfortunate Sarah Palin as something she most assuredly is NOT. This desperation is exemplified by the manner in which these obsessed partisans summarily reject all negative criticism of the Wacko of Wasilla, even criticism coming from first-hand witnesses within the McCain-Palin campaign organization, the people who saw and heard Palin in action and who desperately worked for months to defend their Presidential candidate from the unpredictable caromings of the loose cannon she so obviously had become, indeed had been from the beginning.

That kind of rejection of obvious reality is true obsession!


Uhuh...riiiiight. I don't recall that anyone really was commenting on ANYTHING other that your OBVIOUS obsession. Seek help, you most assuredly are in need of it.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ech-ne_n_414965.html

The ex-governor's choice to snub a spot on a $175-a-ticket CPAC program that, according to director Lisa de Pasquale, would not "pay honorarium, travel or hotel expenses for any speakers," in favor of the Tea Party event has had many people suspecting that Palin's decision was financially driven."

DUH!


So she makes money for her appearance...and the crime is?
quote:
PALIN: ...I can't wait to be there. And, you know, there's always the — that controversy, it seems, surrounding whatever it is that I...

O'REILLY: Yes.

PALIN: ...that I announce that I'm going to do. There's controversy involved in this one, because the Tea Party offered me a speaking fee. I will not financially be gaining anything from this.

O'REILLY: You should though. You have a family to support.

PALIN: I'm going to...

O'REILLY: Take the money.

PALIN: You know what's more important? More important than money in my pocket from an event like that is being able to turn it right back around and contribute to campaigns, candidates and issues that will help our country.



Well bitternU I guess you and Huffington post got it wrong again. It's not about the money after all.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
PALIN: ...I can't wait to be there. And, you know, there's always the — that controversy, it seems, surrounding whatever it is that I...

O'REILLY: Yes.

PALIN: ...that I announce that I'm going to do. There's controversy involved in this one, because the Tea Party offered me a speaking fee. I will not financially be gaining anything from this.

O'REILLY: You should though. You have a family to support.

PALIN: I'm going to...

O'REILLY: Take the money.

PALIN: You know what's more important? More important than money in my pocket from an event like that is being able to turn it right back around and contribute to campaigns, candidates and issues that will help our country.



Well bitternU I guess you and Huffington post got it wrong again. It's not about the money after all.


You are so blitheringly naive. Palin worded her "answer" very carefully as to avoid overtly stating how she would actually use that money. "Being able" to use the money as she described does not constitute a commitment to use it that way. She could have just simply stated that she was going to donate that money
to the campaigns of others, but she did not do that. I suspect her decision was that it was more important to put the loot into the Palin bank account.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
PALIN: ...I can't wait to be there. And, you know, there's always the — that controversy, it seems, surrounding whatever it is that I...

O'REILLY: Yes.

PALIN: ...that I announce that I'm going to do. There's controversy involved in this one, because the Tea Party offered me a speaking fee. I will not financially be gaining anything from this.

O'REILLY: You should though. You have a family to support.

PALIN: I'm going to...

O'REILLY: Take the money.

PALIN: You know what's more important? More important than money in my pocket from an event like that is being able to turn it right back around and contribute to campaigns, candidates and issues that will help our country.



Well bitternU I guess you and Huffington post got it wrong again. It's not about the money after all.


You are so blitheringly naive. Palin worded her "answer" very carefully as to avoid overtly stating how she would actually use that money. "Being able" to use the money as she described does not constitute a commitment to use it that way. She could have just simply stated that she was going to donate that money
to the campaigns of others, but she did not do that. I suspect her decision was that it was more important to put the loot into the Palin bank account.


So, now you claim Palin is intelligent enough to carefully parse her answers. Before, you said she didn't know the difference between North and South Korea. I blew that canard out of the water like a trash coot.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
PALIN: ...I can't wait to be there. And, you know, there's always the — that controversy, it seems, surrounding whatever it is that I...

O'REILLY: Yes.

PALIN: ...that I announce that I'm going to do. There's controversy involved in this one, because the Tea Party offered me a speaking fee. I will not financially be gaining anything from this.

O'REILLY: You should though. You have a family to support.

PALIN: I'm going to...

O'REILLY: Take the money.

PALIN: You know what's more important? More important than money in my pocket from an event like that is being able to turn it right back around and contribute to campaigns, candidates and issues that will help our country.



Well bitternU I guess you and Huffington post got it wrong again. It's not about the money after all.


You are so blitheringly naive. Palin worded her "answer" very carefully as to avoid overtly stating how she would actually use that money. "Being able" to use the money as she described does not constitute a commitment to use it that way. She could have just simply stated that she was going to donate that money
to the campaigns of others, but she did not do that. I suspect her decision was that it was more important to put the loot into the Palin bank account.


So, now you claim Palin is intelligent enough to carefully parse her answers. Before, you said she didn't know the difference between North and South Korea. I blew that canard out of the water like a trash coot.


You blew nothing out of anywhere. You merely expressed your opinion about what Palin said. The source of my information is one of the McCain-Palin campaign workers who was burdened with the difficult job of preventing her from dumbspeaking and embarrassing the campaign.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
PALIN: ...I can't wait to be there. And, you know, there's always the — that controversy, it seems, surrounding whatever it is that I...

O'REILLY: Yes.

PALIN: ...that I announce that I'm going to do. There's controversy involved in this one, because the Tea Party offered me a speaking fee. I will not financially be gaining anything from this.

O'REILLY: You should though. You have a family to support.

PALIN: I'm going to...

O'REILLY: Take the money.

PALIN: You know what's more important? More important than money in my pocket from an event like that is being able to turn it right back around and contribute to campaigns, candidates and issues that will help our country.



Well bitternU I guess you and Huffington post got it wrong again. It's not about the money after all.


You are so blitheringly naive. Palin worded her "answer" very carefully as to avoid overtly stating how she would actually use that money. "Being able" to use the money as she described does not constitute a commitment to use it that way. She could have just simply stated that she was going to donate that money
to the campaigns of others, but she did not do that. I suspect her decision was that it was more important to put the loot into the Palin bank account.


So, now you claim Palin is intelligent enough to carefully parse her answers. Before, you said she didn't know the difference between North and South Korea. I blew that canard out of the water like a trash coot.


You blew nothing out of anywhere. You merely expressed your opinion about what Palin said. The source of my information is one of the McCain-Palin campaign workers who was burdened with the difficult job of preventing her from dumbspeaking and embarrassing the campaign.



From the above post, you stated Palin was able to parse her words to obscure what she would do with any funds. Not the actions of a simpleton.

The McCain/Palin campaign workers are trying to cover their arses for running a poor campaign. They need to blame someone for their failures. It was one of those workers that stated she didn't know the difference between north and south Korea (note, I lived in South Korea for over 4 years).

Earlier in this thread, I submitted proof that statement could not be true. Here is is again:

"Then, there’s the latest canard that Palin didn’t know the difference between North and South Korea. Well, there’s another duck that won’t quack. (If you don’t understand that double entendre, look up the meanings of canard).

On her PAC website, dated 8 April 2009, she specifically noted the danger of North Korean missile launches."

http://www.associatedcontent.c...rth_korea.html?cat=9

Therefore, proof, not a statement, that the campaign worker lied. Probably to save his arse and career.

Go to the linked website and you'll find the PAC website.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×