Today’s Phrase for Latin Lovers

Rex in Regno suo superiores habet Deum et Legem.

The King in his Realm hath two superiors: God and the Law. -- Henry Care (1646-1688) on English liberties and the Magna Carta


Visit Prudy's Latin Lovers Store for textbooks, readers and fun Latin miscellany!

Support this site. Buy a book.*

@PruPaine Tweets

Ancient History

|Pop Culture | Prudence Potpourri

Oprah-Mo Backtrack on Obama: Who's Scratching Whose Back?

Could it be a sign that the Obama 2012 is feeling shaky? Politico has reported that Oprah is ready and willing to campaign for Obama again:

Winfrey, who is beginning a new chapter in life following the sunset of her monster-hit show, told POLITICO she would be “happy to be of service” to Obama for his reelection campaign.

“I supported Barack Obama in 2008 because I believed then as I do now that he is the right man for the job,” Winfrey said in a statement. “I wanted to share my enthusiasm for his candidacy in hopes that others would see what I saw in him.”

“As for 2012,” Winfrey added, “If the campaign needs me, I’m happy to be of service. I’m in his corner for whatever he needs me to do.”

Since Obama’s inauguration, Winfrey hadn’t publicly declared her intent to campaign for his reelection, even when he and first lady Michelle Obama taped an episode of the “Oprah Winfrey Show” near the end of its final season.

So now all of a sudden she is back on board, after reports in April that she was going to stay publicly out of 2012 because she had been concerned Obama boosterism would hamper her efforts to build an audience for her struggling television channel, OWN.

Could it be that Oprah’s network has now gained a sufficient share of the viewership so that she doesn’t have to worry that her liberal Hollywood politics would drive segments of her audience away? Um, not likely. Media reported last week in “The Oprah Winfrey Network Falls to 73rd in Cable TV Ratings” that:

Its ranking had been 45th for the first quarter, so dropping to 73rd place for the second quarter shows that ratings are in a free fall. TV Week reports that OWN is in last place among all women-focused cable networks.

This comes after the announcement in early July that Oprah was taking over as CEO at OWN.

The Media story goes on to note:

Winfrey’s issues extend beyond television. Her O magazine is faced with an advertising sales drop of more than 31%. The Media Industry Newsletter says that compares with a 7% drop in ad sales for monthly magazines overall.

So is Oprah simply willing to toss her troubled network over to assist her buddy Obama? Or is campaigning for him simply a way to get her name in the media again?

Oprah’s CEO announcement in the NY Daily News also included a little tidbit about one of OWN’s shows in development: a new talk show hosted by Rosie O’Donnell set for this fall.

Anyone afraid their endorsement of Barack Obama would damage their business would not be putting the toxic, hate-spewing Rosie O’Donnell in a prime slot on their network. Having O’Donnell gush anger and slime daily might tend to turn off more people.

Oprah can’t help herself. She’s just a lefty, now more anxious and willing to promote liberal views.

Therefore, I’d bet Oprah needs the publicity as much as Obama does. She’s gonna gamble that she’ll gain more eyeballs than lose the ones she pokes in the eye by appearing in support of Obama again.

|Pop Culture | Prudence Potpourri

The Oprah-mo: Never Forget

Oprah has apparently decided that her coming out as a liberal Democrat has negatively affected her audience size—and more importantly, diminished the warm and fuzzy of OWN (her fledgling television channel). reported that the billionaire will not publicly support Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential campaign.

It turned out that a chunk of her audience didn’t care for her leap into politics in hosting a rally for Obama in 2008. According to Popeater:

An October 2008 Gallup poll before the rallies but after Oprah’s public endorsement of Obama found that Oprah’s favorable ratings had fallen from 74 to 66 percent while her unfavorable ratings jumped from 17 to 26 percent. Then came news that Oprah’s TV ratings showed that her daytime audience, which was nearly 9 million at its height in 2004-05, had fallen to 7.3 million.

That’s apparently causing fresh problems, as Popeater reports:

“For 2012, much has changed for Oprah. She now has own cable channel called OWN that has been struggling to find an audience — she isn’t going to do anything to alienate them,” a TV insider tells me.

BET, however, in its short online report, wanted to totally, completely assure its online readers that this lack of visible support would in no way be a real lack of support, saying “Winfrey is still a huge fan of the president” and “Oprah still has admiration for Obama.”

They conclude:

But, as generous as Winfrey has been to her staff, talk-show audiences and charities over the years, it’s probably safe to assume that Obama will still have Oprah’s financial support in his 2012 reelection bid.

So even though it is well known that Oprah supports Obama, and as BET says, undoubtedly privately and financially supports him, she simply hopes her viewers are stupid enough to forget that and be wowed by giveaways.

But Oprah’s endorsement of Obama was not her only foray into partisan politics. Let us not forget that just last year, on September 21, Oprah publicly encouraged her fans to attend Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Insanity—an open mockery of the Glenn Beck Restore Honor rally held just weeks earlier.

Celebrities don’t get to jump in and out of the political arena whenever it seems fun or frivolous to them. If you are going to take a stand, set your standard atop the Alamo, fine. Just know that it will cost you part of your audience. And later, you don’t get to act like it never happened, if it becomes inconvenient to your bottom line.

There was once talk of the Oprah Mo, the momentum her endorsement gave to Obama. Never forget the Oprah-mo.

|Greetings | Prudence Potpourri

The Week in Political Cartoons

In the wake of the Arizona shootings, the left and their media pals have resumed their high-pitched calls for gun control.  Legislation has been proposed in Congress making it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of any federal official. Note: I’ve heard there are… well, an impossibly large number (between 100,000 and 2 million) of “federal officials.” Would anyone ever be not within 1,000 feet of one of them? How would you ever know for sure?

(via Brian Farrington at Townhall)

In the meantime, the media and left-wingers tried to push the mantra of “New Tone,” insisting that the Tucson massacre was the result of civil incivility, even though there is clear evidence that assassin Jared Lee Loughner had long been off his rocker and was influenced by the incivility in his own head, not by anything some pundit or politician said.

(via Michael Ramirez at Townhall)

Yet, the most long-running legalized massacre in history crossed its 38th anniversary:

(via Gary Varvel at Townhall)

Or perhaps this cartoon better celebrates the spirit of Roe v. Wade:

(via Gary McCoy at Townhall)

In other major events, one of our major creditors came to visit their investment and to have us whisper sweet nothings in their ear.

(via Glenn McCoy at Townhall)

Legislators actually began contemplating crafting bankruptcy laws for states, as California appears ready to lead a number of them off the cliff. For the taxpayers, bankruptcy definitely makes the pain swift yet short. With bailouts, the pain and financial mismanagement will drag on for years, generations even, unless the dire problem with public union pensions is addressed.

(via Bob Gorrell at Townhall)

And the national debt bore down on us all as we neared our debt ceiling.

(via Jerry Holbert at Townhall)

Yet, in a positive move, the GOP-dominated House voted to repeal ObamaCare, with more votes and more bipartisanship than the original passage of the monster had.

(via Lisa Benson at Townhall)

And finally, in a sure sign that the stars are currently aligned against us, experts announced that the true dates of each astrological sign have been woefully inaccurate for decades, centuries even.

(via Steve Kelley at Townhall)

Th-th-that’s all folks.