The Dogs Bark But The Fox Moves On

Pardon the play on the old adage “the dogs bark but the caravan moves on” in the title.

Anyway, a couple of clips from Sarah Palin’s debut on FOX News this week. First, on Bill O’Reilly’s show:

Video

And the next day on Glenn Beck’s program:

Video

Side note before launching into the main topic. The two appearances make for an interesting comparison. Faced with O’Reilly’s rapid-fire abrupt style, Palin leans toward a more stock issue politician being interviewed mode: quick and cautious, not unwilling to steer the answer toward more comfortable territory rather than directly face inquiries she’s either already answered or wishes to not so much avoid as quickly dismiss With Beck’s more pastoral tone, Palin is at ease chatting as with an understanding friend. She also communicates far more information with Beck than O’Reilly, even though the latter asked more questions. A good lesson for interviewers. Beck’s approach allows him to approach difficult subjects and get answers about them far better than O’Reilly’s. But I digress.

There are few hot topics hotter than the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and governor of said state (“hot” pun unintentional, although Palin is gorgeous). Currently, Palin is the subject of fierce debate in conservative pundit circles over declining to appear at this year’s CPAC soirée while agreeing to speak at a Tea Party convention/gathering. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth has resulted, absolutely none of which is of the slightest interest to anyone save online political junkies who when generously counted constitute 0.44% of the general populace. Indulge me whilst I endeavor to make this conundrum a bit more relevant to the remaining 99.56% of humanity.

One of the main points of contention is Palin’s speaking fee for the Tea Party event. CPAC, a yearly gathering of assorted and by the definition of some sordid conservative movers and shakers, offers little save room and board for the weekend to its plethora of speakers. The organizers of the Tea Party event are dropping some serious coin to have Palin as their main speaker. This has riled the CPAC crew, it being of the firm opinion that all parties concerned should graciously donate their time in exchange for the glory of, uh, being there. Which is vitally important, given the tremendous opportunities it provides for posting snapshots on Twitter of yourself next to other conservatives. Woo-hoo look at me squee.

Okay, being a tad snarky there. There is the potential of tremendous benefit in a gathering of like-minded individuals devoted to a common cause. Good things happen when there’s networking. We’re seeing the benefits of using social media for political causes in examples such as the upcoming special election in Massachusetts, where in a state considered bluer than blue Scott Brown, the Republican candidate, has a very real shot at making the local Democrats sadder than sad by winning. Much of  Brown’s support has come from followers on Twitter who have been putting their money where their tweet is; an appeal for campaign donations a few days ago which hoped to reach $500,000 instead brought in $1.3 million. It’s worth noting Palin has stated she’s going to be donating her speaking fee from the Tea Party event to support candidates in assorted races this year.

Back to dissecting the discontent. A recurring theme is CPAC attendees/devotees (same difference) feeling personally rejected by Palin declining to attend. Two words: what the…? Given the stunts CPAC’s organizers has pulled in general and on Palin in particular — announcing she would be at last year’s bash when she had not yet agreed to this and did not attend; publicly dissing her; allowing instant controversy by having a gay Republican group which advocates gay marriage as a sponsor, thus alienating more than a few conservative religious groups (not taking sides here, just stating facts) and allowing the conspiracy cuckoos otherwise known as the John Birch Society to be a sponsor — is this really a name you want to hang your hat on?

There’s another aspect to the “Palin’s personally insulting me by not going to CPAC” meme that’s more than a tad disturbing. In recent days a rather nasty fuss has been raised by those complaining about Palin’s perceived snub, centered on whining about Palin supporters being this lot of mindless drones who worship the ground she walks on, believe she gives infallibility lessons to the Pope and must be immediately defended to the death and beyond against any and all critiques. In fact, the kvetchers are the ones behaving like those who Jesus referenced with the illustration of children in the marketplace whining about people not following their song’s lead. Certainly there is an element, as is present with every public figure, within the Palin posse of those who believe she can do no wrong. However, dismissing her supporters en masse due to the excesses of a few is condescending and just plain rude. The vast majority of Palin supporters like her for both her personal traits and her political views as put into action during her turns in different offices. That’s like. Admire. Even adore. But not worship. She’s not God. We know that. She knows that. One of the reasons many of us like her is because not only does she know that, she acknowledges her belief in and dependence on the actual God. Whose initials are JC, not SP.

A final note about CPAC before wrapping up. Michele Bachmann, far more than a bit player in conservative politics, is also not appearing at CPAC this year but will be speaking at the Tea Party event. Yet not a peep is being spoken against her for this. Why? One suspects the primary reason is that mentioning Bachmann gets the notice of only the faithful who are more than likely already reading your stuff. Mention Palin, though… site visit gold. Nothing stirs it like the name of Sarah.

Yes, we of the Palin posse can be a touch defensive about her. When you have someone so viciously, undeservingly and unfairly attacked on all fronts as she has been and continues to be, the natural reaction is springing to her defense. That said, attacking her for refusing to attend CPAC is silliness and emotion while taking it personally is self-worship in motion. It’s not a slap at you. It’s a statement about CPAC’s ineptitude running alongside its importance being grotesquely overestimated. Along with that of the individuals currently riding in its waahmbulance.