Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Campaign Spot

Election-driven news and views . . . by Jim Geraghty.


Print   |  Text
 

Sadly, the ‘C’ in CPAC Won’t Stand For Self-Described ‘Caribou Barbie’

A bit of Sarah Palin in today’s Morning Jolt…

CPAC, Yes; See Palin, No.

No Sarah Palin at CPAC. Again. ABC News: “After skipping the popular Conservative Political Action Conference for the past three years, Sarah Palin has once again turned down the invitation of CPAC officials to address the conference this year. CPAC organizers invited Palin to deliver the closing-night keynote speech on Saturday Feb. 12, immediately following the announcement of the results of CPAC’s annual presidential straw poll,  but after several days of negotiations, she declined. “We’re disappointed that she wasn’t able to make it this year,” American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene said through a spokesman on Thursday. He noted that Palin “expressed interest in wanting to come this year,” but said that it came down to ‘a scheduling issue.’”

Rachel Weiner, writing at the Washington Post’s Fix column: “Four years of scheduling conflicts seems like a trend. So what’s behind Palin’s repeated opt-outs? If there are lingering bad feelings with Keene, that is almost certainly reason enough for her to take a pass. And, unlike some other potential nominees, Palin doesn’t need to raise her profile. She can draw press wherever she goes. And, given the heightened controversy over gay and Muslim attendees, the exposure might seem too risky.”

Er… risky? She quits her term after two-and-a-half-years, endorses long-shot underdogs in GOP primaries, does a lot of her communications through Facebook and Twitter, did a reality travelogue series , had her daughter appear on a national realty competition series about dancing and issued a video commentary on the Tucson shootings right before a presidential address at a memorial service… and we’re to believe Palin going to CPAC would be risky? Heck, she deals with bigger risks when she goes fishing near bears.

Alana Goodman, writing at Contentions: “As ABC News noted, Palin “has a rocky history” with CPAC and skipped the event last year owing to some of the reportedly shady business dealings of the conference’s organizer, David Keene. But the fact that she hasn’t attended the event for three years in a row makes it seem like it could honestly be about scheduling issues, as opposed to any involvement in the social conservatives’ CPAC boycott.

Marco Rubio will also be absent, and it will be interesting to see if any other prominent politicians skip out. The Senate will be out of session next week — since Democrats will be away on a retreat — and it’s possible that some GOP senators slated to speak at CPAC will decide to head to their home states at the last minute. But at the moment, the conference apparently hasn’t been seriously impacted by the boycott, and organizers told ABC News that they expect around 10,000 attendees at the event.”

In today’s edition, I also recommend, “never take restaurant advice from a skinny chef or an ostentatiously healthy eater.”

Tags: CPAC, Sarah Palin

New on The Campaign Spot. . .


COMMENTS   6

EXPAND  

   02/04/11 08:34

sadly the C in CPAC doesn't stand for Conservative anymore either. CPAC made its choice, and all social conservatives should skip it. If you want to be a gay advocacy group don't be shocked when Christians don't want to play with you anymore.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/11 08:40

Here's another example of a writer who chooses to repeat what others have written instead of doing a little work for himself. I'm no reporter, but I was able to find out what the other commitment Palin has for February 12:

External Link 

Geraghty, just like everyone else who has written about this, chooses to dredge up rehashed suppositions instead of dealing with the present.

And, btw, Sarah didn't "have her daughter appear on a national realty competition series about dancing". Bristol Palin chose to accept an invitation to participate. Big difference.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/11 09:36

True, Refudiate, but what makes it not such a big difference is that the Palin parents encouraged her and beamed at her from the audience. I like Palin, but that gig was still tacky. The tackiness hasn't abated since then, either.

I wish she were skipping CPAC on principle, but it's hard to tell.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/11 19:36

Tacky? What's tacky about earning a couple hundred thousand dollars for several weeks of hard work? I call it free enterprise.

Was it tacky when Joel Grey beamed at his daughter, the professional dancer, when she competed? The daughter was trying to revive a long stalled movie career but no one thought it was tacky a pro dancer was competing in a dance contest against non-dancers.

I guess the Palin family shouldn't display their beaming since it is offensive to some.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/11 19:57

It amazes me that the liberal media analyzes every single word that Sarah Palin says and yet they can not find out, as stated on conservatives4palin.com, the most popular Sarah Palin supporter site, that this is why she is not going to CPAC...
IDIOTS STUPIDO LAZY BUTT MEDIA

The keynote address that CPAC invited her to deliver was scheduled for the 12th. The Iron Dog Mandatory Racer’s Meeting and Drawing & Hall of Fame Banquet also takes place on the 12th.

Do you really think Sarah would not support her man?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
daniel1975
   02/07/11 00:59

I think there is plenty to discuss about Sarah Palin, good and bad, and this is the same as there is of any other people. However, her followers, well, honestly you guys are beginning to sound like the Ron Paul supporters, all bunker mentality and prickly as a porcupine. Indeed, we do not do any service to a person we admire when we refuse to absolutely see any flaws whatsoever. The Obamabots were bad enough, and the Palinbots are no improvement. And unless this changes, her energy and drive will end up being wasted. Right now she is parlaying popularity and charisma into power, but unless she starts combining the soft power she has been using with disciplined and coherent hard power, she is building a house on sand.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact