Sarah Palin spoke to the “tea party convention”. To the best of my knowledge, Romney, Pawlenty, Pence, Huckabee, Gingrich, Jindal, et al weren’t invited. Therefore it’s completely appropriate to speak about Palin’s relationship with the Tea Party movement and omit the others.
Palin’s speech contained several clever barbs aimed at the current White House occupant. Barbs such as “It’s (the Tea Party movement) a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter” and “How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff workin’ out for you?”. “To win that war,(against al Qaeda)” Palin said, “we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lecturn.” She talked of limited government, strict adherence to the Constitution, and the “God-given right” of freedom.
Sounds wonderful, right? Juicy, raw meat for a Conservative crowd eager to hear the words of the former VP candidate.
Then there’s that little matter of Sarah Palin’s support for John McCain in his GOP primary race to retain the Arizona Senate seat.
There are some that see John McCain as representing a cancer. They contend that he’s worked against the First Amendment, sought to end gun shows, wants to open the door to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens, has obstructed the appointment of Conservative judges and is willing to submit millions of Americans to the slavery of global warming junk science. Their position is, when Sarah campaigns for McCain, and by extension, his causes, she renders her stated beliefs completely hollow.
Others see her endorsment of McCain stemming from a mutual promise made during the 2008 Presidential campaign. They agreed that if they lost that campaign, he’d campaign for her Gubernatorial re-election, and she’d campaign for his Senatorial re-election. From this view, a man or woman’s word is their bond. Their word/handshake means more than a $15,000 lawyer written contract for a $5,000 business deal. For those with this perspective, Sarah’s failure to live up to her word would be a real blow.
While it’s apparent that members of the Tea Party movement have distinct and differing views regarding Palin’s support of John McCain’s candidacy, it seems the crux of her dilemma is in deciding to whom her word should be committed.
My Father wasn’t a man predisposed to verbal displays of affection. Which is ironic, since he was an educated man of words…I can count on one hand the number of times he said he loved me and have fingers left over. This might upset some people, but it’s OK.
In January 1983, when I was nearly killed in a motorcyle accident and lay in traction for a month, he answered the call. After my release from the hospital, we spoke the night I got home. I bemoaned the fact that the cupboards were bare and the dishes were dirty (I clearly didn’t plan for this event). He told me to stop worrying and go to sleep. The next morning the telephone woke me. It was my Dad. He was at the gate of the apartment complex and needed to be “buzzed in”. He spent the next two weeks cooking meals, cleaning clothes and washing dishes. The day he returned to New Orleans, the cupboards were fully stocked.
If there’s one thing to be learned from that experience, it’s that actions speak louder than words.
Which is particularly important in this day of mass media personality cults when, despite all actions to the contrary, an empty suit still gets a pass from many simply because he tells them what they want to hear. Tea Party folks need to be wary of this trap.
Put principles before personalities.
Forget what’s said, watch what’s done.