Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has built a nice little career for himself out of alternating between stating the already known and firmly standing on neither side of any given issue. This formula has worked to perfection, starting with his stint at Captain’s Quarters where his mad Googling skills concerning Canadian politics earned him a plethora of awards, as he reminded his readers early and often. (Just don’t ask him to answer e-mail. Because he’s, you know, busy.)

Given how blogging at HotAir apparently requires more words per square inch on every topic under the sun than anywhere this side of Huffington Post, Eddie chimed in today on Sarah Palin not attending CPAC. Which is good, or else we’d never know this was the case… oh, wait…

Okay, so Morrissey is late to the party. He’s been that way ever since the Smiths broke up. But I digress; let’s dive in.

After his obligatory preamble of rambling off facts cut and pasted from elsewhere, padded with quotes from writers who actually say something such as Jim Geraghty and laced with his inimitable style that threatens to put Novocaine manufactures out of business, Eddie gets busy with the snark cleverly disguised as bland babble:

If Palin was boycotting the conference over issues with Keene or the other groups participating at the conference, then Palin would hardly set up shop at the conference, with or without her personal presence (NOTE: SarahPAC is co-sponsoring an evening reception for high rollers on the conference’s opening night). She may be choosing to skip the podium for other reasons, but disapproval doesn’t seem to be one of them.

Hmm. Gee. Might the purpose of co-sponsoring a reception for high rollers be to… oh, here’s a wild hare… speak directly to movers and shakers, particularly if they might be willing to cut a check SarahPAC’s way? The fact said people will be in attendance is why SarahPAC will be there. Its presence there in no way implies, infers or indicates Palin herself is any more enamored with CPAC or the ACU than in years past.

Rachel Weiner at the Washington Post more correctly deduces that Palin doesn’t need the appearance to raise her profile, especially with conservatives attending this conference.

Now there’s some Captain Obvious for you.

That suggests, though, that Palin isn’t terribly interested in stoking support for a presidential run. This particular CPAC will be key for those considering a run in the Republican presidential primaries, as the next CPAC and the large gathering of conservative activists needed to do the necessary organizing won’t convene again until the middle of the primaries themselves.

Oh, get the eff over yourselves, CPAC and CPAC toadies (here’s looking at you, Eddie). Palin has proved time and again she needs the same old tired loser lot of “conservative activists” — inactivists is more like it — to get out her message, and voters, about as much as Jimmie Johnson needs people telling him how to drive. For the uninitiated, Johnson has won the NASCAR championship five years in a row.

Let me repeat this again for those so deafened by the sound of their self-righteous babble they can no longer hear the truth: Sarah Palin does not need you. Period.

Her former running mate, John McCain, made a huge strategic error in skipping the 2007 CPAC in favor of an appearance on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show, and then had to return to a clearly diffident crowd in 2008 to beg for support.

The crowd was diffident because McCain wasn’t a pure enough conservative for their taste. And appearing at CPAC sure propelled him to victory that fall, now didn’t it.

McCain had a lot less credibility with conservatives in 2007 than does Palin, of course. However, if Palin is seriously considering a presidential run, she would still need to do some retail politicking in person with the groups gathered at CPAC, and also to win the talent race for a presidential campaign.

The “talent race.” Isn’t that usually called a list of accomplishments in life? I’m thinking Sarah’s got that one pretty well nailed down. Which is a nice way of saying to the Doug Mataconises of this world that no, we who support Sarah Palin aren’t starry-eyed fanboy zombies drooling over Caribou Barbie. We support her because she has a track record of kicking ass, beating down corruption on both sides of the aisle and governing out of solid, conservative principles. As opposed to your track record for saying stupid stuff just to get a rise out of people, then whining like a spoiled five year old when called out for it.

That’s also true for Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and everyone else mulling a run. Skipping events, especially with large draws among the activist base, sends a signal that campaigning may not be a priority.

I quote from an earlier post: “How Palin will survive such a grievous self-inflicted wound to her political future is a matter of conjecture. It’s not like she can draw a crowd, or raise money, or demonstrate popularity with the public or anything…

“Sarcasm aside, it must stick firmly in the throat of Washington insiders and wannabes that Sarah Palin can bypass them without missing a beat. She can pick her spots, selecting such prizes as being the keynote speaker at a high profile sanctioned event marking Ronald Reagan’s one hundredth birthday. She speaks to more people in a second with one Facebook page than all the speakers at CPAC combined will reach in a year. Simply put, Palin doesn’t need CPAC. And she doesn’t seem all that inclined to make an appearance there because it’s been elevated to mandatory status by those seeking to enhance their own status.”

If that’s too many words for people, allow me to simplfy. Sarah Palin does not need you. Period. Now, please take a healthy dose of Get Over Yourself. It’s for your own good.

If Palin plans on an activist path for this cycle, however, getting her PAC into the mix would be more than enough exposure. This decision, along with her lack of traditional organization in Iowa, makes it look as though she’s aiming at a kingmaker role in 2012 — which will be fascinating to watch, if so. Whatever her strategy, it’s certainly not to play it safe.

Or listen to twits rambling about what they do not know.

Gee, Eddie, your logic is as sound as Sean Hackbarth somehow drawing from my original post about why I’m not going to CPAC that it’s all about him. No, God’s gift to self-gratification, it has nothing to do with you or your letter supporting CPAC. I have legitimate reasons for not going. None of which involve whether you follow me on Twitter. That has everything to do with you being an elitist ass.

Going to say this one more time: Sarah Palin does not need CPAC. Frankly, given its cost and how it will be overrun by Ron Paul worshipers, I don’t blame her for finding something better to do that weekend.

P.S. I’m seeing notes here and there heralding that over 10,000 people will be attending CPAC last year, these being used to buttress the argument that it is a Very. Big. Deal. Uh-huh. Here’s a comment on attendance: I am a Golden State Warriors fan. They routinely pack 17,000 rabid, über-enthusiastic fans into Oracle Arena for home games. Which is great. But it doesn’t mean they’re going to be winning an NBA championship anytime soon. Neither does 10,000 people at CPAC mean it matters to the general public. You know — the ones who vote and already know who Sarah Palin is?

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Lisa Graas, Dan Riehl and Dan Collins for the links.