You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bugscoe, Jun 6, 2011.

  1. Hooray for this paper pointing out who the idiots are!!

    Money line: "That the Republican non-candidate, in fact, knew more about the actual facts of Revere's midnight ride than all those idiots unknowingly revealing their own ignorance by laughing at her faux faux pas? How secretly embarrassing this must be, to be forced to face that you're dumber than the reputed dummy."

    You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid?
    June 6, 2011 | 3:04 am

    You may have heard recently something about that Sarah Palin telling a reporter that Paul Revere warned the British on his famous rousing revolutionary ride.

    Now, that so many Americans have wallowed in their smug confirmation that Palin is an idiot unqualified for anything but repeating sixth-grade history, (ring a bell to anyone here on ET?) how far, wide and fast do you think the contradictory news will spread that the former governor of Alaska was indeed correct?

    That the Republican non-candidate, in fact, knew more about the actual facts of Revere's midnight ride than all those idiots unknowingly revealing their own ignorance by laughing at her faux faux pas? How secretly embarrassing this must be, to be forced to face that you're dumber than the reputed dummy.

    As it happens, though, such phenomena are regular occurrences in American politics, reminding consumers of news to be wary when some fresh story seems to fit contemporary assumptions so absolutely perfectly.

    The well-known fable is Revere's late-night ride to warn fellow revolutionaries that....

    ...the British were coming. Less known, obviously, is the rest of the evening's events in which Revere was captured by said redcoats and did indeed defiantly warn them of the awakened militia awaiting their arrival ahead and of the American Revolution's inevitable victory.
    Palin knew this. The on-scene reporters did not and ran off like Revere to alert the world to Palin's latest mis-speak, which wasn't.

    Like a number of famous faux gaffes in American politics, the facts of the situation no longer really matter.

    The initial impression was eagerly grabbed by so many, starting with the reporter and millions of others gleefully sharing the story that reinforced their beliefs and/or desires.

    This phenomenon is actually not a new one in American politics, although its immediate spread is obviously hastened by the Internet. Speaking of which, Al Gore did not invent it. Nor did he claim to, as often as you've heard otherwise.

    In 1999, the hapless former journalist, who should have known to make a better word choice, told CNN that in Congress he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."

    Democrat Gore never used the word "invented." That was part of another willful misinterpretation that fit expectations of Gore's boasts and was gleefully spread by opponents as further proof of his unseemly hubris. It lives on to this day.

    Perhaps you remember how one day during a photo op President George H.W. Bush was overheard asking a store checkout clerk how this price scanner thing worked?

    That quote was immediately transmitted as proof of how disconnected that Republican chief executive was, that he had no knowledge of something as ordinary as a checkout scanner.

    The fact is, asking such inane and often obvious questions as "what are you doing here?" is a bipartisan ploy used by politicians to fill the awkward time void they are hanging around someone working while photographers snap their photos several hundred times.

    President Obama likely said much the same thing last Friday in that Toledo Chrysler plant when for the benefit of nearby photographers he feigned interest watching assembly-line worker Anthony Davis install a dashboard instrument panel. (See photo below)

    A classic example of this faux faux pas was in 1992 when Vice President Dan Quayle agreed to participate in a New Jersey classroom spelling bee.

    Working from a placard, Quayle corrected one sixth-grader by telling him to add an "e" to "potato." Journalists gleefully noted the spelling misteak. And Quayle's dunce hat was glued in place.

    Trouble is, that mis-spelled placard was actually written out by the classroom teacher herself, either through her own ignorance or, a few suspect, some sly political set-up. Quayle knew he hadn't written it and thought the error was the point of the lesson.

    And because the classroom spelling bit was a last-minute addition, aides who would have foreseen the everlasting damage of their boss inexplicably adding a mistake to a student's work did not know what the placard said. Quayle subsequently forbade them from explaining the error to the media, for fear of embarrassing the teacher.

    One of the immutable laws of public communications in politics and other fields is, if you have to explain something, you lose. Seeking to explain you were for something before being against it simply digs a deeper hole.

    This time the mistake for Palin, who used to be accused of dodging reporters' questions, was bothering to answer such an amateur media gotcha question in a noisy, moving crowd. Better would have been a simple dismissive and cheery, "You're kidding, right?" Such are the ongoing lessons for primary candidates. Which she isn't now, of course.

    Early in a previous race for the Republican presidential nomination almost 12 years ago, then Texas Gov. George W. Bush was in a jammed New Hampshire airport meeting room, answering questions from local media. Apropos of nothing, one reporter (perhaps prompted by an opponent's camp) asked Bush his pre-written gotcha: Name the new president of Pakistan.

    Obviously, Pervez Musharraf had nothing to do with New Hampshire issues and is similar to some Democratic candidates flubbing the name of Russia's then prime minister during 2008 debates (Dmitry Medvedev).

    Bush didn't know the Pakistani leader's name that day and looked clumsy attempting to answer. He could have brushed it away by instantly asking the reporter some arcane political who's-who, laughing off their mutual ignorance and quickly taking the next question. But he didn't and took media lumps for several days.

    As everyone now knows, such a splashy gaffe can effectively doom any chance a candidate has of winning two terms in the White House.
  2. Revere was captured?? They didn't teach me THAT part in history class!
  3. Sarah Palin on Paul Revere: Expert or Ignoramus?

    COLUMN: Sarah Palin’s defense of her account of Paul Revere doesn’t make any sense. Why would one complete a “he who” sentence about a historic figure with an obscure assertion?

    Sarah Palin said this about Paul Revere:

    “He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and by making sure that as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.”

    Revere, of course, is known for his “midnight ride” to Lexington to warn American patriots that British troops were coming. Revere’s story is considered basic American history and widely taught in American elementary schools.

    Palin’s account, of course, stands in stark contrast to that story.

    The former governor, however, refused to acknowledge her mistake. She said Paul Revere did indeed warn the British; he did it in the other part of his ride than people don’t talk about. That’s what she was referring to.

    Her explanation, however, just isn’t believable.

    First, there is no indication that part of Revere’s mission was to warn the British. Even if he were detained by British forces and then told them about America’s preparedness, it was never Revere’s initial intention. In fact, Revere was actively trying to avoid the British.

    Second, Palin was clearly shooting for the basic “elementary school” story of Paul Revere, not some obscure fact about him.

    She began her gaffe with saying “we saw where Paul Revere hung out as a teenager, which was something new to learn.” So, the subject was about Paul Revere, not about American defiance or the advantages of an armed citizenry.

    She then said “he who warned the British.” The phrase “he who” – used after the introduction of a historic figure as the subject matter – is always followed by whatever that person is most well-known for.

    For example, for King David, it’s “he who slew Goliath,” not something like “he who slew Uriah.” For Paul Revere, it’s “he who warned the Americans,” “he who rode to Lexington,” “he who warned of the British,” “he who warned Samuel Adams and John Hancock,” or any number of similar phrases. What it’s not is “he who warned the British.”

    Palin messed up on basic “elementary school” American history.

    If an American first grader gave his teacher Palin’s answer, he would have been corrected. If he tried to argue that he was referring to the other part of Revere’s ride, he would have been scolded. If an American college student tried to pull that stunt, he would have been mocked.

    Palin, however, seems to have no shame in doing so.
  4. Sarah Palin’s Lame Excuse on Paul Revere Gaffe

    Paul Revere did warn the British. However, that doesn’t justify Palin’s lame account to cover up her gaffe.

    Sarah Palin said she didn’t mess up on Paul Revere. She said he did warn the British.

    Indeed, Revere did exactly that.

    When he finished his famous ride to Lexington, he decided to embark on a new ride to Concord. During this ride, he was captured by the British and subsequently warned them about the colonial resistance.

    A historian who spoke to the Boston Herald and Paul Revere’s own letter back up this account.

    However, there is a huge difference between being right and covering up one’s mistake with an obscure piece of history.

    To recap, Sarah Palin said the following about Paul Revere:

    "We saw where Paul Revere hung out as a teenager, which was something new to learn. He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and by making sure that as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.”

    Palin said “as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells.” Clearly, she was referring to Revere’s famous midnight ride, not his capture at the hands of the British.

    He warned the British verbally while captured, not with “warning shots and bells” while on horseback.

    The context of Palin’s comments was her visiting of “where Paul Revere hung out as a teenager.” Her subsequent “he who” sentence was clearly shooting for what Revere is mostly known for, which is his midnight ride to Lexington.

    Lastly, who is Palin trying to kid by setting herself up a history buff, patriotic intellectual, and Paul Revere scholar? What’s more credible, that she messed up on Paul Revere or that she was honestly trying to make an obscure reference?

    Even the historian who spoke to the Boston Herald did not think Palin’s remarks reflected scholarship. Instead, he thinks she got “lucky” that her comments happen to be backed up by an obscure piece of history.

    Palin messed up on Paul Revere, which is arguably excusable because people make verbal gaffes all the time. Vice President Joe Biden made many of them.

    He once told a paraplegic, who was clearly confined to a wheelchair, to “stand up.” He once called “j-o-b-s” a three-letter world. He claimed that FDR “got on the television” to address the nation after the stock market crash of 1929, even though FDR wasn’t president back then and television wasn’t a widely available consumer product.

    Palin, however, didn’t just make a gaffe; she also tried to cover it up with a lame excuse.

    What she should have done is own up to her mistake and perhaps poke a little fun at Biden and herself.
  5. Palin Fans Try to Rewrite History (Or At Least Wikipedia) on Paul Revere

    This weekend, Tuned In Jr., who is studying Boston and the American Revolution in school, mentioned that he was getting a "locked" error message while trying to load a Wikipedia page on Paul Revere. I know! As a father and a journalist, I should know better than to let my son use Wikipedia as a primary source.

    Fortunately, the news cycle has intervened to give us a perfect object lesson, by providing a possible reason Revere's page may have been in limbo yesterday: over the weekend, there was a war between Wikipedia editors and supporters of Sarah Palin, who were trying to "fix" the entry to make it conform with Palin's flubbed description of Revere's ride.

    Palin fumbled her elementary-school history on camera while visiting the Old North Church in Boston (see video above), rendering it as a ride in which Revere "warned the British" by "ringing those bells" and "send[ing] those warning shots and bells."

    Palin's excruciating delivery will be familiar to anyone who was ever called on unprepared in class and gave a rambling answer, hoping against hope that if you just keep talking, somehow the right answer would materialize. Palin's own explanation of the story, to Fox News' Chris Wallace, will not surprise anyone who remembers her defending her use of the word "refudiate" as not a malapropism, but intentional wordplay after the manner of Shakespeare. "I didn't mess up," she insisted. Rather, "part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that, hey, you're not going to succeed." She was simply candidly answering a "shout-out, gotcha-type of question."

    In other words, Palin was making a subtle, larger point, and if you say otherwise, you're just like the lamestream media who are out to make her look bad and in fact, are simply betraying your own ignorance. (Did you know that the colonists at the time were British subjects and considered themselves British? She tricked ya there!) So: nothing new.

    What was new was the response of some apparent online supporters, who, as noticed by the Little Green Footballs blog, went on Wikipedia to try to make the history of the American Revolution more Palin-compliant. Among the sources they attempted to cite in support of Palin's version of events: Palin's own answer, as quoted in newspapers. The dialogue between the volunteer revisers and Wikipedia's editors is fascinating, and a little horrifying. (Using Palin's quote to bolster Palin's quote, infinite-loop-style, is justified, someone says, because the newspaper was quoting "an influential American politician.")

    [This is the point at which, I assume, someone points out that President Obama or Joe Biden or some other Democrat has made gaffes and been treated more leniently by the liberal media. Argue that if you want, but as Dave Weigel at Slate points out, there is no history, so far as I'm aware, of people trying to make Wikipedia support Obama's "57 states" flub.]

    Palin's history lesson is a controversy different in character and content from Anthony Weiner's Twitter woes last week: no one suggests on the one hand that anyone "hacked" an interview with Sarah Palin, and on the other hand botching an American history citation is not allegedly tweeting a salacious picture in public. (Which is the worse offense, I leave to the voters.) But they are both examples of a common pattern: a politician, caught in a dustup, tries to brazen his/her way through it and ends up looking even worse. (While, maybe, rallying his/her supporters even more strongly.)

    But each one also involves its own kind of social-media twist, which played off the malleability of sourcing online. In the Weiner case, the congressman cited a "hack" which, absent an official investigation, hasn't been proven or disproven--there are many theories about whether the crotch shot came from Weiner or elsewhere, but no absolute proof. And in Palin's case, an attempt to throw up dust by claiming allegorical speaking in the service of a larger truth got support, or at least attempted support, from someone trying to rewrite wiki-history.

    What is truth, anyway? I don't know that I can answer that larger philosophical question for you here. But it may be time for the Tuned In household to invest in an encyclopedia.

    Read more:
  6. AK, You're making your stupidity fucking epic today!

    Please keep adding to it.
  7. pspr


    Thank you for not quoting this moron.
  8. Please continue to side with Sarah Palin :)
  9. The other 95 % say its Palin and her dumb ass supporters like you :D :D :D
  10. wikipedias editors are most likely leftists.
    #10     Jun 6, 2011