-
Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden
May 24, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Good Luck Quin
May 24, 2013 | 3 comments
-
One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born
May 23, 2013 | 7 comments
-
The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I won’t make excuses for Sarah Palin where it concerns Paul Revere. She didn’t get it right. Not surprisingly, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams was in full smug when he said, “Listen to the following and you shall hear Palin’s version of the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere.”
Yet where was Brian Williams when Barack Obama said he had visited 57 states with one left to go during a campaign stop in Beaverton, Oregon in May 2008? You never heard Williams say, “Listen to the following and you shall hear Obama’s version of American geography.” If he had done so he would probably would have been accused of racism. Perhaps Williams was too busy practicing his bow to The Anointed One. The same could probably have been said of Politico, Forbes, Mediaite, ABC News and The Los Angeles Times.
Now I am not arguing that Sarah Palin is above criticism. Quite the contrary. As a public figure who may very well make a bid for the White House it is the responsibility of the media to reasonably scrutinize her words and actions with a healthy dose of skepticism. But alas there is nothing healthy about the liberal media’s coverage of Sarah Palin. Yes, Palin erred in this instance but her mistake is magnified beyond proportion. Why? Because she is an anathema to their values, a threat to their agenda and thus she must be marginalized, if not destroyed. So in the pursuit of Sarah Palin’s destruction, the liberal media jettisons all pretensions of objectivity and journalistic standards.
Of course, Barack Obama was subject to no such scrutiny during his White House bid in 2008 by liberal media outlets when he said he had visited 57 states. Why? Because they wanted him to be elected President and talking about that incident could have compromised their objective. Thus Barack Obama could have told that audience in Beaverton that he was regularly visited by little green men in spaceships and the liberal media wouldn’t have batted an eyelash.
The bottom line is if Palin’s take on Paul Revere is front page news then so too is Obama’s claim that he had visited 57 states. Naturally, I harbor no such illusions. My lungs can only hold so much air.
View all comments (119) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/04/at-least-she-hasnt-visited-57
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
A| 6.4.11 @ 3:21AM
This was a waste of time to read. Sounds like Aaron G. has a personal issue and is using this write up as a forum. Either talk about what the article is supposed to be about or don't write one. If you want to whine about Obama, choose a different write up. Poor content.
David W| 6.4.11 @ 8:05AM
I don't believe the whine was about Obama, it was about how the media blasts conservatives when they make a mistake and how the media ignores liberals when they make a mistake. All part of the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary talked about...
W| 6.4.11 @ 11:45AM
who is brian williams? what is NBC?
John Murphy| 6.4.11 @ 3:35AM
Great thinking and writing. One small edit, though. Using 'an' before anathema is incorrect. It should read: she is anathema to their values. :)
Dr Tesla| 6.4.11 @ 3:42AM
Obama has had a lot more gaffes than just the 57 state one.
oic| 6.4.11 @ 6:05AM
more relevant to the topic. Obama said the US constitution was 2000 years old. Anyone who know basic US history, know that can't be true
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.4.11 @ 7:03AM
Here are some more good Obama gaffes that the press ignored, courtesy of Michelle Malkin:
Barack Obama: Gaffe machine
By Michelle Malkin • May 21, 2008 07:43 AM
Here’s my syndicated column this week. Hardly a comprehensive list–and sure to grow.
***
Barack Obama: Gaffe machine
Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008
All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of “potatoe.” The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush’s questions about new scanner technology at a grocers’ convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.
But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:
* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.
*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
*Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”
*Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?
*Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:
“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”
Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”
*Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.
*Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up:
“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”
I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.
*Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:”
“Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”
* And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”
Barack Obama–promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah–is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?
Jennifer| 6.4.11 @ 3:50AM
All you elitist RINO hacks can do is take potshots at Palin from your ivory towers. But Sarah Palin is on the frontlines everyday taking it Obungler and making a difference in the national debate. I guess it would be too much effort for you to defend "a chillbilly" or you might lose out on thoise cocktail party invites...
roller| 6.4.11 @ 4:00AM
Obama's gaffe was saying 57 instead of 47 during a long campaign and I'm pretty sure all of us have made such mistakes. Palin, on the other hand, didn't know the answer to a question but in a moment of panic she still stumbled her way through an incorrect explanation. (Something she has done plenty of times before: Roe v Wade, Financial stimulus package, What does the vice president do, etc...)
I think she's a joke but no one would have batted an eyelid if she simply ignored what was obviously a gotcha question. But no, good old Sarah, she fell into the trap and for all us comedy lovers that is a good thing.
Sarah Palin for Accidental Comedian of the Year (Third year running)!!!
If I was American, it wouldn't be funny, it would be terrifying!
Aaron| 6.4.11 @ 4:47AM
Perfect. Exactly what I was going to say. Saying 57 when the math he explained after clearly showed he meant 47 (he said one more state and he's not visiting Alaska and Hawaii) is irrelevant. I've called my children by the wrong name on occasion. It's what happens when you sleep four hours a night. There is absolutely zero excuse for what Palin did. She clearly doesn't know her history which is shocking since she's been to five colleges. Oh, wait. That was for one degree. And don't forget the Bush Doctrine.
NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 1:01AM
I'm still laughing at the clown's humiliating toast gaffe! May 24, 2008 anyone? Talk about braindead; no wonder our country is in such a mess.
sailwind| 6.4.11 @ 4:10AM
I won't make excuses for Sarah Palin where it concerns Paul Revere.
You don't have to. You could read Paul Revere's ride by David Hackett Fischer.
Paul Revere's midnight ride looms as an almost mythical event in American history--yet it has been largely ignored by scholars and left to patriotic writers and debunkers. Now one of the foremost American historians offers the first serious look at the events of the night of April 18, 1775--what led up to it, what really happened, and what followed--uncovering a truth far more remarkable than the myths of tradition.
In the book he states: "A townsman remembered that 'repeated gunshots, the beating of drums and the ringing of bells filled the air.'.... Along the North Shore of Massachusetts, church bells began to toll and the heavy beat of drums could be heard for many miles in the night air."
Or take Paul Revere's own words as he wrote this himself in the dialect of the day:
I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.
Sarah Palin is 100% correct on this.
Aaron| 6.4.11 @ 4:52AM
The two stories are completely different. She got the sides wrong for heaven's sake! And who is this "foremost American historian..."? Paul Revere's words mean that he warned the townspeople about the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The "British are coming..." chant came later and is likely untrue. Palin is 100% wrong. See, I can say things too.
Alf| 6.4.11 @ 6:07AM
Your arrogance is misplaced. No more clicks for you, Aaron.
NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 1:01AM
Give it a rest, troll. Obama's still a complete failure and is destroying our country.
John| 6.4.11 @ 4:14PM
Which makes more sense - Palin read this obscure work and had a better understanding of the events than most Americans (yet still stumbled, confused, in her response). Or...Palin misspoke and gave a rambling answer that showed once again she didn't know what she was talking about...
Pete| 6.4.11 @ 4:41AM
Wow, I think you missed the obvious answer, the media is reporting another story regarding her lack of knowledge because that's the only story she offers on a daily basis. They don't need to create a fictitious story to make Palin look bad, Palin does that for them. Wake up and smell the coffee, it's not about values, Palin doesn't have values. Stop making excuses. The media can only report what Palin is giving them. They aren't threatened by Palin, she's really only a threat to herself!
beebop| 6.4.11 @ 12:39PM
You betcha.
This is so much more important than a sitting member of congress flashing his member or the almost vice president and once democrat candidate parsing the new new of what "is" "is."
Run along.
When dimocrats err it is divine.
Tess| 6.4.11 @ 4:45AM
Obama's 57 states comment was a joke. You know, "I feel like I'm working 8 days a week!" Etc. Hyperbole?
And no, sailwind, that isn't what Paul Revere wrote. If Palin had said, "Paul Revere, oh yes, he was stopped by the British and questioned at gunpoint, at which point he divulged information about the patriots!" Then you would have a point. But she didn't say that. She said he rode around town ringing bells warning the British that they couldn't take the patriots' guns away because they were going to be free. The story of Paul Revere is largely fiction, but Sarah's story is accurate only on one point. He told things to the British. This is true. He did not, however, ring bells telling them they would not be able to take the patriots' arms from them. Sorry.
Guarionex Sandoval| 6.4.11 @ 8:15AM
Dream on, o self-deluded one. Revere did warn the British that overwhelming force awaited them. And Obama, for all the excuses you may make for him, "it was a joke," (no, it wasn't, just like a breathalyzer, no make that an "inhalator" for asthmatic kids wasn't a joke) Obama is the most gafftastic president in the history of American politics. Should something happen and Biden have to take over, even Joe "The Plagiarist" Biden ("a three letter word, jobs, j-o-b-s"), poor boob, would be hard-pressed to match him. This is why Barry so avoids anything not carefully scripted and run through TOTUS.
Clint| 6.4.11 @ 5:15AM
The Liberal Mainstream Media Agendists continue their attempt to "Quayle" Tea Party Co-Favorite Sarah Palin.
We Tea Party Patriots are in a Media War with The Liberal Mainstream Media Agendists.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.4.11 @ 5:31AM
Campaign gaffes are rather common but the actual statement that Obama made was, ""I've been in 57 states, (with) I think one left to go." So he actually thought there were 58 states. He's made many more stupid statements since then, claiming that cops were stupid, when in fact, they simply did their job. The comments above claiming he made a mistake due to being tired and should have stated 47 are total baloney.
Here's a link to an article that indicates not one major paper reported on Obama's glaring 57 mistake even in passing. However, Dan Quayle's spelling bee error received hundreds of slams in the press.
The American Press resides in a state of total disgrace and idiots like Brian Williams will only be remembered for their incompetency, not their expertise. I never watch the main news channels anymore because it's simply a brainwashing exercise.
Herman Cain recently made a blurp when he stated that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were in the Constitution. They are in the Declaration of Independence. Not many noticed or cared.
In short, Sarah Palin exists in a political arena where she is perceived as in independent woman. In some ways she is, although she has a streak of liberalism which goes little noticed. The ruling establishment is determined to crush individualism because it weakens them.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/t.....z1OIVwrx6v
weeble| 6.5.11 @ 3:51PM
Cain's gaffe about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" didn't get much press because everyone can see that it was a simple mistake. Listen to him for a while and you'll know without a doubt that he's a highly intelligent man who can think on is feet. He doesn't shy away from tough interviews because he doesn't have any trouble handling them.
You can't explain away all of Palin's gaffes by saying they were simple mistakes. She won't do interviews with anyone other than fox because she can't handle even slightly adversarial questioning. She can't even handle softball question on the campaign trail like the one about Paul Revere!
sailwind| 6.4.11 @ 5:35AM
And who is this "foremost American historian..."?
Google is your friend:
David Hackett Fischer (born December 2, 1935) is University Professor and Earl Warren Professor of History at Brandeis University. Fischer's major works have tackled everything from large macroeconomic and cultural trends (Albion's Seed, The Great Wave) to narrative histories of significant events (Paul Revere's Ride, Washington's Crossing) to explorations of historiography (Historians' Fallacies, in which he coined the term Historian's fallacy).
He is best known for his major study Albion's Seed, which argued that core aspects of American culture stem from four British folkways and regional cultures, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington's Crossing (Pivotal Moments in American History), a narrative of George Washington's leadership of the Continental Army during the winter of 1776-1777 during the American Revolutionary War.
Pulitzer Prize winner by the way. Paul Revere warned that "The British were coming"......The local militia started ringing bells and firing gunshots to "alarm" the British that they were soon going to have a real fight on their hands and that we were ready for them.
She may not have articulated it very well but facts are facts, Sarah Palin had it overall right and so did Mr. Fischer after his well researched book on the subject.
oic| 6.4.11 @ 5:41AM
Before you accuse others of being ignorant of history, did you know the true history before you wikipedia'd it or google searched it? Otherwise you look like a hypocrite
oic| 6.4.11 @ 5:43AM
anyone can google or wiki, then pounce on someone as being dumb on a subject. Haha, you're an idiot, you got this wrong. I just googled it and here's the proof etc
oic| 6.4.11 @ 5:46AM
Me so smart, You so dumb, because I googled it. Me expert on google searching so I could pretend to be smart
sailwind| 6.4.11 @ 6:05AM
oic,
No offense, but the poster asked a question and I provided the answer and that a google search would have also provided the same information to him or her. My apologies if that offended you in some way.
oic| 6.4.11 @ 6:06AM
I wasn't responding to you, but the author of this piece
oic| 6.4.11 @ 6:15AM
this is no the first time the media are ignorant of something before Palin talk about it, then they misfire and get it wrong. Remember "party life 1773?" or "blood libel" or "blue blood". They didn't know what it means so they googled it and get it wrong because they used the first link in the google search or wikipedia
Koozebane| 6.4.11 @ 6:36AM
She got it wrong, eh, Aaron?
And USA Today is your proof?
It's called RESEARCH.
Try it sometime.
Dr Tesla| 6.4.11 @ 6:39AM
I don't give a phuck about Paul Revere. I don't care if Palin was right or wrong about Paul Revere, and let's face it, most liberals don't know much about this guy either. I see them saying that Revere said "the British are coming" but in reality he said "the Regulars are coming". Ignorant journalists apparently did not know that Paul Revere did two things that night: He alerted the Americans of the British approach, and when captured, warned the British to abandon their plans because the Americans are ready and waiting for them.
It appears that the media were not aware that Paul Revere not only alerted the Americans about the approaching British, but later, when captured by the British, also warned them -- the British -- that the Americans are aware of their approach, and if they were to be foolhardy enough to attack, will be met by at least 500 armed patriots.
So Palin is totally correct to say: "He who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms ". Revere warned the British to abandon their plans to confiscate arms, because the American patriots have been alerted and will smash them if they tried.
T he people that want to use Palin's comment about Paul Revere as some kind of litmus test for being the Republican nominee are insane.
Dr Tesla| 6.4.11 @ 6:51AM
Only the irrational hatred of Palin could have everybody in the weeds of the history of Paul errand boy Revere. :)
Smooth Jazzz| 6.4.11 @ 6:53AM
"She didn't get it right. Not surprisingly, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams was in full smug when he said, "Listen to the following and you shall hear Palin's version of the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere."
Except, except, except she did get it right: Paul Revere did warn the British:
http://legalinsurrection.blogs.....ogize.html
I think Obama loving sychophants like Brian Williams, the anchors at CNN and the rest of the the Obamedia should do a little research before making a fool of themselves.
nohype| 6.4.11 @ 7:18AM
If those who suffer from Palin Derangement Syndrome had realized that Revere was captured, interrogated at gunpoint, and told the British that the Americans were armed and ready, do you think that they would have highlighted this rather inarticulate statement by Palin? Unfortunately, most people will never learn that she was right on the central issue, that the Revere did tell the British that the townsmen would resist, but that will bother very few in the media.
Voice of Reason| 6.4.11 @ 8:00AM
I think you need to change your name. You are not living up to it.
The Palin Brigades are out in full force, spinning mightily across the web, often posting the exact same comments on board after board, sometimes (oops!) more than once. None of this changes the fact that no educated person would answer the question "who was Paul Revere" with "He who warned the British," even if they hadn't just left his house and weren't on a tour with the stated purpose of educating America.
nohype| 6.4.11 @ 3:58PM
I will keep my name, but consider changing yours. Is it reasonable to believe that the many bloggers and reporters who jumped on this story would have reacted in the way they did if they had known that Revere had been captured, interrogated, and told the British that they would face armed resistance? In their efforts to trash Palin, they highlighted their own ignorance.
harlow98| 6.6.11 @ 11:36AM
But that's why it made news. Revere's intent was never to "warn" the british. He was captured,so why would you start the answer to the question with 'he who warned the british'? The mission was secret, so telling the british about the militia when he had a gun to his head is not something that i think Revere would be proud of. She might have misspoken but it sounds like she had her facts a little mixed up.
sailwind| 6.4.11 @ 7:23AM
After Paul Revere was captured by the British, they let him go. They were alarmed that if they held him it might cause big trouble for them.
During the ride back to Lexington, Revere and his captors heard shots fire and church bells ring throughout the area — events that gave some credence to Revere’s report of colonial preparations. Fearing for their safety, the British released Revere, but took the precaution of giving him a tired horse to slow his return to Lexington.
Parky Pundit | 6.4.11 @ 7:34AM
Showing once again the conservative inability to detect sarcasm and humor... Obama was CLEARLY making a lame joke, while near exhaustion, about how much traveling he had done, and the conservatives jump in with SEE? SEE? OBAMA THINK THERE'S 57 STATES! HE'S A KENYAN! SEE? SEE?
Obama did not score yesterday's flub up. Take your medicine like a MAN, Aaron.
As if things weren't bad enough when she botched up the history of Paul Revere's ride, things got even worse when she shared Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's epic poem, from memory, of course, with the kiddies!
http://bit.ly/jSVpv8
sailwind| 6.4.11 @ 8:00AM
As if things weren't bad enough when she botched up the history of Paul Revere's ride.
Actually she has it right. Glad to see her know her history.
The real historical account.
The British officers began to interrogate Revere, whereupon Revere astonished his captors by telling them more than they even knew about their own mission. (HA!) He also told them that he had been warning the countryside of the British plan and that their lives were at risk if they remained in the vicinity of Lexington because there would soon be 500 men there ready to fight. Revere, of course, was bluffing.
The Regulars had Revere remount his horse and they headed toward Lexington Green, when suddenly, they heard a gunshot! Revere told the British officer that the shot was a signal "to alarm the country!". Now the British troops were getting very nervous (hehe).
A few minutes later, they were all startled to hear the heavy crash of an entire volley of musketry from the direction of Lexington's meeting house and then the Lexington town bell began clanging rapidly! Jonathan Loring, a Lexington resident captured earlier, turned to his captors and shouted "The bell's a' ringing! The town's alarmed, and you're all dead men!"
The British officers then talked urgently among themselves and decided to release their captives so as they would not slow their retreat.
Guarionex Sandoval| 6.4.11 @ 8:04AM
"She didn't get it right." Geez. Are you talking about the poetic version of Paul Revere, which she wasn't referring to, or the real account in which he was captured by the British and warned them that overwhelming force awaited them?
NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 1:03AM
Who gives a crap in the scheme of things when that idiot in the White House is destroying our country? You libs are crazy.
Clint| 6.4.11 @ 8:10AM
Obama, "It was ... interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing ... "
Hey Affirmative Action Boy, Austrians speak German.
That's like sayin', " I don't know what the term is in American".
martin j smith| 6.4.11 @ 8:29AM
I can tell the folks who despise sara Plain in one second--this writer is one. Well in my view--inspite of the fact that I do not agree her on some issues I think she should stick to both the Democrat and Repub ( RINO ) Socialists and do damned well what she wants. Bravo Sarah Palin--YOU HAVE GUTS THESE PHONEYS ARE NUTZ.
Bea| 6.4.11 @ 8:43AM
Read actual accounts from the pen of Paul Revere...he did tell the British that there were Americans coming. He was stopped along the way by British loyalists; that is to what Palin was referring. You don't hear a person answer a question on the fly and then judge the answer out of context. The truth will fly in the face of her critics.
NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 1:03AM
Sarah was right, as usual.
Bob Grant| 6.4.11 @ 8:43AM
"..Why? Because she is an anathema to their values, a threat to their agenda and thus she must be marginalized, if not destroyed..." -------
I hope you don't paint all Palin critics with this broad brush because although she DOES represent my values, there are other factors - in my opinion - that determine my negative opinion of her. I also share the same disdain for the "lamestream media" as Sarah and perhaps you.
This broad-brush painting of Sarah's critics has the effect of entrenching all opinions and makes it that more difficult for her to sway more people in her favor.
vitadMD| 6.5.11 @ 8:51AM
She is anathema to her critics for a number of reasons, conscious and unconscious. Both media and establishment politicians have contributed to the formation of the caricature of her. She's not a member of their club, a club which has always decided who was going to become president. She's not an elitist, not professorial, and not a man, like them, so that's a problem. She's not been groomed by the establishment, not "schooled" in the ways that things are done in D.C.
But isn't she exactly what we need in D.C. now?... someone who will not be influenced by money, power, extortion? One does not have to be professorial or have a deep voice (she, herself can't stand her voice), or even be attractive (I have a problem with too much makeup sometimes), to get an important job done. Many believe she can do this important job because she's done it before. She has a record of executive experience, honesty, integrity, and corruption fighting at the local and state level. She will do it at the national level.
NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 1:04AM
Bob's a sexist pig with mommy issues. Sarah is exactly who we need today.
John| 6.4.11 @ 8:49AM
Actually, the media works at presenting a story, one that the public will gravitate towards. Obama's "57 state" quote ran against the story that was being fashioned of him being a strong, educated man. The "Paul Revere" quote fits perfectly in line with the depiction of Sarah Palin as an illiterate fool. The issue at hand, though, is that each of them has had countless opportunities to cement their stories in the media. Had Palin not had hundreds of similar gaffs, the media might have ignored this comment (after all, we all make mistakes, and even for politicians, mis-statements generally only have a 24 hour life).
southernsue| 6.4.11 @ 8:50AM
there are 57 state in iran. i wonder how osamaobama knew that? slip of the tongue? how about stephanophagus(sp?) interview where the slip of the tongue, again, obama referred to his religion as muslim. it's on youtube.
sarah is a real american, i will vote for her. the men in the gop race show no backbone and with osamaobama, we need someone that is not afraid and has lots of fight, that is sarah. however, i will vote for whoever the gop nomination is because of one important point, obama and his ilk have to go.
P.Scott Cummins| 6.4.11 @ 9:09AM
You owe Ms. Palin an apology, she did get it right (and I'm no Palin fan):
"(The British Major who detained me) demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up."
- Paul Revere's account of The Midnight Ride from "Paul Revere's Ride" by David Hackett Fischer (Oxford University Press 1994) read it for yourself on Google Books: http://books.google.com/
John| 6.4.11 @ 9:27AM
@Cummins - Stop being such an apologist for her. She wasn't referencing an obscure historical fact. If you look at the context of the whole quote, she just jumbled her response into a gibberish answer. I'll err on the side of caution and say that she knew he was warning of the British coming, but as always, lacks the public speaking capability for coherent responses.
NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 1:05AM
He's just telling the truth, troll.
sailwind| 6.4.11 @ 9:38AM
She wasn't referencing an obscure historical fact.
I beg to differ. It is apparent that she was. If this was a well known historical fact that Paul Revere did in fact warn and alarm the British after his capture, her "gibberish" response would not be making headlines in our so "objected" media.
NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 1:05AM
lol
Quin| 6.4.11 @ 9:48AM
Put Palin and Bachmann together and you have Paul Revere firing shots to warn the British that they better not go to Lexington, New Hampshire. Now why, again, do Tea Partiers, of all people, admire these two when these two get the basics so wrong about events stemming directly from the events launched at the original Tea Party?
Here's a hint: Palin and Bachmann really are a little bit ignorant, not just of important facts of history, but of the sorts of things one learns from experience actually getting legislation passed for more than a year or two, or of international negotiations, or of all sorts of other areas a president should be well versed in. NEVERTHELESS, Palin and Bachmann do have something right that is very, very important: They both understand, in their guts, the basic values and virtues of the American civic order. They understand that liberty is limited almost every time government grows. And they understand that people in theirs hearths and homes usually make better decisions for themselves than do some far-away "expert" or, even worse, a functionary serving several levels below a supposed expert. And, even when we don't make the best decisions for our own lives, we have the right to make wrong decisions, unfettered by idiot experts.
It is not at all an insult to believe, on the one hand, that Palin and Bachmann both need more seasoning and more experience before they should be seriously considered for president, and on the other hand that both are wonderful examplars of the potential for leaders to rise from the grass roots, and that both have the potential to contribute great things to this country -- including, just perhaps, if they do the right things to deserve it, to think of the Oval Office down the line.
vitadMD| 6.5.11 @ 8:59AM
One could make an analogy with physicians... Which one would you want?: someone who can lecture minutia about your disease, or one with a caring bedside manner who skillfully makes the right decisions with you?
Bob Grant| 6.4.11 @ 9:56AM
The truth is she has made numerous gaffes but no more than any other politician. The difference is the context. Many politicians make gaffes while discussing serious policy, in serious settings. Sarah, because of her reputation as not being serious, tends to make said gaffes in a more flippant manner and as an outsider. This "outsider" image is a seen by many as a positive but many more don't.
The bottom line: because of both HER doing and the image presented of her by the "lamestream media", she has zero room for error.
This back-and-forth battle between her and them is a distraction and will become tiresome for those voters who are seriously looking for someone to support.
Steve | 6.4.11 @ 10:54AM
"The bottom line: because of both HER doing and the image presented of her by the "lamestream media", she has zero room for error."
Beautifully articulated. Though since 2008, liberals and some RINOs have focused on Palin in a very unhealthy way.
Another way you can look at it is that Palin scares them to such a degree, they go all out on her.
I am seriously looking forward to the documentary being released on her and I think she's brilliant in having it released in Iowa first followed by NH and SC.
adagioforstrings | 6.4.11 @ 9:58AM
I don't see how Palin's ad libs are any less coherent than Joe "one heartbeat away from the presidency" Biden's are.
The British were not only trying to capture patriot leaders like John Hancock and Samuel Adams, but also were trying to capture the cache of weapons that Americans had stored.
mmc| 6.4.11 @ 10:19AM
Sorry, there is a huge difference between someone mis-speaking and saying 57 states and someone rambling on and on, making up what they do not know. In fact, she is so audacious that even though she did not know the facts she then tried to put political spin on her made up ramblings. It is just more of her carnival act. Please, please , please let her run!
Henry H.| 6.4.11 @ 10:20AM
The difference is that when Obama said 57 there was no doubt in anyone's mind that he knew there were 50 states and that he simply - through fatigue or whatever - said the wrong thing. It is self evident from watching Palin discuss Paul Revere that she does not know what she is talking about. I can not believe you could write this article ignoring this obvious distinction. The position that the President said 57 because he thought there were 57 states is absurd. And you know it.
Henry H.| 6.4.11 @ 10:20AM
The difference is that when Obama said 57 there was no doubt in anyone's mind that he knew there were 50 states and that he simply - through fatigue or whatever - said the wrong thing. It is self evident from watching Palin discuss Paul Revere that she does not know what she is talking about. I can not believe you could write this article ignoring this obvious distinction. The position that the President said 57 because he thought there were 57 states is absurd. And you know it.
Morgan| 6.5.11 @ 12:00PM
You're right. There's always a good explanation for Obama's screwups, never any for Sarah's. Now perhaps you can explain him signing the Westminster guest book "May 2008" (must have been really tired) or talking through the British National Anthem in his toast to the Queen (one too many glasses of champagne?).
But the larger point is this: Obama may or may not have had some valid excuse for representing that we have 57 states, but the media doesn't even mention the gaffe. He is never challenged on this stuff by the same people who make a living picking on every little misstep Sarah makes. That media bias and lack of objectivity is the real point here.
Hobbes| 6.4.11 @ 10:37AM
Palin is a populist. NOT A TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE. Stop defending her!!!
Steve | 6.4.11 @ 10:42AM
What a thoughtful article. Palin made one mistake. She said Revere went to warn the British. But she was right at suggesting the British wanted to take our arms. That was Revere's suspicion.
Not only did Barack say we had 57 states, but he also called our Marine Corp, "Corpseman" and stutters all the time.
Joe Biden went on and said FDR gave a speech on TV during the Great Depression.
These things happen. The real difference is that the convictions of Barack Obama are proving to be disasters and the libs will do anything to make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to anyone on a mission to expose that.
Morgan| 6.5.11 @ 11:54AM
It wasn't "Revere's suspicion" that the British intended to seize the colonists' armories, it was a known fact. The only questions were: when would the British move on the armories, and did they plan to kidnap Adams and Hancock? Revere and Dawes alerted the countryside on their way to Lexington, and met with Adams and Hancock to formulate a plan. It was all about the weapons and ammunition.
martin j smith| 6.4.11 @ 10:44AM
Bob Grant: You may have a point about putting all Palin critics in the same basket--but--Look at how she has been treated. I do not think we are talking about "ordinary " criticism. She is being smeared on many fronts. Thus, where to you say " they are legit and where do you they are not" ?
problem is comparing Sara Palin--with whom I do not agree on Socials issues in particular--yet she has a spirit which few if any Republicans have and a wilingness to speak her mind which I have seen much of from Main Stream Republicans either. And, she is willing to stand her ground and dispute Obama on issues and I also think there is a bit ( forgive me for this ) of sexism which motivates some of her critics. And, there is a great deal of irrational hatred that motivates them as well. So, with all due respect--when I see someone who says she is right on this but I disagree on that or similar types of objective communication I MIGHT buy that but the total barage from Socialists AND REPUB Mainstreamers --not sir.
Bob Grant| 6.4.11 @ 11:06AM
You make good points, but it seems to me Sarah is capitalizing on her "victim" status, i.e., the foul (and unfair) treatment of her by the press, and it appears many people are supporting her on that basis alone, which is kinda scary.
Keep in mind, however, she lobbed the first salvo in the "lamestream's" direction during the '08 campaign. It was a disappointment that she wasn't a more formidable foe.
I think Quinn said it better than me that it is possible to align oneself with Sarah on core beliefs and agreeing with her instincts on issues but not support a presidential run. Not now, in '12!!
vitadMD| 6.5.11 @ 9:06AM
Do you mean like Obama capitalized on his "victim" status?
No, people support her because they trust her to shake things up and represent more than half of this country who have felt disenfranchised from their government for quite some time.
Rudy Webb| 6.29.11 @ 11:46AM
Which half of the country are you speaking of and are there times that the government should support one group over another? I am old enough to remember when that was the situation here and we will not return to that condition as a country. Further I don't recall the President asking for votes because of any reason other than to promote change. Maybe that dream is different than we expected but there are other variables involved, namely the House and the Senate having a different agenda because of party politics. Because of what is going on now to make this present administration fail we will achieve very little for years to come.
aldol| 6.4.11 @ 10:48AM
BEST OF SARAH (NOV 25,2009)
"DEDICATED TO ALL PATRIOTS WHO SHARE MY LOVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND PARTICULARLY TO OUR WOMEN AND MEN IN UNIFORM,PAST AND PRESENT---GOD BLESS THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM"
-From the Foreward to Going Rogue by Sarah Palin
********************************************************************************************************************************
COMMENTS FROM THE SARAH-BLOGOSHERE:
Dr. Aldo Laghi (Amazon's Going Rogue Customer Forum)
"A year ago or so I worried myself sick about the future of this country after observing ACORN in action, seeing the fraud in Chicago, learning of the background of Obama and of his acolytes.
I have to admit that at the time I expressed concern to the fact that Obama's election machine was pervasive, well funded and, most of all, totally unconcerned with the legality and the ethics of its own actions.
In fact, at the time, I saw some parallels between Lenin's and Obama's approaches to intimidation and control of communications in general: media as well as personal.
As early as the end of February 2009 though, I realized how stupid ( yes stupid) and arrogant Obama and all his cohorts were.
Lenin was certainly not stupid or arrogant instead.
At that point then, I relaxed and predicted (in one of my rare blogs) that Obama, Reid and Pelosi were the best thing that could happen to the GOP.
Mind you, this was last February, when the GOP had been dismissed as an almost irrelevant force in American politics. Now of course it is a lot easier to make such an assertion.
Now you can observe that, just about every week, Obama, Reid and Pelosi shoot themselves in the foot, sometimes more than once in a week.
What else do we need? The "arrogance of corruption" of the Democrats has come to the attention of that part of the American public who provide added value to the economy, and that had till now ignored what happened in Washington, as if Washington had been none of their concern.
Now though, these very people realize that a larger and larger portion of the population sucks the life out of the economy, with laws and regulations that impede the conduct of effective business practices, with a tort system that is designed to enrich the very profession that our not -so-beloved politicians, for the most part, come from.
What you see now is that people are fed up and this anger will carry on, well beyond unseating the buffoons from the seats of power. It will mean that a line-item-veto bill will be passed into law, and, as a consequence of such line-item-veto, ACLU, ACORN, Affirmative Action etc...will be re-dimensioned or un-funded altogether, corruption will be practically eradicated and governments, at all levels, will shrink.
In fact the spending largess of our elected representatives in Washington right now will, doubtlessly, help the conservative cause. It will help it in at least two ways:
one, because it feeds the anger and the worry
the other, because it will mean that unnecessary spending will have to be dramatically cut in future years. This will lead to cuts in bull..t programs and meaningless agencies and, eventually, to smaller governments altogether.
Already people were angry in November 2008 and they voted for Change. well the change that Obama advertised last year is quite different from The Change he is implementing this year.
Therefore the anger that was there in 2008 is still here, and is stronger yet.
AGAIN, THANK-YOU BARAUK OBAMA FOR GIVING US SARAH PALIN.
I think that Sarah Palin will carry the women vote and that alone will assure her victory."
***************************************************
Interested Conservative| 6.4.11 @ 11:26AM
1 - Always a hoot to see the rabid left in action. She's inarticulate in some instances, and so what. She certainly has everyone reconsidering Paul Revere, which may be more than the NEA can claim.
2 - Joe Biden is still VP.
J.C.Eaton| 6.4.11 @ 11:27AM
If my choice is between an academically flawed woman who sometimes rankles but who has been treated like an absolute tramp by a thoroughly biased and meretricious media and an ostensibly well-educated[I don't really believe that part but arguendo] Ivy Leaguer whose policies have eviscerated our finances; a racialist attitude that has resulted in the lousiest race relations in a 65 year lifespan;and a "team" of governance larded with buffoons[Biden}, liars{Clinton], and tax cheats[Geithner] which would I prefer to accept governance from? For petesakes, all 5 of the Rolling Stones would be better for America than the incumbent.
Hobbes| 6.4.11 @ 11:55AM
Palin is a populist and a bimbo and a quitter. She is NOT a conservative. The left love Palin because she makes all conservatives look like morons. That's why they are obsessed with her. Stop talking about her and maybe she will go away. Time to get back to intellectual conservativism, in the vein of Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet. Stop reading Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck for God's sake.
Interested Conservative| 6.4.11 @ 12:11PM
Oh Hobbes, where to start.
She has some populist tendencies, but is hardly dangerous (for that see Huckabee, Mike et. al.). Fortunately the 2012 GOP field seems void of populists.
Bimboism is often in the case of the beholder, which seems wholly the instance here. Give it up for the MSM.
The quitter theme is a nice try, but long since hackneyed at this point. She's far more influential than ever, and Alaska seems to have carried on nicely with her legacy and policies. Hardly the barometer of a quitter, let alone a failure.
She's very, very different, which is the height of irony considering how the "tolerant", "diversity" conscious, "multiculturally sensitive" left treats her.
Naked, open self-betrayal is hard to deal with, even more so to accept or respect.
newsjunkie_ky| 6.4.11 @ 12:17PM
'During Paul Revere’s ride he was stopped by British soldiers, which Revere recounts in a 1789 letter maintained by the Massachusetts Historical Society ,in his original language (emphasis mine):
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & mad...e for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms.He then orderd them to advance, & to lead me in front. When we got to the Road, they
turned down towards Lexington. When we had got about one Mile, the Major Rode up to the officer that was leading me, & told him to give me to the Sergeant. As soon as he took me, the Major orderd him, if I attempted to run, or any body insulted them, to blow my brains out. We rode till we got near Lexington Meeting-house, when the Militia fired a Voley of Guns, which appeared to alarm them very much.
Upon being stopped, did Revere, in essence, warn the British soldiers of the colonists’ plans? Yes. The strawmen built by the media seems to almost indicate that Revere rode through the streets warning the British soldiers. In actuality, simply put, Paul Revere told Regulars of the colonists’ plans during his attempt to warn the colonists of the Regulars’ approach (Revere actually said, “the Regulars are coming!”. The colonist still viewed themselves as British subjects at the time and would not have said, “the British are coming”.)
Additionally, as the Paul Revere Heritage Project notes, Revere had reason for concern that the colonists’ arms would be taken away as they questioned the location of the militia’s ammunition (emphasis mine):
The Redcoats had set temporary roadblocks as a security measure and on their way to Concord they encountered British soldiers. Prescott managed to escape; Revere was captured and Dawes tried to run away but was arrested shortly thereafter. The British held Revere and interrogated him with a pistol on his chest. He was asked about the plans of the militia and where they kept their ammunition. When asked where the Patriots were hiding he told them the truth and replied that they had 500 militiamen in Concord protecting them and 1500 coming. As they rode towards Concord he was told that if he tried to escape he would be shot.
There were no claims by Governor Palin that Paul Revere’s ride had anything to do with the 2nd Amendment as some spuriously claim. She simply indicated the immediate concern of Revere and the colonists. It appears that the media once again fail to grasp the history of our Founding again. You may recall that the media were in an uproar when Governor Palin encouraged Tea Partiers to party like it’s 1773, and the media claimed she didn’t know her Revolutionary War history. Oops. Governor Palin stated that this “One Nation” bus tour would, in part, draw attention to America’s founding and history. It looks like she is doing just that.'
David Armitage| 6.4.11 @ 12:29PM
There's a BIG difference between Obama's misspeak and Sarah Palin's nonsense, so for you to try to equate them is disingenuous.
The key difference: Obama KNOWS that there are 50 states. (If you think he doesn't, you also probably doubt his B.C.) He said 57 the way the Beatles said 8 days a week. Or do you think John and Paul didn't know it was 7?
No such excuse can be made for Palin. She didn't just misspeak--she clearly doesn't know. It wasn't an exaggeration for effect or a slip of one fact, it was a stream of ridiculous errors (warn the British? Gunshots? Bells? Take away our guns?)
Everybody misspeaks on occassion. But it takes true ignorance to misspeak a stream of falsehoods like that.
Interested Conservative| 6.4.11 @ 12:52PM
I don't know if your overestimating the intelligence of the POTUS, but it seems your certainly underestimating Gov. Palin's. It's best to avoid both errors.
Interested Conservative| 6.4.11 @ 12:53PM
NB. "you are".
tonypal| 6.4.11 @ 12:53PM
David, Obama demonstrates his lack of knowledge almost every time he speaks. Let me ask you this. If someone asked Obama how a business creates jobs, do you think he could answer the question. It's actually pretty simple, but he couldn't answer it in a million years, unless he had his trusted teleprompter.
Lisa| 6.4.11 @ 3:35PM
"The key difference: Obama KNOWS that there are 50 states."
Massachusetts, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are Commonwealths; the rest are states! Both you and Obama FAIL!
David Armitage| 6.4.11 @ 1:32PM
Wow! It's simply beyond belief to me that you can defend Sarah Palin! Look at you scramble!
Go back and listen to the whole quote again and you will hear that she is absolutely incoherent and SO far from the facts. She didn't simply say "he warned the British" (which you are twisting in circles to present as factually accurate, when it's at best circumstantial--meaning that his purpose was never to warn the British, but rather to warn the colonists).
No, what she said was: "he who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as rode his way through town to fire those warning shots..."
Can you defend that? You can say all you want about there actually being some bell ringing or shots fired in the air, about the British wanting to take away colonists' weapons (which is of course true, but not the purpose of Revere's ride) or about Revere actually having warned the British when he was stopped by them. Yet none of that makes what she said any less WRONG. And not gaff or slip of the tongue wrong. But dumb-headed wrong. She obviously doesn't know the most basic facts of American history.
So why do you defend her? She just makes conservatives look dumb. And you make conservatives look unfair to the facts by defending her.
Speaking of gaffs, know who was the biggest gaff machine of all time as president? Reagan. Wow, did he make some doozies in a constant stream. But that doesn't take away from the intelligence of many of the things that he did.
vitadMD| 6.5.11 @ 9:15AM
Boo-hoo...
ScottyC| 6.4.11 @ 1:50PM
Armitage: Nice Try. Just another Palin troll. Get your media matters check yet?
Here's what happened the night of April 18th, 1775:
The atmosphere was tense, word of General Gage's intentions spread through Boston prompting the patriots to set up a messaging system to alert the countryside of any advance of British troops. Paul Revere arranged for a signal to be sent by lantern from the steeple of North Church - one if by land, two if by sea. On the night of April 18, 1775 the lantern's alarm sent Revere, William Dawes and other riders on the road to spread the news. The messengers cried out the alarm, awakening every house, warning of the British column making its way towards Lexington. In the rider's wake there erupted the peeling of church bells, the beating of drums and the roar of gun shots - all announcing the danger and calling the local militias to action.
Source: Eyewitness to History, Battle at Lexington Green, 1775
Hobbes| 6.4.11 @ 11:23PM
Who cares about one stupid quote? She is completely incoherent 99 percent of the time. She is an airhead. She gives all conservatives a bad name, worse than the Bush-loving warmongering NeoCons or psycho-paranoid Glenn Beck. Jesus, if you need a conservative hero try reading George Will or Buckley or Weaver or Kirk or Theodore Dalrymple. They didn't care about petty politics, they cared about ideas. Palin has never had an idea in her life. She's an embarrassment.
vitadMD| 6.5.11 @ 9:17AM
Is anybody encouraging George Will to run for president?
Thom| 6.5.11 @ 3:32PM
And George Will and WFB never held elective office in their lives..... WFB tired in New York and failed badly. Politics is not about winning scripted debates. It is about the execution of power.
When George Will holds national office and does what is required to get results he’s ideas will carry some weight with voters. Ideas are like arseholes. Everyone has one and some more than one.
somnolence| 6.4.11 @ 3:11PM
No, Henry, I don't know that Obama doesn't know there are only 50 states. Remember, no one can find even one article he authored while he was President of The Harvard Law Review. Susan Estrich was beside herself in 2008 when they searched and searched and couldn't produce one. Palin had the historical account right, was only clumsy, not incoherent, in interpreting it. The GOP will gladly put up all audio gaffes of Obama if that is part of the warfare next year. Count on it.
somnolence| 6.4.11 @ 3:22PM
Politico did say he authored one UNSIGNED! article at Harvard about abortion. Sure. BTW Revere did get his point across to the British after he was stopped, any way you slice it. ALL history is open to review and interpretation and analysis; otherwise you wouldn't have counterarguments and so many books and textbooks, and attempts by revisionists constantly. Brian Williams is one of the last people around who needs to criticize anyone, and in the space of time limits notwithstanding would have his smugness handed right back to him by Palin. In a sense, I hope she does run 3rd party and brings down the sorry asses of the GOP to the level many of them deserve.
somnolence| 6.4.11 @ 3:41PM
Texas isn't a state either, it is a REPUBLIC. I like the word.
John| 6.4.11 @ 4:18PM
Why in the world did Palin think it appropriate for her to take this tour to educate Americans on history? Surely she knew that she does not fit the role of an educator...
vitadMD| 6.5.11 @ 9:18AM
Her stated purpose was not that she was going to give lectures on American History...
martin j smith| 6.4.11 @ 4:20PM
Lets look AT OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT. HE IS QUALIFIED ? HE MEETS THE STANDARD ? Sorry in that regard Palin is at least no worse and I think compared to our current great, brilliant, man who does and knows it all , great man who promises everything to everybody,genious in chief,
the one and only,almost a G-d, with creases on his pants--yes that one. And you are telling me that Palin does not qualify--DO NOT MAKE ME LAUGH. The reality is this; NEITHER QUALIFY BUT--if youareplaying the game that OBAMA IS THE STANDARD ( DONE BY THE LEFT EXPLICITY ACCEPTED BY
martin j smith| 6.4.11 @ 4:25PM
CONTINUED: RINOS IMPLICITY that is what I object to. Then you have the real BS that I have heard out of Mitt Romney, the BS from Newt the Byute and the studipidy from Donald Duck. Now I have not even touched on the other Socialists and other Mainline Repubs. That is why we have a Palin. There is a vacume of leadership that permits an articulate imperfect woman to come forward. The fault is not hers--it is within the cowards who are currently trying to vy for the #1 spot. When someone comes forward and shows that they care about the NATION AND RESPECTS THE VOTERS I WILL PAY ATTENTION. UNTIL THEN DEAL WITH PALIN.
Thom| 6.4.11 @ 7:38PM
“Nature abhors a vacuum”
Correct Martin. There has been no principled Republican leadership since before 1988….
It is a crappie job but someone is going to have to step up to the plate and take a swing……
Sarah is trying to induce movement in that regard or may take a swing by herself if all else fails....
That's the cards on the table today......
vitadMD| 6.5.11 @ 9:20AM
You have to fight with the army you have, not the army you want...
U. B. Lyan| 6.4.11 @ 4:52PM
Sarah is right on Revere, better check your history and all sources. I'm afraid you fell in to a media trap. An honest journalist would print a correction.
~ U. B. Lyan
Rich D| 6.4.11 @ 5:10PM
It wasn't Quayle's misspelling. It was the teacher's, and he didn't want to challenge her in front of the class. Look it up.
Thom| 6.4.11 @ 6:39PM
History is a difficult subject to master particularly in a world where historical fact tends to be filtered through the political context of the beholder and reduced to sound bites by our pop culture. Paul Revere and Patrick Henry have some similar problems in history once you get beyond the myths and sound bites so often attributed to both men. Despite the ease at which “data” can be obtained today at the touch of an enter key the complete picture of any historical figure is often times full of holes, some of which are important.
I’ve made it my habit to ask high school graduates from my state to tell me the three most important events that occurred in Virginia in 1619 for going on two decades now. I learned those events in Mrs. Lacy 4th grade class back say about 1962. Two of the events are all the rage these days in a roundabout way and the third is important to the matter of what would eventually become a self-government movement. Not one Public School graduate has even got close to the answers. I don’t ask graduates from other states because state histories even when they are central to the founding of this Republic are often times filtered to just concern the events central to that state. Where would a Palin or Bachmann get an intimate knowledge of revolutionary events in Massachusetts given the state of Public Education over the last 3-4 decades?
The ironic thing to me about all the historical gaffs that are attributed to say Palin or Bachmann regarding historical events surrounding the 1775-1776 time period in Massachusetts is that the current citizens of Massachusetts are even more ignorant both in knowledge and deeds. Massachusetts was the state that tried to ban the Minuteman statues all across the state some time back because they “sent the wrong message” regarding gun ownership. Massachusetts today by the standards of Concord and Lexington is a docile sheep and a modern day General Gage would meet no resistance from the good citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They gave up what their ancestors fought for decades ago. Massachusetts also claims to be predominantly “catholic” which has to be viewed through the context of oxymoron on steroids given the very unchristian nature of its legislatures and laws condoning all sorts of enumerated “sins” that the bulk of Massachusetts voters endorse decade after decade. The name Kennedy comes to mind…. Which side would Edward Kennedy been on in 1776? I think we know from his character traits.
It would be useful if political candidates could get the basic facts straight like the first Thanksgiving was held in Virginia several years before Massachusetts held its version of same but everyone seems to feel entitled to their “own facts” these days and facts are a stubborn thing at times.
Personally, I only get really concerned about such gaffes when the character of the person speaking is anathema to my values and has a history of being a liar. I don’t care if a liar gets the prepared remarks about historical events correct to the letter; what I do care about is they tell the truth and their deeds match their words.
The current “King” and his followers demonstrate their utter contempt for the Founding of this Republic every day. Their words and deeds are typically opposite and this fact is not lost on just those that are citizens of this nation. A man that compares himself to Abraham Lincoln would send chills down the back of anyone with any factual knowledge of his presidency. People don’t seem to be able to get beyond the myths of Lincoln and as has been shown many times on this site. The whole truth and facts are a lot more complicated than the simplified persona of the man that cost this nation 618,000 dead making the First World War, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War look like side shows when compared proportionately to the populations that had to bear those loses.
When Aaron can tell me what the three most important events in Virginia were in 1619 without looking it up then maybe I’ll be concerned about Paul Revere’s actual historical events in Massachusetts and Presidential candidates’ knowledge of such that were schooled in other states. It is a historical fact that the knowledge of history regarding our founding is in the toilet and has been so for decades thus to most of those hearing what one candidate or the other says about historical events, it will be the first time they’ve heard anything at all about it, right or wrong.
Perhaps rather than require a candidate to know all the minutia of historical trivial we would be better served by one that is honest and has as their core beliefs that which is consistent with our founding? Principle like a picture is worth thousands of words flung onto the political landscape. I know I can pass my 4th grade Virginia history exam. I’m not sure the bulk of the current declared Republican presidential candidates could even articulate why the colonies went to war in the first place? It wasn’t over the most often repeated sound bite.
A composite character in a movie produced by a foreigner said of our decision to wage war against England something to the effect, “why trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away?… an elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a King can…..” Those who understand the principles behind our founding would not so easily concern themselves with the trivial pursuit of the Democrat media machine but would put a lot of stock in the metal of the person asking to represent them in government’s highest office. It is a long way to Nov of 2012 and a decision that will help pull what is left of the Republic back from the abyss or surely give it a good push off the cliff….. and put all the “several states” in same state of having to deal with 3000 tyrants one mile away as does Massachusetts today.
King Obama rejects our founding principles…. Someone that does not is what is important at this stage of the game.
vitadMD| 6.5.11 @ 9:30AM
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate that it takes a lot more time and effort to compose a meaningful comment such as yours, to be shared with others... compared to the mindless, reflexive outburst of emotion often seen in comment sections.
Thom| 6.5.11 @ 1:48PM
Thanks. I somehow escaped the pop culture's devolution into sound bites and all that fits in a 2 inch text box.....
That is the nature of the beast given that is how the current King got seated at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, all sound bites and no substance. The historical truth is often complex, convoluted and almost always not black and white or cut and dry for the racist in the group. There were no Saints in the Founding Fathers. They are all flawed men just like you find today but one thing that separates them from the men of today is their willingness to fight for something larger than themselves. Oddly they didn’t fight to rob one citizen in order to pay another for their support as was the custom throughout history. That is the essence of the Democrat Party today. Its sole guiding purpose is to rob someone and promise another the benefits of that person’s labor. We see where that ultimately leads.
The people who signed the Declaration of Independence and fought 7 years against pretty stiff odds would burn down Washington DC today and remove all the Founding documents from our heritage. They understood the risk of their actions hence that is why Benjamin said “a Republic if you can keep it”. The Founders had 3500 years of failure at self-rule as a guide and still couldn’t foresee the depths future Americans would stoop to avoid being responsible citizens. Ask a Democrat what a Republic is and see how much about history they know. We haven’t been a Republic since at least 1913.
As a people, divided between those who produce the most and those who produce nothing or next to nothing we aren’t worthy of the sacrifice those colonists made. We would both be an alien species to them and all too familiar to those that forged the Founding documents. Those documents as so often demonstrated by the shear disdain among Democrats and some Republicans are just toilet paper today in the halls of Congress. You would be lucky to find 5 Justices on the Supreme Court that could pass my 12th grade government class. The Supreme Beings there cannot be bothered by events over 230 years ago. No one understands what the Founders meant I hear but those that do understand what they fought for. It wasn’t to form a Democracy and have all their sacrifices reduced to the lowest common denominator in society. That’s where we are as a people and this won’t stand much longer.
This won’t fit in a 2 inch smart phone screen but neither will the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Unfortunately even the elegance of the Founding documents is beyond the intellectual capacity of a large portion of the electorate.
The minutiae of historic events are a game of trivial pursuit or gotcha politics. The principles of our founding aren’t. What people are willing to fight for is central to their character. Character counts, rhetoric does not.
sailwind| 6.4.11 @ 8:03PM
Mr. Armitage
"he who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as rode his way through town to fire those warning shots..."
Can you defend that? You can say all you want about there actually being some bell ringing or shots fired in the air, about the British wanting to take away colonists' weapons (which is of course true, but not the purpose of Revere's ride) or about Revere actually having warned the British when he was stopped by them. Yet none of that makes what she said any less WRONG.
The only reason the British were marching on Lexington and Concord in the first place was to seize a cache of arms stashed in the area. After Paul Revere was captured and by his own words of telling them that he had alarmed the countryside, he informed the British that we were ready for them. He warned them that this wasn't going to happen without a fight. The British.....dare I say it, were pretty darned alarmed at this new turn of events at this point. What part of her on the fly answer doesn't concur with the actual historical record?
Sardonikus| 6.5.11 @ 12:49AM
My favorite bonehead quote of Obama's:
"It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing." - Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009
2008 - the year the media sold us a turd and told us it was a candy bar.
Controse| 6.5.11 @ 1:57AM
I know, I know. It looks like Brian William's face but he really is mooning us all every time the subject of Sarah Palin is raised. His lies are cheeky if you get my drift.
Oldbull| 6.5.11 @ 2:47AM
It's sad to read the mindless Palin hatred here. You folks are truly terrified of her, aren't you? You'd rather have an incompetent, inept, inexperienced junior senator from Affirmative Action U. as president, even if you have to twist yourself into pretzels in order to excuse his glaring mistakes. "Barak was tired/humorous/kidding, but Palin is soooo stupid!" Really, can you not even recognize your bias and hatred?
Glenn Dreck| 6.5.11 @ 6:06AM
It's always so entertaining watching Sarah trying to form a coherent, adult sentence.
Looking forward to the Palin/Miss South Carolina ticket in 2012.
Bob| 6.5.11 @ 7:40AM
I'm supporting a Palin/Bachmann ticket. Their geographical/historical Mass. gaffes are hilarious. What a couple of dumb clucks. I'm a public school educated liberal but even I know where Lexington & Concord are located and the gist of Paul Revere's ride.
martin j smith| 6.5.11 @ 7:43AM
Hey Dreck--Your name is very appropriate for who you are--a Dreck--How much is Obama paying you to post ?
martin j smith| 6.5.11 @ 10:11AM
Oh yes, Bob supports my theory on the Socialist view of Palin.
Morgan| 6.5.11 @ 11:43AM
What she got wrong: Paul Revere rode "to warn the British ..." What she got right: "you're not going to take our guns", which is exactly what the British were attempting to do when stopped at Concord. The first "article" on this snarked that Palin was claiming that Paul Revere's ride was about the Second Amendment. No, it was about keeping the guns they had, a sentiment that later translated into the Second Amendment. Big difference.
In my mind, no particular biggie but here's the bigger problem: Sarah just can't let it go and so makes a statement in which she appears to defend the "warn the British" flub. Sarah, learn how to say nothing and move on.
melmjo| 6.6.11 @ 2:56AM
She didn't get it totally right but she didn't get it totally wrong either. There is some historic truth to what she said. In any event right or wrong it doesn't mean she deserves to be scewered by the media. Why are they so affraid of her??
Stu Gates| 6.14.11 @ 9:21AM
who says anyone is afraid of her? That is urban legend. The media is obsessed with her however. The media loves frivolous loud mouths like Paris Hilton, the Kardashians and Palin when there are much more important things to focus on.
ben| 8.6.11 @ 9:14AM
I agree they are not afraid, Palin simply supplies a story for the day. She is an interesting case.
Stu Gates| 6.14.11 @ 9:19AM
Obama messed up on that one but he did admit he was wrong. That's the difference. Palin still insists Paul Revere was riding around firing a shot gun and ringing bells warning the British. We all make mistakes, just fess up.
ben| 8.6.11 @ 9:11AM
I think that many people find Sarah Palin mistakes funnier because she just sounds less intelligent to put it bluntly (i personally think she is) we've got to remember that it isn't necessarily talent that gets you to the whitehouse, its often vast amounts of money at your disposal. We are not run by geniuses, we are run by people with money, and that will never change I promise you.