The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Think Progress Flubs Revere History in Zapping Palin

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Think Progress Flubs Revere History in Zapping Palin

By Jeffrey Lord on 6.4.11 @ 6:09PM

Before we begin -- a brief biographical note.

I grew up in Massachusetts. And as with most schoolchildren of the day those of us who went to the public school system were schooled -- OK awash in -- Massachusetts history. Life began not with Adam and Eve but the Pilgrims and the Red Sox. In between there was that small event called the American Revolution. You learned all about the latter -- physically by walking the Freedom Trail and going to places like Paul Revere's home -- and in literature. This meant every fifth grader (and I could be wrong but I think this was literally a standard across the state) had to memorize Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's classic poem: The Landlord's Tale: Paul Revere's Ride. At the least it was a standard in Mrs. Nagel's classroom and woe betide if you were unprepared on recitation day!

Now it seems that our liberal friends over at Think Progress are pulling the latest Sarah Palin-is- dumb-routine over her reference to Paul Revere's ride (the same "this Republican is dumb" routine they have been pulling on Republicans since the days when they called Lincoln a "baboon." One could ask how dumb is it in America to have a 9.1 unemployment rate, but I digress).

So everybody at Think Progress is having a nice chortle at Palin's expense for supposedly screwing up her history. Or, as Think Progress says, "Sarah Palin Flubs American History."

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Wait just a minute here. What is it that Think Progress writes?

The site says this -- and I have placed the bad history of Think Progress in bold print:

Seemingly moved by the historic importance of Boston, Palin decided to recognize the city's own Paul Revere and his famous "Midnight Ride" in which he hung two lanterns and rode to Lexington to warn Patriot leaders that the British army was arriving "by sea."

Er…no.

Paul Revere did not hang any lanterns at all. While I could tell you plainly, or you could check here with the Paul Revere House website let's let Longfellow do it in his legendary verse that I still remember. To double-check I have relied on The Poems of Longfellow as published by Modern Library -- the very book which I was given to memorize the poem. And to help the historically challenged at Think Progress who think Governor Palin is historically illiterate, let me again put the appropriate -- and accurate -- historical fact in bold print.

He said to his friend, 'If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light, -
One, if by land, and two, if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country-folk to be up and to arm.

In other words, Paul Revere didn't hang a solitary lantern in the belfry arch of the North Church. That assignment was given to "his friend." Why? Because Revere could not possibly be in two places at the same time. He couldn't "hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch" while at the same time "on the opposite shore will be, ready to ride and spread the alarm, Through every Middlesex village and farm, For the country-folk to be up and to arm."

What's the real news in this little reality check?

Think Progress…well…ah…flubs American history.

And these people think Sarah Palin is dumb?

View all comments (68) | Leave a comment

Joe R.| 6.4.11 @ 6:27PM

Sarah Palin is an elected official possibly running for President. Think Progress is just a website with a few bloggers. Whose flub matters more? Exactly...I am stunned that she continues to hurt our party this way. Why couldn't she be a Liberal?

Kent Ramsay| 6.4.11 @ 7:46PM

Joe R.

I would proudly pull the lever for Sarah Palin. I would move rather than live next door to you.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:34AM

Palin doesn't hurt our party but an unthinking doofus like you does.

sister frances| 6.6.11 @ 9:15AM

Sarah Palin for President - Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Seems to me there are enough republicans that some of you could help this woman - wjhere are you!!!!!

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 1:45PM

Palin's been proven correct, loser.

Poor Richard| 6.4.11 @ 6:30PM

Palin was right about more than that! Complete analysis and history here: http://poorrichardsnews.com/po.....he-british

DRed| 6.4.11 @ 6:59PM

Seriously, it's just common sense. How could he hang hung a lantern up while he was riding across the country side ringing bells and sending those warning shots to warn the British?

DRed| 6.4.11 @ 6:59PM

I meant 'have hung'

Jeffrey Lord| 6.4.11 @ 8:12PM

Too late.

You're obviously not qualified to be president!!!!

Next!!!! You...um...Obama is it? Liberal are you? Uh-huh. I see, What? You've visited all 57 states?
Nooooooooo problem!!! Come on down! My God, you're a genius! The One! Say, I forget, is it Puerto Rico, Guam or Canada that was number 57?

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:35AM

Hang hung? That's a new one on me, troll. LOL

Bk1313| 6.4.11 @ 7:50PM

so, you're pointing out that she's even dumber than Think Progress thought??

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:37AM

Palin is going to be our next POTUS. Stick that in your crackpipe and smoke it, hippy.

Ethan| 6.4.11 @ 7:53PM

Poor liberals. Listen to Pain in her own words--and decide for yourself who's dumb!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

LJ| 6.4.11 @ 8:17PM

You missed the point. The main inaccuracy in what Sarah Palin said was that Paul Revere was warning the British. Nope. I also suggest that you actually watch the video of what she said; she stammers and fumbles, and obviously is over her head again.

comfy| 6.5.11 @ 1:43PM

Paul Revere DID warn the British army when he was detained by them on the night of his famous ride. Perhaps y'all should study your history a bit before calling others dumb.
Quoting Revere's account: answering questions posed by British officers "I knew what they were after; that I had alarmed the country all the way up, that their boats were caught aground, and I should have 500 men there soon."
Find more facts here: http://paul-revere-heritage.com/index.html

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:40AM

Sarah sure didn't stammer in her interview with Chris Wallace today. In fact, CW raved about Palin's masterful performance and said she's a serious contender for the presidency.

I'm still laughing at Oblunder's toast debacle! May 24, 2008 anyone? haha

Grey| 6.4.11 @ 8:26PM

She flunked. Live with it, I wouldn't trust Palin since her recall of history is worse than a fifth grader. Most neocons who follow her are nothing more than older MILF stalkers who, like Palin, are morons like the idiots in the movie
"Mom & Dad Save the World". I wouldn't elect her for dog catcher. She is a simpleton with a loud mouth. Sorry, moderator, but the truth hurts.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:43AM

You know what hurts, troll? 9.1% unemployment, $4-5 a gal gas, skyrocketing food prices, a third war and crushing national debt.

The stupid clown in the White House is the simpleton with the loud mouth, pervert.

s bennett| 6.6.11 @ 9:09AM

you sir are clearly a moron.At the very least palin was a successful governor.

Bill589| 6.4.11 @ 10:15PM

Sarah was right with her statement on Paul Revere. She gave us all a history lesson. People who comment here should do some research of their own.

Does anyone think that those who called Palin dumb, even though she was right, will do some research, come back, and apologize? Me neither.

Ore Gone| 6.4.11 @ 10:19PM

I just want someone with common sense. You know someone that doesn't need a warning sign to tell them fire is hot! The people who call her dumb wouldn't be able to stay alive without someone telling them what to do and providing for them. In rural america they are called City'diots. They think wild animals are just mean because we encroach upon them. I think you could just call them losers or progressives.

beebop| 6.5.11 @ 6:51AM

The people who call her dumb are scared to death of her and ignore the problems in their own party. At their own peril. How's 9.1% working for you? (or, in this case, 9.1% NOT WORKING)

Stan Redmond| 6.6.11 @ 9:40AM

Heck, the people who call Sarah dumb need other people to tell them she is dumb.

And on the other hand Obama is so brilliant he only appears to be stupid to us country stooges;
57 states, inhilators and breathalyzers, May 24 2008, US DVDs to a blind Brit, just take the pill, just get a new car, Zelaya the Marxist, I didn't hear anything my pastor of 20 years said, Bush deficits bad but mine have saved the economy, uh umm, eh, uh, stutter, stammer, teleprompter to address 6th graders, etc etc etc...

paperview| 6.4.11 @ 10:41PM

This is hilarious. You ridicule Think Progress (which I have not seen, only going by what you posted) for historical inaccuracies, and you refer to Longfellows poem?? Really?

The Poem was deliberately manufactured to create a legend. Longfellows poem is not the place to go for accuracy. I would think if you're going to ridicule, you should get your facts straight.

The historical Paul Revere did not receive the lantern signal, but actually was the one who ordered it to be set up. You're own citation to the Paul Revere house says as much, if you'd read it.

Jeffrey Lord| 6.4.11 @ 11:39PM

Hello?

Not only did I read it...I grew up with the story. To "order" something done is not the same as doing it yourself. Order...um...means tell someone else. Not only did I read the citation - I've been there.

Geez Louise.

viewperpay| 6.4.11 @ 11:50PM

In fact Revere knew that the British soldiers were coming by sea before he was anywhere near the church, and certainly had not instructed anyone to signal him with lanterns. Longfellow was deliberately taking some liberties with the story for dramatic effect.

Palin comes out looking relatively good here I think. She was put on the spot and helpless to avoid having her cluelessness about American history revealed. But Tanya over at TP was not only clueless about American history, she didn't even have the sense to make a quick trip through google to check her facts.

Even worse, not only was Jeffery here at TAS also ignorant, and also lacking the sense to use google to check his facts, he came up with his bogus history by mistaking a poem for a history book.

Fortunately being dumber than Palin won't get anyone fired from either Think Progress or The American Spectator.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:44AM

Get a grip, people--it was a throwaway line! Has everyone lost their freakin' minds?

Oldbull| 6.5.11 @ 2:32AM

Viewperpay, so are you also saying that the Paul Revere website is wrong? Because that site is clearly referenced in Lord's comments. And if you're saying that Lord, Longfellow, and the Revere site are all wrong, please furnish a specific site that supports your point.

viewperpay| 6.5.11 @ 3:01PM

First of all, it's a POEM. Anyone citing a poem as a source of historical fact is doing nothing but making himself look like a clown.

Second, it's a poem for which we know the author *deliberately* took liberties with the facts in order to make the poem more dramatic.

Third, the web site doesn't back up the poem. Quite the opposite. The lanterns weren't a signal *to* Paul Revere ... except in the poem. He wasn't watching for the signal from the opposite shore. Sorry, it's just not historically accurate. And it's also not what the web site says. For that matter you can check any number of other sources (actual historical references, not poems or fiction) if you really care.

Truth to Power| 6.5.11 @ 7:03PM

These are some good ideas on how we should test how brain child President. Once we get him squared away on how many states we have we will try some history. What kind of people follow a clueless leader like Obama? People who are even shallower. Next year anybody will be able to beat him. We need to think about who we want.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:45AM

Sarah Palin.

zadoc| 6.5.11 @ 4:19AM

Check out this poll. Can you decide which thing Sarah Palin really said? lol
POLL: http://www.wepolls.com/r/434373
This chick needs to go back to school.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:46AM

Crawl back under your rock, slimeball.

martin j smith| 6.5.11 @ 7:52AM

Retarded Regressive points to two theories I have about the Socialist view of Palin:
Conventional wisdom theory #1 is that they hate her and what she stands for and will do and say anything to destroy her because they fear her.
Unconventional theory #2--Socialists don't despise her as much as they disdain or look down up her as they do the rest of US. Bot they believe that she is so beatable that in this theory Palin will rebell more the more Socialists attack her thus "assuring" her participation in the Presidential Campaign and thus splitting the Repub Party. This idea is not necessarily mutually
exclusive.
I believe that what Socialists have and continue to underestimate is the anger out there is the nation and that more and more voters see right thru their tactics. 2012 IS NOT 2008. Obama has a record and it is DISMAL.

Let me point out one other thing: If John Boehner or any other big name Repub says or does things that are viewed as " sell outs" then I will Predict Romney will absolutely be OUT and I strongly believe Palin may be it.

Mal| 6.5.11 @ 10:47PM

Mr Smith - do you even understand what socialism is and how many different varieties there are? Obviously not, because anyone with a modicum of knowledge would be able to tell that President Obama's administration is not socialist. The passing of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy proved that.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:46AM

I think the Bamster is a flat out Marxist--always have.

martin j smith| 6.5.11 @ 8:01AM

See Gateway Pundit post on a NYT article which quotes Howard Dean stating that Palin could beat Obama-- it is very interesting the way it is worded but it plays into theory #2 above. --maybe.
In any event--never take a Politicians word at face value.

gearjammer| 6.5.11 @ 8:08AM

On the Laura Ingram show David Brooks said he liked Obama in 2008 because he " spoke intelligently about the issues". Sarah Pallin does not always do this-she sounded like an airhead. However, what we need is a president who "acts intelligently " on the issues. That is not Obama. A further example is one David Cicilline-former Mayor of Providence Rhode Island and now Congressman. He has a fancy education and is a lawyer and boy can he talk smart. As Mayor he did not " act" so smart and bankrupted the city. Sarah P as a Mayor and Guv ' as an actual executive danced rings around Mr. Cicilline and he performance as Mayer. But, while he was in office, the media, the chattering class paid no attention to what the reality was in the city. He talked smart-how you talk and look is all that matters in their superficial and self flattering world. Talking smart and looking smart and good are the highest achievments because that is what they do. Still Pallin sounded like a 50 something valley girl. She gets all excited and babbles-give up on her. But, you won't just like you all still insist that cupcake in Delaware was Senate material.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:47AM

Sarah's in her forties, moron.

Bob| 6.5.11 @ 8:21AM

Trivia question for Sarah Palin:
The American Revolution was fought between whom?
a.) Americans and Germans
b.) Americans and Japanese
c.) Eskimos and Russians
d.) Custer and Indians
e.) both a & b

Answer:
c.)
Palin can see Russia from her front door step and her husband is an eskimo.

beebop| 6.5.11 @ 1:27PM

From here we can see that you have the usual amount of liberal tolerance ... that is to say zilch -- unless of course it is for those with whom you agree simply by being a D ....

Lee| 6.5.11 @ 4:07PM

"Palin can see Russia from her front door step and her husband is an eskimo."

Uh, sorry, Bob. That line came from Tina Fey on SNL.

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.5.11 @ 7:21PM

Tina Fey put a lot of other words in Palin's mouth but the ones that people came to believe were really said by Palin were the ones that sounded like Palin.

When Palin doesn't know the answer to something she doesn't have the sense to admit it, or even to change the subject. Instead she tries to bluff her way through it like an unprepared high school sophomore trying to bluff her way through a book report, thinking that if she just throws enough words out there then she'll be able to fool the teacher into thinking that she actually did read the book.

Even funnier is how her most devoted of followers will then scramble to find a way to defend whatever she said.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:49AM

Sarah doesn't need defending but the total, abject failure in the White House sure does. Care to give it a try?

wodiej| 6.6.11 @ 8:38AM

What exactly did she not know the answer to? Did you see her on Chris Wallace yesterday? Apparently NOT.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 1:47PM

Sarah kicked a$$ and took names. Excellent interview.

Sarah's Club| 6.5.11 @ 7:49PM

Bob and Tina got it only part right. Palin saw Russia when she was jumping up and down on Piper's pogo stick.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:49AM

At least she doesn't fly around on a broom like Mooochele.

Katie Did| 6.5.11 @ 10:00PM

So what Lee, it's still funny and no doubt the answer this idiot would give. What she did say was that you can see Russia from her country and SNL did a play on words. Get it?

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:50AM

I'm sure you've done it a lot, Katy Did it all.

s bennett| 6.6.11 @ 9:13AM

This is getting as bad as slate. Be very,very afraid.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 1:48PM

Of what?

JimH| 6.5.11 @ 8:22AM

Revere did in fact warn the British...http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/06/so-now-all-these-people-will-apologize.html

martin j smith| 6.5.11 @ 10:10AM

Bob--How much is Obama paying you a) 1 $
b) 500$
c)1,000$
d) 10,000$
Answer: all of the above.

wodiej| 6.6.11 @ 8:36AM

lol

David W| 6.5.11 @ 11:31AM

Actually I read someplace that Longfellow's "The ride of Paul Revere" was more myth than fact.

Of course, we all know that Republicans and/or Conservatives are so dumb. After all we can't pronounce corpsman, we say there are 57 states in the Union, we say that we have to sign a bill before we can find out what is in it, we forget that this is 2011 and sign a guest book with 2008, and we don't know how to properly say a toast and end up talking over another country's anthem.

Obviously if Republicans/Conservatives were to do the above they would be disqualified from holding public office... But since Democrats are the ones who say those things they are perfectly qualified.

viewperpay| 6.5.11 @ 2:06PM

More myth than fact? It's a poem! Anyone who cites it as if it were historical fact is immediately disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.

I'm a liberal, or at least that's how you would categorize me. The idea that Palin is frightening is just silly. She polls very poorly with independents and moderates, and her attempt to answer a softball question about Paul Revere tells you all you need to know about why she avoids interviews everywhere other than Fox. I'm not trying to talk you out of nominating her, I'm just laughing at the way her followers defend her.

Who would be less electable than Palin? Maybe Bachmann, who has her own problems getting facts straight, or Santorum who has an even narrower base of support than Palin.

Even Pawlenty, who makes drying paint seem fascinating, would be a more formidable candidate than Palin. Or if you want someone who really frightens liberals look at Cain. Cain lacks political experience but nobody thinks he's dumb. He doesn't shy away from interviews with anyone, and if you want to know why liberals are afraid of him just go look at how he handles any liberal interviewer who goes into the interview thinking he's just another Palin.

Romney's might be too much of a RINO for your tastes but you can't deny that he doesn't get tripped up by tough questions, and with softball questions that Palin can't handle he knocks them out of the park.

I guess on the "even less electable than Palin" side you could add Trump, who was never anything more than a joke, and Newt, who imploded on his first day and then apparently went into hiding. And Ron Paul who is a nutcase with a very narrow base. Nobody thinks these three are dumb in the slightest, they're just horrible candidates.

I do hope you'll read all of this as evidence that the one I'm *really* afraid of is Palin, and choose her as the nominee. It would help Obama, help Democrats have a chance of holding on to the Senate, and as a bonus, give the world more of Tina Fey's comedy.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:51AM

See you on Sarah's Inauguration Day in 2013, clown.

wodiej| 6.6.11 @ 8:35AM

The fact that you are a liberal and find no one comparable to Obama squashes any opinion you have on the matter. You obviously cannot be objective.

bill| 6.5.11 @ 4:55PM

Touche! Well written and much appreciated to set the record straight! Thank you!

Clint| 6.5.11 @ 10:23PM

"Obama, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., 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, Ala., 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."

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.6.11 @ 12:13AM

Oh, snap! What can we conclude from this, other than the obvious: if Obama is ignorant of history and tends to shoot off his mouth without knowing what he's taking about, then the Republicans might as well nominate someone who is also ignorant of history and tends to shoot off her mouth without knowing what she's talking about. Because Republicans have no reason to aspire to be any better than Democrats, obviously. Go Palin!

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:53AM

Sarah will be a far better president than the failure that is Obama.

Mal| 6.5.11 @ 10:38PM

Oh I should have realised immediately that those damn liberals over at Think Progress would try this. What do they mean by not going to an historically accurate source like Longfellow! What a fool I've been.

NoLib| 6.6.11 @ 12:54AM

Glad to see you've finally admitted your stupidity, moron.

wodiej| 6.6.11 @ 8:33AM

Gov. Palin is making fools of these libs without even breaking a sweat. This is what happens to libs who are indoctrinated by Soros, Alinsky and socialism instead of American History in colleges. Wake up and smell the PATRIOTISM.

lolwut?| 6.9.11 @ 3:54PM

Historians agree: Paul Revere did not warn the British with bells and warning shots. Period. Weighing in on Palin’s persistent gaffe, The Many Rides of Paul Revere author James Giblin notes that Revere “wasn’t really warning the British when he was a captive.” “He was just, in a way, boasting about the capabilities of Americans” in what Boston University’s Brendan McConville called “an effort to intimidate” the British. Regarding Palin, McConville stated that “it was an extremely complicated situation which she sort of regurgitated in a garbled way.” But one thing is clear. “He didn’t warn the British,” states Giblin. “That’s her most obvious blooper.”