Paul Revere’s ride was to warn the British...According to Sarah Palin

Quote from bugscoe:

And I don't see how insisting she was wrong is any better.

If people are going to base her intelligence on information they themselves have wrong, who are the idiots?

And irrelevant? It's the basis for the entire attack on her regarding this matter. Go look at the historical text written by Revere.

You're falling into the factual suck hole the media and gov want's all Americans to be. They make up shit to smear people and them tell them the correct information is irrelevant when it comes to light.

I don't care if you don't like her but at least be intellectual honest with what is happening here. It's the same shit they pull on everyone and when they end up with their tiny little feet in their big teet sucking mouths they stick their faux intellectual heads up their asses and mums the word.
More...

This is the same type of garbage reasoning some use to say that Obama does not really think there are 57 states.
 
Quote from Ricter:

This is the same type of garbage reasoning some use to say that Obama does not really think there are 57 states.
More...

In once case what was said is true.

In the other it is not.

Which one are you going with?
 
Quote from bugscoe:

In once case what was said is true.

In the other it is not.

Which one are you going with?
More...

Suit yourself, the truth be damned; it's what you do best.
 
Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Palin flubs explanation of Paul Revere’s ride
More...

Quote from bugscoe:

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As everyone now knows, such a splashy gaffe can effectively doom any chance a candidate has of winning two terms in the White House.
More...
 
"Part of his ride was to warn the British that we're already there." -Sarah Palin


Warning the British was not part of his ride /mission,he only warned the British after he got caught while trying to avoid capture by the British
 
Sarah Palin on Paul Revere: Expert or Ignoramus?

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




Sarah Palin said this about Paul Revere:

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



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

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

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

Her explanation, however, just isn’t believable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Indeed, Revere did exactly that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What she should have done is own up to her mistake and perhaps poke a little fun at Biden and herself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top