Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
What a bitch.

Looks like Palin was right after all.
I am sure all the people who made fun of her will not run out to the cameras to apologize.
Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.

Palin prompted howls of partisan derision when she said on Boston’s Freedom Trail that Revere “warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure 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.”

Palin insisted yesterday on Fox News Sunday she was right: “Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms.”

In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British.

“I suppose you could say that,” Leehey said. “But I don’t know if that’s really what Mrs. Palin was referring to.”

McConville said he also is not convinced that Palin’s remarks reflect scholarship.

“I would call her lucky in her comments,” McConville said.

Meanwhile, the state’s Democratic Party held a thin blue line on the issue, insisting on mocking Palin despite a brief historical review of the matter. State party chairman John Walsh wise-cracked that the region welcomes all tourists, even those with “an alternative view of history.”

“If you believe he was riding through the countryside sending text messages and Tweets to the British, still come to Boston,” he said. “There are a lot of things to do and see.”

But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog Legalinsurrection.com, said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us...right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/

And here is a bit of a letter written by Paul Revere himself!
http://www.masshist.org/database/im...p=1&tpc=&pid=&mode=transcript&tpc=&pid=#page1
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made 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 affirmative. 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.

BTW I am not a Palin fan and wish she would go away, but the way the media goes after her is unforgivable.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
From the LA Times
Good piece on how the media mishandles lots of things and makes people look bad when they shouldn't.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...alin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html
You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid?
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, 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.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
So Sarah Palin alone knew that Paul Revere intentionally was captured by the British so that he could warn them of the colonists' mobilization...
 
Last edited:

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
Come on. She is an airhead. She was struggling for an answer and grasping at straws. She had no confidence in the way she gave her answer. This is worse than the morons who backed Obama when he said visiting all 57 states and trying to say the US has 7 territories on top of the 50 states.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Come on. She is an airhead. She was struggling for an answer and grasping at straws. She had no confidence in the way she gave her answer. This is worse than the morons who backed Obama when he said visiting all 57 states and trying to say the US has 7 territories on top of the 50 states.
She got the answer right though?

And all the people in the media who made fun of her got it wrong.

It would be one thing if the media made fun of her how she answered the question, but instead they made fun of her answer when in fact she was right.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
So Sarah Palin alone knew that Paul Revere intentionally was captured by the British so that he could warn them of the colonists's mobilization...

He was not intentionally captured.

When he was captured riding with Dawes after alerting the Town of Concord; Revere told the British that the colonialists knew the British were coming out of Boston and were preparing to meet them.

That information did not get to the British troops in time; ending with the British being routed at the North Bridge in Concord.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,594
54,520
136
Wow, the lengths people are going through for this moron are amazing. Even if we ignore all the other things in her statement about Paul Revere that were wrong (the bells, shots, etc), his boast when being captured is now some sort of warning to the British. Hell, even the historian in your linked article was basically like 'well, I guess someone could conceivably make that argument'. That's quite a ringing endorsement there.

Sarah Palin has no one to blame but herself. She is a media whore, through and through, and she constantly invites derision by saying incredibly stupid things. She's just playing to the conservative culture of victimhood.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
He was not intentionally captured.
When he was captured riding with Dawes after alerting the Town of Concord; Revere told the British that the colonialists knew the British were coming out of Boston and were preparing to meet them.
That information did not get to the British troops in time; ending with the British being routed at the North Bridge in Concord.
Methinks your sarcasm meter in dire need of recalibration.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
She's obviously just a misunderstood genius. I encourage everyone to vote for Trump and Palin as write in candidates.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The Palin idea that the British would or could be intimidated at the beginning of what would be a 5 year insurgency is somewhat a stretch but a tiny bit true.

And even if the press over reacted this time, I have faith in Sarah, next time she opens her yap to rewrite history, its unlikely she will find any defense. With Sarah, her foot is never very distant from her mouth. By now I am quite surprised Sarah can't blow through her toes and make them sound like a Harmonica.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
She got the answer right though?

And all the people in the media who made fun of her got it wrong.

It would be one thing if the media made fun of her how she answered the question, but instead they made fun of her answer when in fact she was right.
Their criticism was not intended to address the facts of what she said. :whiste:
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,836
2,620
136
Palin is a stereotypical blowhard idiot. When she says something especially stupid, she then recasts along the lines of "what I really said/meant to say was ..." and then comes up with a version of what she said before, except that the new version, very charitably interpreted, could be considered partially correct.


To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, is this the sort of person who want to be answering the phone in the White House at 3 AM when an emergency arises?

And to paraphrase Art Linkletter, Palin says the darnest things.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
jackstar7 said:
This needed its own thread?


^^^Yes, the Palin fans that love her and support her must have their revenge on the gotcha posters.

Let's count how many of them show up.
 
Last edited:

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
She was factually incorrect. His ride was to warn the US colonists, not to warn the British. After he got captured he told the British that the Americans would fight back, it was not his intent to do that during his ride.

That said this is a completely stupid issue that really did not deserve another thread.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,594
54,520
136
Someone explain the difference between how Palin answered her question and how Obama acted after the teleprompter died.
Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w

Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU

They both sound like idiots, and yet the media only calls out one of them.
The way the media talks about Palin is shameful.

Because Palin has done it over, and over, and over again.

When Palin does it it's part of a pattern of repeated, incredibly stupid behavior. When Obama slips up it's the exception rather than the rule. As rational human beings, we treat them differently. The only real crime against journalism in this case would be to treat them as one and the same.

Palin gets less derision than she deserves, the media is excessively cowed by constant right wing declarations of nonexistent media bias.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
She was factually incorrect. His ride was to warn the US colonists, not to warn the British. After he got captured he told the British that the Americans would fight back, it was not his intent to do that during his ride.

That said this is a completely stupid issue that really did not deserve another thread.
The colonists were technically British at the time, so how can she be wrong? :p She's an idiot. I just wish people would quit giving her press.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
^ I agree that she is an idiot and that she should go away.

But the media shouldn't be given a free pass in their attempts to destroy her. There has never been a more concerted effort to destroy a politician than the one we are seeing used again Palin.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
1. Assert something contrary to reality
2. Double down when called on it
3. Create a controversy
4. Exploit what is now a two-sided argument
5. Profit

Old tricks are still the best tricks I guess.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,594
54,520
136
^ I agree that she is an idiot and that she should go away.

But the media shouldn't be given a free pass in their attempts to destroy her. There has never been a more concerted effort to destroy a politician than the one we are seeing used again Palin.

The press isn't attempting to destroy her, they cover her because it gets ratings. She gets ratings in good part because she does stupid things like this.

Stop with the culture of victimhood.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
^ I agree that she is an idiot and that she should go away.

But the media shouldn't be given a free pass in their attempts to destroy her. There has never been a more concerted effort to destroy a politician than the one we are seeing used again Palin.

lol, okay. Obviously she's complicit because she keeps acting like an imbecile.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
The news cycle is just exploiting ratings. They built Palin up and currently they are destroying Palin. It's all a mindless game for profit, and altogether pathetic.