For real?

[dwmoeller1]

Technically speaking Palin was right in that Revere was warning the British due to the fact that most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects, though it doesn't appear that is point she is making.

That works only if you take part of her statement. It's not that (according to Palin) the British were being warned but that they were being warned against taking "our" guns.
"He who warned, uh, the ... the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells and, um, by making sure that as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free ... and we were gonna be armed."


There is
-"they" which is the British who are trying to take the arms and
- there is "we" who's arms are in question which can only be the colonists.
Clearly in her statement the "British" cannot be the colonists. So while your technicality is correct, it does not fix her basic error. She is not even technically correct.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

But, then again, I am not asking people to trust me with their votes.

Nor is Palin. She's not running for office.

Palin's error was just a misstatement in a speech where she was speaking off the cuff. There's no need to nitpick.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Nor is Palin. She's not running for office.

Palin's error was just a misstatement in a speech where she was speaking off the cuff. There's no need to nitpick.

Except for the fact that she insists her statement was accurate. Her mistake has some interesting elements to it (for one, the fact that it was more than just a misstatement) but the truly intereting part about this incident is those (including now, Palin herself) that insist there was no mistake.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I admit I committed a typo, she insists she was right. Her clarification was more muddled than her 'off the cuff' remarks. Why didn't she just admit she blew it?

 

[righteousdude2]

Great Question. And I Have Another!

:type:

I admit I committed a typo, she insists she was right. Her clarification was more muddled than her 'off the cuff' remarks. Why didn't she just admit she blew it?

I have an even better question...why doesn't Obama admit his errors? Very few pols admit their errors, which makes them even more arrogant. That old saying that to say you're sorry is a sign of weakness, is not Biblical.

Can you imagine the support this nation maight give to a politican that can come before them and admit they "just blew it!"? What a novel, refreshing act of public humility that would be!

Pastor Paul :type:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

:type:

I have an even better question...why doesn't Obama admit his errors? Very few pols admit their errors, which makes them even more arrogant. That old saying that to say you're sorry is a sign of weakness, is not Biblical.

Can you imagine the support this nation maight give to a politican that can come before them and admit they "just blew it!"? What a novel, refreshing act of public humility that would be!

Pastor Paul :type:

I agree, but that does not explain why the 'darling of the right' can't be 'the better man' and set an example. Does the right really think that we should take our example from the left?

 

[dwmoeller1]

:type:

I have an even better question...why doesn't Obama admit his errors? Very few pols admit their errors, which makes them even more arrogant. That old saying that to say you're sorry is a sign of weakness, is not Biblical.

Can you imagine the support this nation maight give to a politican that can come before them and admit they "just blew it!"? What a novel, refreshing act of public humility that would be!

Pastor Paul :type:

FWIW the day after the 57 states gaffe, Obama did admit he made a mistake. Generally you will find that even politicians will go ahead and admit they were wrong when they misspeak. On the bigger stuff they may never admit anything, but on the little and obvious stuff they grant the mistake if only not to look even more foolish.

Palin and many of her supporters in the other hand twsit logic into pretzels to even avoid admitting to some little misspeak. She can't even handle the usual politician evasion of being vague as possible to avoid saying anything meaningful.

 

[mandym]

Some people need to get a life.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Some people need to get a life.

I could not agree more

 

[HankD]

Did Governor Palin really explain Paul Revere's ride as Revere warning the British?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oS4C7bvHv2w

No, on the other hand, did the President really think it was 2008 on his official visit to the UK?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-signs-Westminster-Abbey-guestbook-2008.html

HankD

 

[glfredrick]

Maybe I am showing my own stupidity here - I googled Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and don't understand her relevance.

While I think 'stupid' may be too harsh a word for Gov Palin, I would agree that I think there must be someone more capable to run for president on the GOP ticket. She has done little to convince me that she has the ability to serve. The is not the first time she has appeared confused and befuddled by simple questions.

Um, let's see...

She was elected the governor of Alaska
She was nominated to the VP spot on the GOP ticket last election cycle
She has since parlayed a rather mundane income bracket into a multi-million dollar venture
She has become a household name
She has the power to energize the conservative base (which is the biggest reason that liberal entities are so nervous about her)
And, yes, she sometimes mis-speaks, as do all candidates and office holders (aka "Mr. Tele-Prompter," otherwise known as the President of the United States).

Sounds really stupid to me... :thumbs:

Don't believe every smear piece that originates with the NYT or other liberal media outlet. They often search for the one snippet that will sound bite which may or may not be in context of the entire transcript of Palin's (or any other conservative candidate's) presentation.

About the Paul Revere thing... Has anyone actually taken a moment to get past the sound bite to see what Palin was trying to communicate (which had nothing to do with Revere, or with the faulty parsing of the media)? She was saying that Revere was sending a signal to the Brits that America was not going to back down -- he was engaged in courier activity that was intended to lead to the American ability to war against the most powerful nation on the earth in that era. She was not technically incorrect, but she did not repeat the childhood quip about Revere, which is why what she said so stands out.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I admit I committed a typo

And, normally, a typo would not be a big deal. However, when you do so in the context of calling somebody else stupid, that tends to make it a much more glaring error.

she insists she was right. Her clarification was more muddled than her 'off the cuff' remarks. Why didn't she just admit she blew it?

I taught history at both the high school and college levels for several years. If somebody in my class gave that explanation, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Evidently, neither would other historians, as several have come out in her defense:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The two video clips speak for themselves. Any unbiased party listening to them could hardly be inspired to see her as a potential leader.

BTW, read my posts again. I never called Gov Palin stupid.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Not to derail, but so far I really like what I see from Herman Cain.

http://www.hermancain.com/

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The two video clips speak for themselves. Any unbiased party listening to them could hardly be inspired to see her as a potential leader.

"Leader" of what? She's not running for anything.

BTW, read my posts again. I never called Gov Palin stupid.

I read them. Your meaning was clear.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Not to derail, but so far I really like what I see from Herman Cain.

http://www.hermancain.com/

So far, the only thing I don't like about Cain is that he won't go after the Fed. I like the fact that he's in favor of the fair tax.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

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...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...alin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

 

[glfredrick]

The two video clips speak for themselves. Any unbiased party listening to them could hardly be inspired to see her as a potential leader.

BTW, read my posts again. I never called Gov Palin stupid.

You cited people who did...

 

[righteousdude2]

Of Course You Didn't Call Her Stupid!

The two video clips speak for themselves. Any unbiased party listening to them could hardly be inspired to see her as a potential leader.

BTW, read my posts again. I never called Gov Palin stupid.

However, your post was meant to shine a light on her so called error, and in so doing, I can see (by reading between the lines) that you did intend to infer that she wasn't too bright, when itcomes to history!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

However, your post was meant to shine a light on her so called error, and in so doing, I can see (by reading between the lines) that you did intend to infer that she wasn't too bright, when itcomes to history!

However to claim that I called her stupid is simply a failure to be truthful. In fact, I think at one point I said that 'stupid' was too harsh a word. She seemed confused and befuddled by a simple question and seemed so intent on getting a sound bite about gun control that she stumbled over the basic facts. Folks have tried to explain it away and talk about how later, after his arrest he told the British that the colonists were arming, but that had nothing to do with the 'um, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells...' That was clearly referring to his warning of the colonists during his 'midnight ride.'

The reality is the the famous poem was not totally accurate. It now appears that the real hero was William Dawes. We don't know exactly what happened, but from every indication Paul Revere did not '"...warn[ed] uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

She had a chance to explain herself, but sounded even more confused.

Fair enough, if she is indeed doing this only as a private citizen that is one thing. Posters are correct, she is not technically running for anything. But, as a historical traditional conservative I find it embarrassing that she is claiming to be the spokesperson for my political persuasion.

She had a chance to make this right by simply saying, 'You know what, I was caught off guard by the question and did not think though my answer. Here is what I meant...'

What a class act that would have been for a noted private citizen.