While Sarah Palin said today she still doesn?t know whether she?ll run for president in 2012, she said she?s certain about something else -- her American history.
Palin attracted some attention last week during her bus tour up the Eastern seaboard for saying that Paul Revere actually warned the British and not the colonists ahead of the Revolutionary War.
?You know what, I didn?t mess up about Paul Revere,? Palin said in an interview of ?Fox News Sunday.? Here?s what Paul revere did, he warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming, and they were going to try to take our arms away and we gotta make sure that we were protecting ourselves and shoring up all our ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn?t take them, but remember that the British had already been there.?
Here?s how Palin re-told the classic Revolutionary War-era story last week while visiting Revere?s house in Boston:
"He who warned 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," the former Alaska governor said.
As ABC News' Sheila Marikar reported last week, Revere did not ring bells on his midnight ride, which was in fact a covert mission to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams about the approaching British army.
But when pressed by Fox News? Chris Wallace on Sunday about her interpretation of American history, Palin insisted that she got the story right. She continued by saying that Revere was a courier and didn?t make just one ride.
?Part of his ride was to warn the British that we were already there, that hey, you?re not going to succeed,? Palin said. ?You?re not gonna take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well armed persons, individual private militia that we have. He did warn the British.?
Palin wrote off the occurrence as a ?shout-out, gotcha? question, telling Wallace that she knows her American history.
Palin also said that President Obama isn?t doing enough to utilize domestic energy sources, such as oil reserves.
?It does come down to ?drill, baby, drill,? in addition to an ?all of the above? energy policy that really is non-existent in the Obama administration,? Palin said.
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Sarah's fan base apparently wants to make anything Sarah says history........
the article is now partially locked.
Good find and completely true IMO.
Sarah Palin's stumble over revolutionary history has prompted a scuffle on Wikipedia's "Paul Revere" entry, between editors on the site and Palin fans seeking to back up her description of Revere's midnight ride. One user advises:
If you want to find a source to work into the article, you should search for sources that agree with what Palin said BEFORE she said it. Sarah Palin doesn't belong in this article, because it's an article about Paul Revere not about Sarah Palin, but if you want to bolster her position retroactively you just need to go back to anything released a week ago or more.
The Revere flap ? like so much about Palin's bus tour last week ? is a reminder that unlike other potential 2012 candidates, Palin has a sizable fan base that will never desert her, or even acknowledge that she's made a mistake.
History Lesson: Paul Revere Warned British with Lots of Bells
Remember Paul Revere? American hero. Super patriot. Beer maker. Wait, that's Sam Adams. It's easy to get those Colonial dudes mixed up, right Sarah Palin? Well, as part of Mamma Grizzly's "One Nation" trek to American historical sites, Palin stopped at Revere's old crib in Massachusetts and taught everybody a little history. Apparently, Revere warning fellow Americans with quiet lanterns and that whole "one if by land, two if by sea" code was just a myth. Revere was actually warning the British with bells -- lots of loud bells. Here's more from Professor Palin:
Whether you like it or not, asking someone what they've read recently and what Paul Revere was famous for (when you are a politician VISITING his memorial) are NOT difficult questions... And, they are NOT questions that other politicians don't get asked. The reason that you don't hear other politicians asked these questions is because most everyone who has ever run for such lofty positions can answer these kinds of questions quite easily.
You don't have to be a history buff to know that Paul Revere was the "the British are coming" guy... It is pretty well ingrained in you during elementary, junior high school and high school. She didn't have to give his whole bio... Just saying "the British are coming" would have done the trick.
But, no... She goes into some long-winded diatribe that she is completely pulling out of her butt in a futile attempt to sound like she knows what she is talking about. That is what is funny, here... Not that she didn't know who Paul Revere was (which is pretty pathetic), but the actual answer she has given.
It isn't just that Palin says stupid things. We all know that politicians make mistakes in front of the camera. You'll have that when you have the press in your face every hour of every day and are giving multiple speeches/public appearances every day of your life. What makes Palin a rare breed is her stupid things said to smart things said ratio.
You can pull up a multitude of appearances, speeches, off-the-cuff answers, etc. for guys like Obama, Biden, Weiner and women like Pelosi and plainly see that they really are intelligent, regardless of whether or not you agree with what they are saying.
Palin has never given me any reason to think she isn't as numb-skulled as her answers here seem to indicate. She is not an intellectual... She is a flag-waving cheerleader for the right. That's about it.
Here we go again. It is hard to tell whether Sarah Palin is really going to run for president in 2012, or she just wants to be in the limelight. But it really is tiresome. It is also embarrassing. It is embarrassing for our country, and especially embarrassing for all of us women, out working hard to prove that we are just as smart, just as qualified, and just as vital to the working and political world as men. Why can’t we have a strong, smart woman run for office? Oh yeah, we did, and then poor Hillary got crushed for being too opinionated and too hard (or maybe just too bitchy), which seemed to be code words for “too smart.” Hillary was criticized for trying to be like “the boys” while Sarah Palin was celebrated for being “every woman.”
For some reason Americans like Sarah Palin. They say that she seems like “every woman.” I don’t get it. Do we want “every woman” to run our country? And isn’t it insulting to those of us who are working so hard to prove that we are as smart, and motivated and successful as our male counterparts? I have no problem with Sarah Palin wanting to be president, or wanting to be successful. But can’t she represent women better? To act like the silly girl who can just smile and laugh off the “real” questions does harm to the work all women do every day to get away from the stereotypes that have followed women in the workplace. Women in the workplace are too often the ditsy blond, or the crazy bitch. Or, if you are really successful, you might be “one of the boys.” If women want to move beyond these stereotypes we ourselves have to not play into them. But Sarah Palin gets more press and more publicity when she plays the ditsy blond. But with her charm, and media savvy, wouldn’t she get a lot farther is she just tried a little bit to play it smarter?
Take this craziness over Paul Revere. Clearly she was unclear on what happened that infamous night. But instead of staying away from saying something that might not be correct, she goes ahead and blabs her mouth, incorrectly citing what happened on Paul Revere’s ride. I can’t believe that she is completely oblivious and willing to make herself look that incompetent and dumb. I really do believe that there is a savvy woman behind the ditz that understands how to play the media. And whether she is actually thinking she can run for POTUS, or she understands that this is the time to cash in on publicity and stay in the limelight in order to get her next book deal, or reality TV show, is very hard to tell. It’s hard to understand where she wants to get with her ridiculous One Nation Tour Bus, and whether she really expects America to believe that she isn’t telling the media where she is going from one stop to the next, but surprisingly the media is always at the next stop, ready to go. But as much as I dislike her political persona, and don’t understand her rise to popularity, I do have to hand it to the woman- she knows how to get PR and she knows how to steal the spotlight. Is she running or is she just fueling her own fame in order to keep making money as an entertainer?
But meanwhile, motivated career-focused women all over the U.S. cringe
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost