Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

Palin knows some things about Paul Revere's ride that you may not

Via ThinkProgress

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

Comments (31)

Does this cut off before she mentions how he helped pave the way to the glorious 57 states we now enjoy?

Oh my. Words fail me. But, then, they often do where Palin is concerned.

Is it at all possible for any enlightened individual to be a Palin supporter?

It's time for the media to ignore Palin.

Darn lamestream media. Once again twisting her words by reporting them verbatim!! Or by letting her talk without a spokesperson to interpret…

What is almost as funny as Palin's almost daily exhibition of her stupidity is the immediate reference of Palin apologists to Obama's now 3-year old "57 states" gaffe. Wow, Peder, you really showed us. Zing!

Dan, my point was that all politicians gaffe when speaking off of the cuff. This obviously was part of the same deal. If you sat Palin down and asked her what Paul Revere did she'd undoubtedly give a better answer than when she's briefly talking with someone in line at a restaurant. Along the same lines, I'm sure that Obama knows the correct number of states. All this type of video does is show that candidates are fallible.
Which, frankly, shouldn't be that big a piece of news.

Shades of the Katie Couric interview.

The phrase "dumb as dirt" comes to mind.

Or, as one blogger mused, "Why does Sarah Palin remind me of Chauncey Gardner in "Being There"?

I read Minnpost for news and hopefully not being "stuck up" (gawd I can't believe I used that phrase. There are serious journalists for the Atlantic and NYR of books who have written about her ability to connect. Sorry to be a grump here.


I thought it was a gaffe. Turns out she was right:

The point is not that all politicians (being human) make gaffes.
It's how frequently they make them, and whether they tend to be simply misspeaking, or a basic misapprehension.

Paul, I can only assume that you're horrified that someone as gaffe prone as Biden is the proverbial heartbeat away from the top job then.

And BTW -- gaffe is a noun, not a verb.
Definition: a noticeable mistake.

Even if she was right in essence (at least it shows she was listening to the tour), her inability to coherently explain it is, or should be, at odds with her aspirations.

Peder, you thought it was a gaffe, but now you think she's right? It shows that you yourself have no independent knowledge of history. Revere was not riding to warn the British not to take our guns so that we could be free. He was riding to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that the British troops were coming to arrest them. Here is a link to the Paul Revere House website. (the historical Paul Revere home in Boston, now a museum).

"In 1774 and the Spring of 1775 Paul Revere was employed by the Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Massachusetts Committee of Safety as an express rider to carry news, messages, and copies of resolutions as far away as New York and Philadelphia.

On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local "Sons of Liberty" committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row "by sea" across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching "by land" out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston).

On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after. Revere was held for some time and then released. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green."

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No! Refudiate that misunderestimation.

I wonder if Palin signed the guest book and dated it "2008?"

"Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's."

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today"

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people

It's a good thing he uses a teleprompter.

@Peder @Dennis: The difference between Obama's "57 state" gaffe (or any other you might post) and Palin's version of US history is that Obama never tried to justify his misspoken errors as truth and fact. Palin has demonstrated at other times her fundamental lack of education. The lights are on, but nobody's home.

And Peder, my point was to show just how lame your response was. All politicians do make gaffes, but you are dredging the same three year old quote from Obama that gets used every time Palin makes one of her very frequent gaffes.

The other difference is that while Obama admitted his 57 states gaffe and later joked about it, Palin has doubled down on her own stupidity and come up with this convoluted explanation as to why what she said wasn't completely idiotic. Sadly, Palin supporters seem to be so incredibly stupid that they are actually buying into it.

Dan, look I said in real time that I thought she made a mistake. My initial thought was that she accidentally said that he warned the British instead of the colonists and then simply stumbled her way out. But then I found out that Revere did indeed warn the British. I think in a case like this, simple honesty suggests that when the speaker actually *was* correct that you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. That only seems fair.
I'm certainly not going to defend everything that Palin has said before and I'm sure she'll gaffe in the future (as will leading Dem lights) but keep in mind that this is literally judging someone by a sound bite.

There was a guy during the last election that posted on this web site regularly in support of tea party candidates. Can't remember his name but I'm sure one of you regulars will remember him. I think he disappeared the day after the election. I always assumed his name was phony and he was working for the Republican party. Is "Peder" a real person or just another shill hired to come on her and spout nonsense?

Unfortunately, it probably won't matter what Palin said. There is a base of people out there who will defend her, no matter what.

They hold a world view that is not subject to facts, logic, reason, history, or context. They hold a world view that is knee-jerk and anti-intellectual.

The issue, at its core, is not Sarah Palin. It's the aggressive dumbing down of the population by right-wing politicians and media which plant the seeds for people to even be willing to consider voting for such an embarrassing display of idiocy.

Peder, the idea that Palin was actually correct is beyond laughable. It is actually the height of DIShonesty. Palin said something completely stupid, and her apologists have come up with a convoluted explanation that somehow justify her stupid remarks. I realize that Palin supporters may be so dumb that they believe her story, but anyone with a shred of common sense and knowledge about history knows how ridiculous it is.

You were better off calling it a gaffe and dredging up Obama's 3 year old mistake. Now you are just embarassing yourself.

Dan, please direct your complaints to Boston University history professor Brendan McConville, who reluctantly says that Palin was correct.

From Bill Schletzer: "Is "Peder" a real person or just another shill hired to come on her and spout nonsense?" This is some of that famed liberal desire to grapple with differing opinions, right? Doubting that people who challenge your worldview actually exist. Very nice. Yes Bill, I'm a real person. You can ask Eric who has met me in real life.
The thing is, Palin isn't a favorite of mine. She has significant flaws and I don't mind discussing them. But there is something about her that brings out the crazy in her detractors and I feel that it's only fair that someone try and point that out here.

There's a difference between giving information at gunpoint (what Revere's letters describe) and riding TO inform the British; an imputation of intention present in Palin's comments.
It's like saying that Bin Laden's courier was traveling to inform the CIA of Bin Laden's location because he provided that information when captured.

Paul, we're almost hopelessly into the weeds here. Are you suggesting that Palin's remarks are indefensible because of the 'imputation of intention'? Look, are you disputing that Revere warned the British? I know that isn't primarily what he's remembered for. I'll cheerfully concede that the part where he warns the British is not the key part to his bigger story.
But c'mon. The reason so many people jumped on this story is because they believed that she was simply wrong on the facts and stupidly so. Well, the critics were wrong here. And the lack of grace here isn't pretty. She wasn't wrong and it isn't dishonest to point that out.

For a nonpartisan analysis, see FactCheck:

Peder, this is the same individual who said she understood foreign policy because she could see Russia from her house. When questioned by Katie Couric, she could not name a single newspaper, foreign policy journal, or ANY serious periodical (not even People) that she read regularly--or at all. She had no idea...well, never mind.

Comparing her to Biden is like comparing the Keystone Kops to the FBI.

Yes (sorry), she was hysterically wrong about Revere's ride. C'mon, you know as well as the rest of us that she blew it (again). Quit defending a moron who will never be President. When you're in a hole, the first order of business is to stop digging, something Palin never will learn. I give you credit for being smarter than that.

This is not an intelligent, statesmanlike, visionary leader who has viable ideas for taking our country forward. This is someone who appeals to the basest instincts of the inward know-nothings among us. Keep defending her and the conclusions will be obvious.

One more time--Revere, God rest his soul, DID NOT ride to warn the British about anything. He rode to warn the colonists that the British were coming. The very idea that you and other Palin apologists would construe a heroically defiant statement under duress by an American Patriot to an occupying power is revolting, and one I'm sure you will repudiate upon mature reflection. Not that you'll admit it, since wingnuts don't ever admit error, as I have good reason to know.

Palin blew it. Again. Deal with it.

Ok, this will be my last comment on this. If you think that Palin failed the all important Knowledge of Paul Revere section on the possible President to Be test, then so be it. I'm sure this will be the thing that moves so many people here off of the fence regarding any future career she'll have.
Will, I love that your post unloading on Palin for ignorance starts out with an error about her saying she could see Russia from her house. Intentional or not, that's high comedy!

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
attributed to Mark Twain

Peder # 29, Naw, just a little shorthand. I prefer the Tina Fey version because it says the same thing Palin said in in a frankly funnier way (if that's possible, since Palin's delivery was OH SO earnest). Both versions come out the same: Palin is an ignoramus who, for many reasons, must not be allowed anywhere near the presidency. You understood what I was saying, and so did everybody else.