A few have come forward to defend her version of Paul Revere's ride as historically correct. Others are not. What say you?

I say she was clueless. She has had plenty of time to defend her words properly without historians claiming she is correct and hasn't done it. I wouldn't need people to come to my defense. I would properly defend myself. Especially if the whole country was calling me an idiot.

She was neither spot on or clueless.. She butchered the story but, according to the left she just got lucky..

If you had asked the question specific of Paul Revere, I would say clueless. She flubbed this up in a big way & refuses to admit it.

Then I guess that the guest expert of NPR (that notorious right-wing org) is also clueless.

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere

 

"Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.

 

So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone's mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.

 

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

 

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history."

Then I guess that the guest expert of NPR (that notorious right-wing org) is also clueless.

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere

 

"Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.

 

So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone's mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.

 

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

 

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history."

 

Best article I've read on it said this:

 

The “basically” is doing a hell of a lot of work in “basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.” In fact, she got every single disputed fact wrong.

 

No, Revere wasn’t warning the British, which was the central fact in dispute. (Which, incidentally, I don’t think Palin believed. Rather, I’d bet anything that she simply misspoke and stuck with her story when obscure bits of history seemed to prove her right.)

 

No, Revere wasn’t ringing bells and firing shots. On the other hand, bells were being rung and shots were being fired. Did Palin actually know this and just jumbled it up? I can’t say.

 

No, the ride wasn’t motivated by protecting gun rights. But, yes, it was partly motivated by securing the guns themselves–which were about to be needed for a fight that was long brewing.

 

But it’s also fair to say that the critics, who were basing their understanding of the Revere ride on a poem, found out how little they knew, too.

 

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/paul-reveres-ride-dont-know-much-about-history/

Most people have little hope that Palin is nothing more than a duntz, so I am not sure why people get in such a tizzy when she says something incorrectly. I believe her detractors hold her in higher esteem than her supporters.

 

As to the question, she screwed it up obviously.

Who cares if she was right or wrong. It's just simply entertaining to watch her try to answer questions without a script. Watching Palin probably gives those with double digit IQ's hope.....and.....for some, hope is all you have.

She was neither spot on or clueless.. She butchered the story but, according to the left she just got lucky..

 

cammando ... do you really want to waste any intelligence capital you have trying to defend Palin? She is clearly one of the dumbest people at a high political profile that I can ever recall. The lady just isn't smart and I am amazed that people give any credibility to anything she says.

I don't think Ms. Palin is the brightest bulb in the box. But I certainly think she's wily and manipulative, which makes her "smart" in a whole 'nother way. She has the ability to play the victim, and swing people to her side even when she's done or said the most idiotic things. You can't underestimate a person like that. But you also can't overestimate them.

I don't think Ms. Palin is the brightest bulb in the box. But I certainly think she's wily and manipulative, which makes her "smart" in a whole 'nother way. She has the ability to play the victim, and swing people to her side even when she's done or said the most idiotic things. You can't underestimate a person like that. But you also can't overestimate them.

 

That right there describes the great majority of our politicians.

cammando ... do you really want to waste any intelligence capital you have trying to defend Palin? She is clearly one of the dumbest people at a high political profile that I can ever recall. The lady just isn't smart and I am amazed that people give any credibility to anything she says.

 

I don't think Ms. Palin is the brightest bulb in the box. But I certainly think she's wily and manipulative, which makes her "smart" in a whole 'nother way. She has the ability to play the victim, and swing people to her side even when she's done or said the most idiotic things. You can't underestimate a person like that. But you also can't overestimate them.

VOR, if you are talking strictly book smart or a great historian, no Sarah Palin is not that. I am not a Palin fan AT ALL, but that is not fair to act as if because she lacks in those type of smarts that she is somehow the dumbest politician to ever live. How can you say she is dumber than Anthony Weiner who cannot even use twitter to send lewd pictures to one person instead of 50,000 people? How can you say she is dumber than someone like Charles Rangel that is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee yet he evades his own taxes? How can you say she is dumber than someone like a Mark Foley than hit on his teenage assistants? I am more so in the rockmom camp. I still contend that her detractors and an extension of those through the media hold her in higher standards than her supporters because they want her front and center and to be the figurehead of the Republican party.

But it’s also fair to say that the critics, who were basing their understanding of the Revere ride on a poem, found out how little they knew, too.[/i]

 

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/paul-reveres-ride-dont-know-much-about-history/

 

I'm glad that was mentioned. I teach Revolutionary history and the English teacher across the hall teaches the Longfellow poem to our students in the same year. It's amazing how far off the poem was from the real story. And, of course, the students remember and quote the poem far more than they do the actual truth.

VOR, if you are talking strictly book smart or a great historian, no Sarah Palin is not that. I am not a Palin fan AT ALL, but that is not fair to act as if because she lacks in those type of smarts that she is somehow the dumbest politician to ever live. How can you say she is dumber than Anthony Weiner who cannot even use twitter to send lewd pictures to one person instead of 50,000 people? How can you say she is dumber than someone like Charles Rangel that is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee yet he evades his own taxes? How can you say she is dumber than someone like a Mark Foley than hit on his teenage assistants? I am more so in the rockmom camp. I still contend that her detractors and an extension of those through the media hold her in higher standards than her supporters because they want her front and center and to be the figurehead of the Republican party.

 

:thumb:

VOR, if you are talking strictly book smart or a great historian, no Sarah Palin is not that. I am not a Palin fan AT ALL, but that is not fair to act as if because she lacks in those type of smarts that she is somehow the dumbest politician to ever live. How can you say she is dumber than Anthony Weiner who cannot even use twitter to send lewd pictures to one person instead of 50,000 people? How can you say she is dumber than someone like Charles Rangel that is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee yet he evades his own taxes? How can you say she is dumber than someone like a Mark Foley than hit on his teenage assistants? I am more so in the rockmom camp. I still contend that her detractors and an extension of those through the media hold her in higher standards than her supporters because they want her front and center and to be the figurehead of the Republican party.

 

I am basing it more off of just the type of thing we see in this Paul Revere issue. If you watch how she handles herself in answering the question without even considering the content of her answer, she comes across as some teenage valley girl at the county fair pagent. Palin can not think on her feet. She will run her mouth without knowing things and that gets her in trouble. She just isn't very smart. I agree with Rockmom's post also in that she is a good media manipulator in some ways but on the other side, for her to have a communications background and consistently make these types of mistakes in front of the media just confirms for me even more how she just isn't that smart. As far as being front and center in the media, she is there because it is what she wants and the media gets so much mileage out of her that they like following her. It has nothing to do with politics or an agenda on the media side. It is about watching the race waiting to see how bad the next wreck will be, and making sure they have a good picture of that wreck when it happens.