See, when Sarah Palin gets something right that her critics get wrong, it’s just because she’s lucky:
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.
Well, I think I have to go with the professor here:
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.”
OK, but at least they understand business, and economics, and world affairs. Right? I mean, they are our moral and intellectual superiors. We can be sure of this because they tell us so.
[Update a few minutes later]
Now who looks stupid? They never realize how stupid they look. It’s part of the problem of stupidity. Anyway they’re being stupid doesn’t fit the narrative.
Heaven will have attractive, young informative docents giving tours every 15 minutes.
“Reporters” will be in the other place.
She isn’t nearly as dumb as her critics claim. Her critics aren’t nearly as smart as they believe.
It would take a ‘Teutonic’ Shift for ther critics to admit the truth.
Gotta love Sarah. How she can set them up and have them make asses of themselves is unparalleled. Sarah 2012! I would vote for her just to see her make media heads explode for eight years. Haven’t seen that kind of fun since the Gipper retired.
Why is there such a double standard, even amoung regular people? Media reinforcement, I suppose. When Biden says the French (!) chased Hezbollah out of Lebanon, or Obama says he doesn’t remember the proper phrase in “Austrian”, people remark on it for a while, then it disappears. Yet, nobody will ever forget “potatoe”.
They’re politicians. They’re all dumb. It’s just a matter of who can expose it in the other and get the most air time.
The prevailing thread in the comments at latimes.com seems to be that what she said has to be wrong and stupid because she said it.
I think this calls for a group point-and-laugh.
Or that even if what she said was correct that she didn’t know it was correct and therefore was really wrong.
I dunno Rand. When this whole flap started, it got me to read up more on the topic (since I’m definitely no historian myself), because the way she said it didn’t sound right. And sure, if you take her words in the most charitable light, you *could* say that he “rang bells” (even though he didn’t–the members of the various Minutemen groups he warned did), and that he “warned the Brittish” (both metaphorically and after he was caught)…but it seems like a stretch.
Basically, if it were a liberal like say Biden who had made that comment, I think you’d be on the opposite side of the charitability of interpretation spectrum.
One of those cases where yes, if you stretch things enough you could score as sort of accurate. But on a whole, it’s a really bizarre way of representing what actually happened, and I think if you could find someone in this country who hadn’t already made up their mind about Palin, I think they’d come off thinking this defense was really pushing it.
But whatever, score a partisan point for Team Palin against all those silly Hoity-Toity Liberals! At least I had a fun time learning more about Revolutionary War history thanks to this ridiculousness.
~Jon
It’s difficult for me to believe that Palin was so quick-thinking that she could:
1) Be asked a question about Paul Revere
2) Analyze the situation and conclude that this was a cool way to set up the media
3) Do so by dredging up a little known fact about Paul Revere’s Ride
4) Deliver the set-up.
Difficult to believe…though I admit it’s not impossible. Just implausible. Especially after I heard her explanation to Chris Wallace later on.
I don’t know what went through her mind. I think she answered without thinking and whatever “facts” about the event she knew, she spouted.
If she was seated in her living room and asked the question, and had time to ponder her answer, could she have come up with the stock answer about Paul Revere?
I expect so, though again I don’t know for sure.
To me the real question is:
Does any of this matter?
Well yes and no. Yes it matters if she intends to run for president. If she isn’t running, then it matters not in the slightest.
But if she is running, her actions over the last two years are a little hard to understand. I’m with Krauthammer on this one:
She could have profitably used the time to bone up on one or two or three issues of the day – a mix of foreign and domestic. If she had done so, then when the issue came up, she would have demonstrated that she learned, and can grasp complex issues, and design a plan to deal with the issue. Listeners would have found that very impressive, I believe. I don’t need someone who knows everything. Just the basics and has a demonstrated interest and ability to learn, process, decide.
But she didn’t do that.
So the tag of “lightweight” is still hanging from those designer glasses of hers. And things like this Paul Revere episode only add to that impression. Don’t get me wrong, I really wish she WOULD show a serious side with some serious command of the issues. I loved her 2008 convention speech. But if all we get are high pitched sound bytes like “commonsense Constitutional solutions!” then I’m afraid I am not impressed.
I think this matters more than ever these days. The nation now knows what happens when you elect a lightweight, did-nothing, “present” voter, with a nice smile, into office. I think any candidate that has a little gravitas, some command of the issues, a fighting spirit – willing to mix it up with the opponent(s) and attack attack attack -, a straight talker, someone who has demonstrated through actions what they stand for and not just words, and knowledge of how to work in the political system, is a sure winner of the White House. And no matter WHAT, Obama must be beaten and thrown out of office. So I want the most conservative candidate who is as close to a sure winner as we can get.
So far Palin does not impress me as having all of those characteristics – some but not enough.
If this is a massive ploy on her part to play dumb for a while, and then dazzle us with her knowledge and acumen, well she better start the revelations soon.
Gregg, the recent Presidents widely praised as “very smart” include Obama, Clinton, Bush I, Carter, Nixon and JFK. Those widely considered “lightweights” include Bush II, Reagan, Eisenhower and Truman.
See any kind of pattern there?
Give me a “lightweight” with excellent self-discipline, judgement of people, and a clear moral vision any time over the soi disant PhDs of Brainy Leadership.
Carl Pham Says:
“Gregg, the recent Presidents widely praised as “very smart” include Obama, Clinton, Bush I, Carter, Nixon and JFK. Those widely considered “lightweights” include Bush II, Reagan, Eisenhower and Truman.
See any kind of pattern there?”
Sure but it’s certainly not my pattern. You misapprehend my notion of what defines a lightweight/non-lightweight.
Firstly, I don’t define “very smart” as someone who has a lot of degrees – or any degrees.
Secondly, the people bestowing those titles, in your examples, are not of my political viewpoint. And their definitions are certainly not my definitions. I would classify ALL of the people you listed above as smart or very smart. Certainly no dummies there.
Smart, as an aside, does not equate to wise or prudent.
My definition of a *non-lightweight* is pretty much specified in the post to which you are replying.
To repeat:
“I think any candidate that has a little gravitas, some command of the issues, a fighting spirit – willing to mix it up with the opponent(s) and attack attack attack -, a straight talker, someone who has demonstrated through actions what they stand for and not just words, and knowledge of how to work in the political system, is a sure winner of the White House.”
You will notice that nowhere is book learnin’, for example, a part of that description, or any part of my post.
“Give me a “lightweight” with excellent self-discipline, judgement of people, and a clear moral vision any time over the soi disant PhDs of Brainy Leadership.’
I happen to agree, so I don’t know why you are commenting the way you are 😉 What you are describing: “excellent self-discipline, judgment (no ‘e’ by the way) of people, and a clear moral vision” certainly fits my view of non-lightweight, and can be covered by my definition with a slight amount of tugging and pulling:
“judgment of people” roughly contained by: “knowledge of how to work in the political system”
“a clear moral vision” roughly contained by: “has demonstrated through actions what they stand for and not just words”
“excellent self-discipline” is part of the attribute set needed to be able to say the person:
“has a demonstrated interest and ability to learn, process, decide.”
Yours not a complete set of attributes for a political non-lightweight, but necessary.