Most people agree with her.

Only the libs in their “Emotional Frenzy” had to shout to the heavens how Stupid Sarah Palin was!

Heck, you guys do that when she sneezes!

I remember someone, a commenter on Mediaite, said she most likely took a tour before that interview, and got the info fromm them.

Whoever said that, they were right. :O)

“I knew where all the factoids she cited came from and take responsibility for putting them in her head . . . I will not take the blame for the odd order those factoids came out.”

There was plenty of room in her head for him to put in those “factoids”, plenty of room for them to spread out and come out all jumbled.

Even her defenders can’t defend her lack of substance.

Pretty much every interview I have seen with a historian about Paul Revere backs up Palin. I have yet to see a major media outlet point this out? In fact, most of the newspapers and talking heads have been doubling down on their stupidity by attacking Palin for sticking to her story. It’s like mainstream journalists live in a bizzaro world.

I kinda suspected that she had just learned about the history from some local experts (which is what her tour was ostensibly about) and she simply flubbed the retelling. That’s not great, but it’s also something anyone could have done. When you’re in the public eye a lot you tend have gaffes recorded an awful lot, as both of our Presidents of the blogging and social media era have learned. I’d still rather take a history lesson from Sarah Palin than a geography lesson from Barack Obama.

This guy HAS TO BE WRONG.

How do I know? Because all the leftists NEVER EVER rewrite history.

I mean just the other day I heard that Obama does not need congressional approval to go into Libya, Syria, Yemen or any other country militarily.

But I just have this hard time making that leap of intelligence from just a few years ago when they called Bush a war monger and should be brought to trial for war crimes. See, he had Congressional approval and NOW Obama does not.

Please leftists. Help me with the logic, I really need help trying to understand your mindset.

Are you just so intellectually superior to everyone else, to be able to see something completely different than the rest of us?

Or, are you just insane? I think Occam’s razor should be able to explain it.

Why does everything with Palin needs translation and follow-ups? Maybe the real problem is that Americans are too stupid to understand Sarah Palin?

noekk said:
Why does everything with Palin needs translation and follow-ups? Maybe the real problem is that Americans are too stupid to understand Sarah Palin?

*need*

sarainitaly said:
I remember someone, a commenter on Mediaite, said she most likely took a tour before that interview, and got the info fromm them.

Whoever said that, they were right. :O)

Is there something wrong with getting information from tours? Or is it wrong because she got her information from one?

Gee, nice of him to say so now. After how many days?

So typical of the MSM. Palin said something about Paul Revere that they’d never heard, so obviously she’s an idiot.

Rev. Stephen T. Ayres is a tool who wants the publicity.

Let me add to the list of people eminently more qualified to run for president than Sarah. Palin can not help it. Her tanning bed in Juneau AK fried her brain. (sad really)

The “Dont Taze Me Bro” Dude…
Dos Equis “The Most Interesting Man in the World”…
The late Jeff Conaway of Grease fame (America could do a Weekend at Bernies thing. Sure beats Palin).
Roger from American Dad (is a cartoon character / has illegal alien issues. Would still make a better POTUS)
Flo from the Progressive Insurance ads. Yes even Flo is less annoying than Palin. And she’s progressive.
Christopher Walken. He is the bad ass we need(and more cowbell in America would be his campaign theme).
Andy Dick. His name is appropriate. He is mentally ill. Andy would make a better President than Palin.

America….your 234 years old …I know your having a midlife crisis. This Palin dalliance needs to stop. Please see a therapist before having a serious relationship with Palin. Think of the children.

Revere didn’t ride out that night to warn the British. He told them about the rebels after they stopped him. He was trying to avoid being stopped & the British troops in general that night. So the purpose of his mission was to warn the rebels, not the British. End debate.

Judge Mental said:
Gee, nice of him to say so now. After how many days?

So typical of the MSM. Palin said something about Paul Revere that they’d never heard, so obviously she’s an idiot.

No she proved her shallowness and ignorance many times prior to this. So at worst, it was merely jumping the gun. Fact is genius, he did night ride out that night with the intent to warn the British!

How many follow-ups, days , weeks later has Mediaite done on Obama ‘s gaffe ? Just curious

Gaffes

murf said:
How many follow-ups, days , weeks later has Mediaite done on Obama ’s gaffe ? Just curious

That’s the stock Palindrone response to any hint of what a fool she is

“Ayres, 56, wrote. “I will not take the blame for the odd order those factoids came out.’”

That’s the main issue isn’t it.

Palin won’t cop to jumbling up her brief history lesson. That’s where the character attack is aimed.

Does MEDIAite just post a Palin/Beck story just to get hits? Stupid.

jakester said:
That’s the stock Palindrone response to any hint of what a fool she is

Rent free!

sarainitaly said:
I remember someone, a commenter on Mediaite, said she most likely took a tour before that interview, and got the info fromm them.

Whoever said that, they were right. :O)

Well no shit, that was exactly the question that was asked of her. If anybody thought any different they were an ldiot. Palin had a quick brief reminder of history, which is standard when visiting sites like that, and she screwed up in repeating her short American tourist lesson. The thing is, she doubled down and didn’t admit she got her crib notes facts mixed up.

Nacho said:
“Ayres, 56, wrote. “I will not take the blame for the odd order those factoids came out.’”

That’s the main issue isn’t it.

Palin won’t cop to jumbling up her brief history lesson. That’s where the character attack is aimed.

Nope, not according to libs.

To the far right wing fringe, asking the half-term nit-wit to spell cat is a gotcha question.

WCinWI said:
Nope, not according to libs.

Nope, not according to you, astro-turfer.

Sam M. said:
To the far right wing fringe, asking the half-term nit-wit to spell cat is a gotcha question.

It’s time for a name change moron…

Paul G said:
It’s time for a name change moron…

Then change your name moron. LMAO!!

Nacho said:
Nope, not according to you, astro-turfer.

You can’t astro-turf facts. Was it a fact that she was perfect? No. I accept that. You don’t. Simple as that.

So now, will you ask Obama to change his actual notes (as noted in the flesh) of the current year? Get on that then you’ll have some credibility on anything Palin.

Nacho said:
Well no shit, that was exactly the question that was asked of her. If anybody thought any different they were an ldiot. Palin had a quick brief reminder of history, which is standard when visiting sites like that, and she screwed up in repeating her short American tourist lesson. The thing is, she doubled down and didn’t admit she got her crib notes facts mixed up.

Obama gets his facts mixed up all the time. Would you like to show me where you’ve tried to correct him? Being someone from the Ivy League, I’d expect him to be 100% perfect on all he does. :)

Sara Palin couldn’t keep her facts straight?

Maybe she should have written them down on her hand again.

I just love all the articles written here at mediaite, even by Tommy, coming to the defense of Sarah Palin and criticizing all those folks who call her stupid, dumb, etc., as nothing more than steretyping because she is a woman. Oh wait a minute, there weren’t any of those. So sorry….we only get those about hehimself and the race card, never a gender card ever. Oh well…just another double standard. see racism where there isn’t any, ignore misogyny when it stares you in the face.

Funny yet was the NPR piece where they were ready to smear Sarah, so they brought a historian in to illustrate how wrong she had gotten things. But then he screwed things up for them by basically saying she had most of her account correct. Now how will they be able to smear a vaunted guest that they brought in?

Add the Rev. Ayres to the list of idiots.

Nacho said:
Palin won’t cop to jumbling up her brief history lesson. That’s where the character attack is aimed.

Poor boy.

Let’s see what NPR founf out about the accuracy of Palins account from Professor ROBERT ALLISON (Chairman, History Department, Suffolk University)

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.

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

Rivermont said:
Poor boy.

Let’s see what NPR founf out about the accuracy of Palins account from Professor ROBERT ALLISON (Chairman, History Department, Suffolk University)

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.

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

The half-term nit-wit doesn’t know enough “facts” to fit on this fingernail. She’s an idiot and everyone knows it.

Rivermont said:
Poor boy.

Let’s see what NPR founf out about the accuracy of Palins account from Professor ROBERT ALLISON (Chairman, History Department, Suffolk University)

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.

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

Thanks for proving my point. Somebody told her a story about Paul Revere and she made word salad out of it. She mixed up the history she just learned and couldn’t admit to it, she couldn’t admit making a mistake.

She didn’t cop to just being a politician and not being a historian, she stood by her story like she was a historian.

I remember listening to that piece on NPR, it was hilarious when it became a talking point by the right a few days later, I knew some conservative blogger stumbled onto it or a conservative talk radio host. Seems like most of you got if from Limbaugh. Its clear who you people take your orders from.

She wont admit that

MartiniShark said:
Funny yet was the NPR piece where they were ready to smear Sarah

It’s too bad you think that NPR works like FoxNews.

TfT said:
I just love all the articles written here at mediaite, even by Tommy, coming to the defense of Sarah Palin and criticizing all those folks who call her stupid, dumb, etc., as nothing more than steretyping because she is a woman. Oh wait a minute, there weren’t any of those. So sorry….we only get those about hehimself and the race card, never a gender card ever. Oh well…just another double standard. see racism where there isn’t any, ignore misogyny when it stares you in the face.

Palin is a thin-skinned, mean, brittle, intellectually lazy, unprincipled, erratic grifter. Her gender is irrelevant.

^^^^^^out damn spot!

Palin was simply taken aback by yet another gotcha question from the lamestream media … and as a result, she had sweaty palms causing her INK to smudge.

Nacho said:
It’s too bad you think that NPR works like FoxNews.

And in a response to a historian saying she got the story correct you claim she got it wrong. Not sure how you are selling that. I don’t watch Fox, and I heard the NPR piece cited, yet you want to claim Palin has things wrong, despite a historian supporting most of her comments.

MartiniShark said:
And in a response to a historian saying she got the story correct you claim she got it wrong. Not sure how you are selling that. I don’t watch Fox, and I heard the NPR piece cited, yet you want to claim Palin has things wrong, despite a historian supporting most of her comments.

You claimed NPR was attempting to smear Palin.

Nacho said:
You claimed NPR was attempting to smear Palin.

Yep.

Nacho said:
You claimed NPR was attempting to smear Palin.

Yea, and you claimed she got the sory wrong, while a historian said otherwise. Point?

WCinWI said:
Yep.

Ditto

She opened the piece mentioning the howls of derision towards Palin, and then after he supported her views the hostess went to the length of bypassing him to ask if there were any other historians taking Palin’s side — as if history was interpretational and there could others willing to say she was actually wrong. So exactly how does this prove palin was wrong, as he was saying she was correct?

MartiniShark said:
Yea, and you claimed she got the sory wrong, while a historian said otherwise. Point?

She did get the story wrong and the historian on NPR verified that. What he did do was connect the loose facts that she threw out there in a mess to other historical events. He gave her a pass for just being a politician.

I see. So when the historian was asked pointedly, on the whole did she get the story correct, and he answered directly “Well yeah, she did.”, that somehow proves to you in your mind that Palin had no idea what she was talking about and completely botched her account of things.

Wonderful analysis. Facts be damned, expert opinion be ignored, Palin is wrong because you want her to be wrong, and that proves she was wrong!

You’re ignoring that Palin said he fired off warning shots and rang bells and the historian said he did not do that.

Uh huh, and that lone pull-phrase from a lengthy passage compromises her entire account, and it also invalidates the opinion of a chairperson in a history department from a New England university who studies revolutionary history. I’m sure he’ll be chagrined when you arrive at his office to ask for his resignation.

Uh huh, Palin tossed out a salad of mix facts that she was just told. Her recitement of the event was not accurate. The historian was saying if you take each thing she said apart, you can find a factual historical event that he claims coincides with.

Palin’s response to what she learned was a mess. There is nothing wrong with that, the issue is she can’t just come clean to admitting it. Insted, she doubled down on her off the cuff comment, avoiding humility and pretending like what she said was spot on.

No, he was not. He was clarifying a few of the points, but overall he was in agreement with her account. how do you dispute this direct exchange from the transcript?

– BLOCK: “So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.”
– Prof. ALLISON: “Well, yeah, she did.”

You want to build the case that he was picking out details that she was corect on. He is saying directly that she got the history correct.

And you have to note, the interviewer Block did something I have seen at least three times regarding this account — she is offering up the straw-dog argument that Palin said this was a 1st Amendment story. She NEVER mentioned the 1st Amendment, but she did say the British were coming to seize arms from the colonials, which is also correct, and also verified by the historian. Placing words in Palin’s mouth is not the same as proof.

I agree about the 2nd amendment issue, that was weak and somewhat telling. It is a funny story and NPR was addressing it, and to their benefit, they did bring on a random historian. I do not think that their motive was to smear her.

You can’t deny that the historian was giving Palin a lenient pass. And to me, that does not excuse Plain doubling down on her original sloppy statement.

Fact: Defend? Huh?

jakester said:
Revere didn’t ride out that night to warn the British. He told them about the rebels after they stopped him. He was trying to avoid being stopped & the British troops in general that night. So the purpose of his mission was to warn the rebels, not the British. End debate.

Sorry, but according to historians there were a great many riders out that night, warning the colonists. Clearly one of the others reached Lexington long before Revere, as the militia was already assembled, exercising their firearms, and ringing church bells.

Revere’s own account said that his goal was to keep the British from arresting John Hancock and John Adams. When captured, Revere kept his cool and told them what was necessary to send them in the opposite direction from Hancock and Adams.

So he improvised — he did not change his mission, he accomplished his mission.

History professor tries to rescue Sarah Palin; Paul Revere is turning over http://exm.nr/mLIb8d

To find out the truth from the horse’s mouth so to speak, we performed a séance last week and attempted to connect with the spirit of Paul Revere.

We gathered around a table, lit a candle, and chanted. . .

For details, see the whimsical Thinking Out Loud, http://marperl.blogspot.com/2011/06/seance-with-paul-revere.html

For all you Progressive Leftist Pukes, your Messiah, the Idiot Obambi, thought America had 57 states, now, how ignorant is that? But, of course, it is ok when a Leftist Puke makes a mistake, or tries to destroy the Constitution, Destroy America, and turn America into another Zimbabwe, as long as it is the Obamanation who does it, huh? Ms Palin would make Obambi look like the Fool he truly is, if she won the Presidency. She is a True Leader! Obama is a GirlyMan Whimp who is terrified of our Adversaries and bows and grovels for them, and he hates our True Allies, like England and Israel. If Ms Palin runs, shw will win and she has my support. I will vote for anyone but the Idiot AntiAmerica, AntiChristian Fool, B. Hussein Obama.

billwhit1357 says:
if she won the Presidency. She is a True Leader!
…………………………………………
Please send her your money, all of it, promise. Let us pray together, so she maybe the “teas’ choice. We are still waiting for an example of destroying the constitution, America and our Zimbabwe roots! Just one example, since there are “none”, and remember no factless “tea sites”! Keep the spin and hate alive!