Quote:
Originally Posted by djplong
Checking the facts, Lincoln was thefirst Republican President - the party being started in 1854 in opposition to slavery. The party was founded in 1854, dominated the North by 1858 and got Lincoln elected in 1860. Wikipedia doesn't name the founder but it certainly was NOT Lincoln.
What I don't like about the quoted article is the insistance that Palin was right in her misstatements about Revere. Palin stuck to her story about the purpose of Revere's mission. Revere's job, which wasn't finished, was to warn the COLONISTS of the impending onslaught of Redcoats. He only 'warned' the Regulars (you can't really call them British since, technically, we were ALL British in the Colonies) when he was captured and told them *at gunpoint* that the militias in Lexington and Concord were armed and would not lay down their arms.
I would like to see Obama's reaction if HE got called on his flub since I saw Palin's reaction.
I suspect there'd be plenty of double-talk.
|
You're picking at straws. The basics of Palin's recollections of Revere's famous night were correct and you're nit picking. You can't deny that Revere told the British the colonists were waiting for them, as Palin said. (By your account, maybe we should remember Revere as a traitor)
As noted in the article, she said this on the fly, from her memory and without the use of cue cards, tele-prompter or writing on the back of her hand.
Meanwhile, there's no qualified historian who would ever suggest that Lincoln was the Republican Party's founder. Obama spoke in error in a speech that was prepared well in advance and written to portray himself in the best light. If, as has been suggested, he deviated from the script and that's how he made this error; well it just makes Palin look even better by comparison.