Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieLion
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.
|
No, I'm not nit-picking. Here's here original quote:
Quote:
|
He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed
|
The "ringing those bells" was warning the COLONISTS - *that* was Job #1.
Only after he was captured and with a gun pressed to his chest did he tell the Regulars that militia was armed. When he, Prescott and Dawes set out, it was never their intention to warn the *Regulars*. After all, doesn't that defeat the purpose of warning the *Colonists*? What Revere did was a last-ditch gamblein hopes of delaying the advancement of the Regulars.
And I absolutely agree about your point concerning that it was off-the-cuff whereas Obama's comment was written down.
It doesn't bother me that Palin made that gaffe. *Personally* I think it was an ad-hoc attempt at trying to frame a pro-2nd-Ammendment sound bite and, quite frankly, I find nothing wrong with that. (It's not against her nature - look at some of her comments on her show - framing animal behaviors in nature with her narratives) What gets me is her refusal to admit when she makes even a small slip-up.
I *suspect* that she might not have even KNOWN about what Revere did when he was captured. Of course I can't prove it but the way she clung to her story *hints* that she was told by researchers "well, technically, you were partially right" and latched onto that with a death grip.
Like I said, a little gaffe or slip-up doesn't make a difference to me. It was the aftermath that irked me.
But also, true to your point, I don't see headlines in yesterday's or today's news sources calling Obama on HIS misstatement - at least not yet and there's been plenty of time.