Someone confronted former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin in a downtown Boston shop and asked her about what she learned there in Boston, and she said:
We saw where Paul Revere hung out as a teenager, which was something new to learn. And you know, he who warned the British, that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure, as he is riding his horse through town, to send those warning shots and bells, that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.
Immediately she was attacked all over by the main stream media for getting it wrong (among other places, here and here). Did she get it wrong? She was mocked in most places, but historians interviewed at NPR and by the Boston Herald said she got it right. Ouch. Of course, Palin was using the story to support the second amendment, highlighting why it is we need gun rights—to protect us against government. And the left-of-center don’t like gun rights in this country, so they banded together in an attack against her.
You will hear even conservatives compromise on gun rights when they talk about that “automatic weapon not really needed for hunting,” as if gun rights really are about sports hunting. The reason real conservatives don’t want any guns banned is because they think they will need them to defend themselves against the government. That’s the major point of the second amendment—not for hunting.
The big criticism of Palin was that Revere wasn’t warning the British, but that all depends on whether you put a comma after British or not. I would say her ad lib grammar could be criticized, making it difficult to understand what exactly she was saying, but in hindsight, what she said was true either way. Revere was warning that the British couldn’t take American arms and he also warned the British that they couldn’t take American arms. Both were historically true. And the bells rang at the church too.
Here’s what I think happened. She wasn’t ready for the question, but she didn’t want to look stupid. She knows what will happen if she does that—it will be worse. But that’s not all. She wanted to take the history and turn it into a second amendment support, because that’s what she took away from the Boston Revere experience. The patriots were protecting their arms from the British. If they didn’t, they were doomed. And the British really were coming to take their arms among other actions. So she was answering the question and making that second amendment application of the history on the fly. The verbiage didn’t come out quite right. After all, she wasn’t using a teleprompter or reading from something she had written on her hand. She wasn’t able to self-edit her word order fast enough. But I understood what she was saying.
That whole ‘protect-the arms’ part of the story isn’t found in the politically correct history understanding of the state educations of the mainstream news media personalities. They don’t know what the British were doing and what Paul Revere and others were warning about. They probably think that Revere was warning against British colonialism or maybe just a Big Box Store. And for many others, Revere’s ride hasn’t yet come out in a blockbuster movie or in cartoon version, so they don’t really know.
I’m not a Palin fan. I don’t want her as president. But this is typical of the criticism she receives, which is knee-jerk and biased. It makes it easier to like her.
I didn't care either way about the whole situation until Palin said that this was one of the "gotcha moments" where the media asks trick questions to make her look bad.
The fact that she wanted to claim after the fact that the reporter who asked her the question was somehow trying to get by asking what she was going to take away from the trip is what irritated me.
Thanks, brother Brandenburg.
I had wondered what it was that Palin had said that was so wrong. Obviously, she was caught off guard. Unfortunately, as you said, the media & Americans in general do not know about that the British were intending to confiscate firearms that they had required to be stockpiled, & that the Colonists fought to keep that from taking place.
Mike, there is a lot more to be upset about here than whether or not Palin claimed it was a "gotcha moment".
"And for many others, Revere's ride hasn't yet come out in a blockbuster movie or in cartoon version, so they don't really know."
Bwahahah! ZING! Love it.
So, Kent, would you enumerate for us your reasons for not wanting Palin for president?
Hi Joe. On Palin,
1. I don't believe the role reversal is what Christians should support, the husband being the supporter/help in the background with wife/mom out front leading. We don't need any more of that in America. And I don't want it justified by support of her.
2. She is too flaky. I understand she's been under a lot of pressure, but she's moved around too much in statements and positions and shown she can't handle it, and it won't get easier. I wish she didn't have the worse scrutiny than others who deserve it more, but that doesn't mean it won't end. Someone more solid would be able to give better answers in pressure situations, based on a steady internal compass.
3. There are people better qualified that take similar positions as her.
4. She has too many negatives that are now a waste of time to overcome to win the presidency. She would have to overcome all those negatives just to get to a place of being electable.
5. I don't like the decision making I see with her even in her own family. For instance, her daughter on Dancing with the Stars, and the whole fiasco with the boyfriend? How could there be any ties to that guy with a stable family?
There may be more.