June 07, 2011
— Ace God, I hate this whole stupid thing.
Look: Sarah Palin was speaking casually, not in an interview, but while doing something else, in a queue or something. Instead of saying "Paul Revere warned the colonists about the British," her brain skipped ahead to the last part of the sentence, and thus said "Paul Revere warned the British."
The left and the media -- but I repeat myself -- is going bananas over this. Here's what they postulate: Sarah Palin, former mayor, former governor, former nominee for vice president, didn't know that Paul Revere's mission was to warn the colonists of a coming British attack.
They are claiming that she does not possess the common knowledge possessed by a first grader.
Plausible? Is that as plausible as "She tongue-tripped while speaking"? Let's run the tape of Sarah Palin making this statement.
Whoops! #Hacked! #WhoCanISue?
That seems to be Barack Obama combining simple arithmetic with his knowledge of American government and history and coming up with the answer that he's "visited fifty seven states" and still has one more to go.
And then immediately says that by "one more" he means "Alaska and Hawaii," which, breaking out my World Atlas, actually appears to be two states.
So he thinks the country has 59 states? Or 58, including the apparent "Double State" of Alaskawaii?
Even if you give him a break on that -- he thinks the country has Forty nine states? Or forty eight?
Isn't fifty a rather easy number to remember? His own home state -- allegedly (but I kid) -- is immortalized in a television program called Hawaii Five-O, the Five-O noting that Hawaii is the fiftieth state.
I suppose the show was filmed after Alaskawaii was partitioned into two different states, most likely for administrative convenience, since they're a thousand miles apart and having nothing at all in common, except I think they both have salmon and probably both get The Super Station. (But is it really?, Sean Spencer just emailed me to ask.)
So how could he think America has 49 states (or 47 plus a hitherto unknown Double State)? Or 59, as he actually said?
And crucially, does anyone in the media believe, or postulate, that this is evidence that Obama is not just not terribly intelligent, but actually, in fact, profoundly mentally challenged with an effective knowledge base beneath that of a first grader?
No, they don't. And neither do I, actually. I don't cite this video to prove Obama is dumb. I cite it to prove the media is dumb. And also dishonest.
What is the operative assumption the media demonstrates in never, not even once, alluding to this strange conception of American state numeration Obama apparently subscribes to? That a simple brain-fart is commonplace and says nothing about the speaker's intelligence whatsoever.
And in Palin's case?
Well. That assumption just goes out the window. She's actually a Mentally Retarded Female, despite not wearing the government-ordered MRF bracelet.
Is that really the conclusion I am being invited to draw from these facts?
Really? That, it is seriously proposed, should be my take-away?
So, we have a case of two slips of the tongue. One completely embargoed by the media, and the other a source of "real news" chatter -- and because the media cocoons itself in a reinforcing bubble of group-think in which the "right" is defined by David Frum and Meghan McCain and the "left" is defined by Daily Kos Diarists.
Not even Kos himself; no, Kos is a centrist. Just a common-sense guy who believes in stuff you should obviously believe, as reporters do.
But his diarists... welllll, some of them tend a little left.
Bloggers have a reputation -- well-earned -- of being rather juvenile and stupid. And part of that juvenility and stupidity is due to the fact that most of us work on a clock of a half hour to an hour: Every 30 to 60 minutes, another post has to come up, whether it's a keeper, or it's a bit dumb, or whatever it is.
Even so, just because you're occasionally going to Post Stupid, doesn't mean you have to Post Retarded. You don't have to throw all common sense and intelligence out the window just to please your more rapid and indiscriminate readers. If you do that, then Sarah Palin's "flub" winds up saying a lot more about you than about her.
Like this fucking idiot, who I guess is paid a real salary to work at what is usually thought to be a real media organ.
This is apparently what this moron thought was "interesting" and "hot" this day. Of all the interesting stuff in the news, this nitwit seemed to believe that we must all pay strict attention to a commonplace slip of the tongue.
Now: Is that a good writer? Is that a writer with a keen sense of discriminating between the trivial and the meaningful? Is this a writer demonstrating a capacity for interesting thinking, or even just the ability to recognize things of interest?
And of course I don't just want to pick on this particular nobody. Just because this particular nobody, who thinks it's a Stop the Presses moment when a political candidate flubs a sentence on the trail (akin to those various internet ankle-biters who wish to Stop the Presses because you just wrote "Your" when you meant "You're"), was able to secure a paid gig at a national website when I can think of about one hundred conservative bloggers who aren't, what's the word, gaytarded enough to toss out partisan idiot-bait like this who would never even be considered for such a position because Oh my God, they might say something critical of Obama and embarrass the company, well, the point isn't this particular nobody.
The point is that the media is generally made up of morons and hacks who all seem to agree that this is a very telling moment indeed.
Can they answer me why this moment should be telling, and Obama's 57 states (or his various other gaffes, flubs, and stupid utterances) should not be?
No, they can't, and not only can't they, but they never will even try. Because they don't have to. Because they live in a world hermetically sealed from any contrary thought and it's easier for them to pretend the question was never posed at all -- that the question simply does not exist -- than to embarrass themselves in attempting to justify the wildly divergent treatment of the two cases.
Just as a note, I do this all the time myself. If I attempt to write "That ABCNews reporter really ate Weiner's lunch in play-acting a shy, withdrawing manner, encouraging Weiner's bully instincts to kick in, and making Weiner demolish himself," how that often comes out is as...
That ABCNews reporter really eight Weiner's lunch...
Now, do I really think that "eight" is a verb? No. What my brain does -- and I imagine everyone's brain does this -- is work on parts of the sentence five or eight words ahead while dumping the previous words into the "automated grunt-work bitchwork" lobe of the brain (I believe that's the actual anatomical designation, but please look it up).
So while my brain is focused on the last half of that sentence, the dumb part of my brain actually instructing my fingers which keys to hit on the keyboard is often doing dumb shit like issuing the command "TYPE 'eight'" rather than "TYPE 'ate'," as the smart part of my brain actually left a note to do.
But let's pretend that such typos and verbal stumbles and brain-farts are really, really, really important indicators of intelligence, except in such cases as we don't wish them to be, such as Barack Obama being apparently unable to work the simple mathematical operation of subtracting 2 from 50.
Yes, yes, dying, dum-dum dinosaur media, by all means, let's talk about interesting stories like this.
Posted by: Ace at
08:41 AM
| Comments (409)
Post contains 1343 words, total size 9 kb.
O/T
Rush called out Romney about his agreement with Global Baloney with the following: "Bye-bye nomination."
Posted by: Fish the Impaler at June 07, 2011 08:45 AM (cwFVA)
Posted by: Mark E at June 07, 2011 08:46 AM (w5RwR)
Posted by: Elderly Ex- Sportin' Woman at June 07, 2011 08:46 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Mjim at June 07, 2011 08:46 AM (rN9Na)
Posted by: Babawa Wawa: Ad Hominem Queen at June 07, 2011 08:47 AM (pLTLS)
I only noted one error, the bell ringing thing. Since then some of the Morons have pointed out that bells were rung that night.
But you expect this kind of shit from the MFM.
Posted by: Vic at June 07, 2011 08:47 AM (M9Ie6)
Mission Accomplished.
Posted by: The State Media at June 07, 2011 08:47 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Cindy in San Diego at June 07, 2011 08:47 AM (IB258)
Posted by: Mark E at June 07, 2011 12:46 PM (w5RwR)
Stop confusing us with the facts!
Posted by: 18-1 at June 07, 2011 08:48 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 07, 2011 08:48 AM (i6RpT)
So he thinks the country has 59 states? Or 58, including the apparent "Double State" of Alaskawaii?
"I wanna go back
to my frozen grass shack,
back in wala-ka-laskawaii!
Where the blue-wa-hula girls go dancin' byyyyy!
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 07, 2011 08:48 AM (Gzv/o)
Posted by: sexypig at June 07, 2011 08:49 AM (UmEOs)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 08:49 AM (r1/m6)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2011 08:49 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: madamex at June 07, 2011 08:49 AM (ice9D)
Posted by: sexypig at June 07, 2011 08:50 AM (UmEOs)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 08:50 AM (r1/m6)
Posted by: sexypig at June 07, 2011 08:50 AM (UmEOs)
Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at June 07, 2011 08:50 AM (Xm1aB)
What are you talking about? She was right. Paul Revere warned the British Redcoats about the armed militia waiting for them if they attacked, while he was in custody, with a gun to his head. You need to catch up.
Ditto.....
I dunno.. you're claiming it was a flub of speech. But everything else I've read seems to suggest it was not at all - and she was also correct. That she did in fact mean Paul Revere warned the British, not of the British.
The quote I saw of the full comment I think makes this even clearer, and she got other details right as well, so it seems pretty goofy to claim she got 'lucky'. She seems to know her shit on this.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 08:50 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: Cindy in San Diego at June 07, 2011 08:51 AM (IB258)
Posted by: sexypig at June 07, 2011 08:51 AM (UmEOs)
Meanwhile banks forced to buy US debt while China divests. Where is Paul Revere when you really need him?
The banks aren't loaning to business because they are loaning all their money to the government.
Our Bonedness of DOOM! is really scary.
Posted by: Beagle at June 07, 2011 08:51 AM (sOtz/)
But what does it say about policy?
-Palin-...May at some point in her Presidency end up giving a warning to the British
-Obama-...Spends money as if there are 59 States
Posted by: Speller at June 07, 2011 08:51 AM (J74Py)
Posted by: glowing blue meat at June 07, 2011 08:52 AM (K/USr)
"He was captured by the British and never made it to Concord," Giblin said. "While he was a prisoner of the British, he warned them they might meet a strong force of Americans. He was sort of boastful, telling them, 'You don't know what kind of force you're going to encounter at Concord.' He was propagandizing for the rebels."
Sometimes, what a First Grader knows, is not the WHOLE truth...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 08:52 AM (NtXW4)
Chuckles Johnson defends Wiki from Palin Paul Revere #hackers! So sayeth the Atlantic.
Oh brother.
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 07, 2011 08:52 AM (zBc85)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 07, 2011 08:52 AM (2wfuC)
Posted by: blaster at June 07, 2011 08:52 AM (l5dj7)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 08:53 AM (r1/m6)
It's like some kind of Bizzaro Ace Of Spades where Ace doesn't have a goatee.
Or something.
Posted by: blaster
You're having weiner DTs. Admit it.
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 07, 2011 08:53 AM (Gzv/o)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 07, 2011 08:54 AM (AZGON)
She should have just admitted it as a flub, but no, instead she tried to double down and explain why she was right. I don't like her or hate her, but it is very obvious that she cannot think on her feet. She needs time to plan out a response to a question, and when she doesn't have that time she sounds like a moron.
Posted by: lightenupfrancis at June 07, 2011 08:54 AM (N4deu)
Posted by: The Narrative at June 07, 2011 08:54 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: sexypig at June 07, 2011 08:54 AM (UmEOs)
Posted by: MBM at June 07, 2011 08:55 AM (tf9Ne)
See, not only is Palin perfect, she smarter than everyone else.
I get part of that is defensive based on how crappy she's been treated in the past but I'm fucking sick of it.
She's human, she fucked up. Just laugh it off and move on. But no she and her Amen Choir have to double down.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 08:55 AM (2f1Rs)
Posted by: claire at June 07, 2011 08:56 AM (x3oLQ)
Palin committed a minor gaffe, no more than a slip of the tongue. Happens to everybody.
What's lame is the spin by herself and her supporters to argue that she really did mean to say what she said and that it was accurate. She does too often in response to criticism over a minor gaffe instead of simply issuing a clarification, and comes off as thin-skinned and petty in the process.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 07, 2011 08:56 AM (WRW1S)
She should have just admitted it as a flub, but no, instead she tried to double down and explain why she was right. I don't like her or hate her, but it is very obvious that she cannot think on her feet. She needs time to plan out a response to a question, and when she doesn't have that time she sounds like a moron.
Posted by: lightenupfrancis at June 07, 2011 12:54 PM (N4deu)
Yeah... becuase saying somthing correct... being told you are wrong by those who know squat and hate you... and then caving to their view even when you are correct, is soooo Presidential...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 08:56 AM (NtXW4)
This IS fucking annoying as shit, really. Nothing worse than smug ignorance that is coming from a lot of people. Ah well... anyway....
"He who warned, uh, the British that they werenÂ’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells "
So no, I don't think she meant 'the colonists', and she herself has certainly stood by her statement, saying she meant the British.
As far as 'happens to be right' or 'got lucky', give me an f'n break - ringing those bells and firing guns? She's got the details right too - that's not blind luck she knows the story.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 08:56 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at June 07, 2011 08:56 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 08:56 AM (nj1bB)
When I saw the clip yesterday, I cringed, mostly in sympathy with her. She sounded like she lost her train of thought and the result was pretty garbled. This is the National Journal's transcript. It's in agreement with what I remember from yesterday.
"He who warned, uh, the British that they werenÂ’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as heÂ’s 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 and we were going to be armed."
Not her most eloquent moment.
We've all been there. It's not big news. I do not think she said what she had intended to say. There's really no need to try to justify it as some sort of nuanced understanding of Paul Revere's ride (which some seem to be doing, imho), nor does it, in and of itself, disqualify her for consideration.
Posted by: Y-not at June 07, 2011 08:56 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at June 07, 2011 08:57 AM (/KQXF)
Tempest in a Tea Party pot.
Posted by: Anwyn at June 07, 2011 08:57 AM (hWxc6)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 08:58 AM (nj1bB)
Yet, no one in the MBM gets so much as a crease in their briefs over Barry's gaffes.
I'm beginning to think that the illusion of the 'Race Card' being the wildcard is all that Barry has going for him.
The Media / Left put more stock in this notion...which is why they champion the inequity of Race Politik.
Posted by: garrett at June 07, 2011 08:58 AM (9bj/S)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 08:58 AM (nj1bB)
And if you are one of Chuck E. Cheesedoodle's crew you invoke the "Magical Balance Fairy" when the 57 states gaffe is mentioned. Waives away any common sense like a talisman. Poof!
It was obviously a gaffe- we joke about it, but does anyone really think that Obama didn't know how many states there are?
What would've been far more damaging is if he or his supporters offered a tortured defense of how there really are 57 states.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 07, 2011 08:58 AM (WRW1S)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 08:59 AM (r1/m6)
What I mean by smug ignorance. Everyone over there, commentors included, deserves twice the public humiliation they're sticking to her, on account of them all being idiots.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 08:59 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: steevy
Yeah, I'm bailing out of this thread. Too much venom, and that includes both Drew and Ace.
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 07, 2011 09:00 AM (Gzv/o)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 09:00 AM (r1/m6)
We would let her make a mistake if you would let her have a calculated, well thought out, media ass whuppin'
But she is always a dirty, stupid iceneck....
Posted by: catman at June 07, 2011 09:00 AM (YKUmW)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 09:00 AM (nj1bB)
I mean, she was right after all. He later wrote that he did warn the British during his ride.
Why would one assume that she misspoke rather than assume that she knows more than one's self? I do not understand.
Posted by: Ken at June 07, 2011 09:00 AM (3ar4L)
What would've been far more damaging is if he or his supporters offered a tortured defense of how there really are 57 states.
And stranger than fiction, and also more depressing, that tortured and more damaging defense would be more realistic if there actually were 57 states.
That's fucked up.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 09:01 AM (IsLT6)
I mean, seriously folks, it's right in front of us...
Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at June 07, 2011 09:02 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at June 07, 2011 09:02 AM (JKe0g)
Though I used the 57 states line and that shut them up quick.
Posted by: Mjim at June 07, 2011 09:02 AM (rN9Na)
When I'm not hunting for porn, yes, that's what we try for, basically.
Relax. That's a lot of material for us to ignore.
Posted by: garrett at June 07, 2011 09:02 AM (9bj/S)
See, now you're talkin'- let's combine Mitt and Sarah, and get a summer blockbuster called:
"Mittens Cornbrero and the Legend of Sarah".
That there's an adventure movie I'd pay to see.
Posted by: Chariots of Toast at June 07, 2011 09:02 AM (XyjRQ)
When I'm not hunting for porn, yes, that's what we try for, basically. Posted by: ace
Yuck, that is too much like work.
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at June 07, 2011 09:02 AM (/KQXF)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 12:58 PM (nj1bB)
Yeah... and there is no consescending tone in this post... nope... none at all...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 09:02 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2011 09:03 AM (WkuV6)
Piper Palin says.....
When I find that mouthy little Ewok, he's gonna wish he never trashed my mommie.
Posted by: Amen Chorus at June 07, 2011 09:03 AM (hEqXP)
And crucially, does anyone in the media believe, or postulate, that this is evidence that Obama is not just not terribly intelligent, but actually, in fact, profoundly mentally challenged with an effective knowledge base beneath that of a first grader?
Public-schooled or home-schooled?
Posted by: Cicero at June 07, 2011 09:04 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: kathysaysso at June 07, 2011 09:04 AM (ZtwUX)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 09:04 AM (r1/m6)
...a really cute girl blogger whose name I can't remember.
Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at June 07, 2011 12:56 PM (Xm1aB)
Hi Andy! I'm surprised you didn't recognize me. You must pay closer attention to detail.
EDITED BY ACE. Mary Katharine Ham is something of an occasional friend. Please don't be nasty.
Posted by: Mary Catherine Ham at June 07, 2011 09:04 AM (cwFVA)
On the flip end, you have fanbois taking to Wikipedia to clarify their gal's comments.
I cannot imagine doing this for any politician. Ever. They're just people. They will fuck up. They will disappoint. It's probably best to not take it so personally.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at June 07, 2011 09:04 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: shivas Irons at June 07, 2011 09:04 AM (qu2SW)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 07, 2011 09:05 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 09:05 AM (nj1bB)
In my case it was the delivery, some of which you can glean from the quote, but some of which you can only see when you watch the video. There are pauses and a couple of um's that suggest she's lost her train of thought. (Normally, she is a good speaker, imho.) It's also been my experience (from years of evaluating students) that when someone is unsure of what point they're trying to make, they drift into run-on sentences.
I don't think it's any big slam of Palin to say that her comment was muddled.
Posted by: Y-not at June 07, 2011 09:05 AM (pW2o8)
Please, don't get me started. I had a whole 2nd half of the post about Saint Sarah the Infallible but I decided to skip it.
Dude, WTF?
This isn't about St. Sarah it's about recorded fucking history.
You know how to look it up, right?
Look, if anyone has a well-informed quibble, then quibble... But you know your shit, here, right?
You're not just rolling your eyes because it doesn't fit what you kinda remember from grade school, are you???
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 09:06 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: shivas Irons at June 07, 2011 09:06 AM (qu2SW)
I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He
demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and
aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River,
and that There would be five hundred Americans there
in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up."
Posted by: Paul Revere at June 07, 2011 09:06 AM (rN9Na)
The answer to that is simple in the circular reasoning world inhabited by the MFM: "because Obama is smart and Palin is stupid".
It's "turtles all the way down" with these people...
Posted by: Nighthawk at June 07, 2011 09:06 AM (OtQXp)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 07, 2011 09:07 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: The MBM at June 07, 2011 09:07 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 09:08 AM (r1/m6)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 09:10 AM (r1/m6)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 09:10 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: blaster at June 07, 2011 09:10 AM (l5dj7)
Posted by: George Orwell in his cups at June 07, 2011 09:11 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 07, 2011 09:11 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 09:11 AM (r1/m6)
1:00 mark "you'd like to get inside her" and more jokes like that
I was truly disgusted.
Posted by: PeePeePundit at June 07, 2011 09:11 AM (+sBB4)
Posted by: oic at June 07, 2011 09:12 AM (dDBDn)
There are not actually 57 states in the USA, but Paul Revere did warn the British during his midnight ride.
Funny how that factoid slipped through the bloggy cracks.
Posted by: Ken at June 07, 2011 09:12 AM (3ar4L)
Well, since you ask. If it had been me, I would have said I had a brain cramp.
Posted by: Y-not at June 07, 2011 09:12 AM (pW2o8)
Meanwhile....
dOpe is "not concerned with double-dip recession...." but he does want the WORLD economy to stabilize. Screw Us.
Nah, let's not worry about that...
Let's talk about Palin's syntax...
Posted by: Politics of Palin Destruction at June 07, 2011 09:12 AM (dh5Eu)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 09:12 AM (r1/m6)
I don't think it's any big slam of Palin to say that her comment was muddled.
It's not.
But don't let that stop anyone.
Look, she sometimes says things using syntax that the rest of us find a little "off." It's not a knock on her, it's just the way it is.
If I said to you "Throw me downstairs the hat" you'd say, "WTF?"
If I said "Throw the hat downstairs to me" you would "get it."
That's what we're saying. It doesn't matter that Palin was right on the details. She was. It was that the rest of the country doesn't understan the story that way - and she should know that. It could have been a moment where she demonstrated exactly how smart she is. Instead, it was yet another foot shot.
Being correct is only worth something if everyone knows you're correct.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 07, 2011 09:12 AM (sbV1u)
don't think she meant to say it,but the fact that it is true gave her a plausible out.She took it,so what?If she admits a gaffe they will make a federal case out of it because they hammer her with the "stupid" meme.
ALL Sins of the Sarah are absolved by the tears of her disciples - AHOY!
Posted by: PALINISTO at June 07, 2011 09:12 AM (9bj/S)
Posted by: macbrooks at June 07, 2011 09:13 AM (ByIdJ)
Posted by: madamex at June 07, 2011 09:13 AM (ice9D)
No mathematics. Seriously, how many of you went to college and said, "Gosh, I don't want to take that political science class or else my GPA will go down!"?
No dissertation. Not only did Obama never do any original thinking (which is the minimum requirement for a dissertation) I see no evidence he ever wrote anything as comprehensive as a term paper. He famously had trouble writing his book, which is an indication of someone who has never had to write anything of complexity and length.
No competition from internationally-educated students. In law school and even the social sciences, being a native English speaker and taking our liberal arts-oriented curricula is an advantage, as opposed to the sciences in which the international competition doesn't waste time with such things after high school.
No competition from bright American students. Let's face it, the electrical engineers, mathematicians and nuclear physicists are out of the pool that applies to law school.
Nobody flunks out of law school. Unlike mathematics or science or engineering, there's very little that a law school student can do to wash out of the program if he still pays tuition. Once you get accepted, they print your diploma.
I went to high school with somebody who went to Harvard Law. She was smart and very nice, but at least three of us were demonstrably smarter and this was a featureless suburban high school in Lancaster County.
I see zero evidence of strategic thinking on his part, unlike Palin. Obama rides in the sedan chair. Someone holds him up, someone else directs the parade. He rides along. Palin, however, has that intellect.
What she doesn't have is bien pensants.
What she is, is a working-class Wal-Mart woman who doesn't know her place.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:14 AM (T0NGe)
I'm happy to admit that this shit gets me going but let's not pretend Palin and her supporters are above throwing the more than occasional elbow too.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 09:14 AM (2f1Rs)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 09:14 AM (nj1bB)
I mean, she was right after all. He later wrote that he did warn the British during his ride.
Why would one assume that she misspoke rather than assume that she knows more than one's self? I do not understand.
Posted by: Ken at June 07, 2011 01:00 PM (3ar4L)
Have you read the transcript or listened to her answer? It's kinda incoherent and sounds like someone speaking off the cuff and making a flub. Which is probably what happened and not a big deal since anyone who regularly speaks in the public will flub on occasion.
And if you're going to drop some knowledge that flies in the face of common understanding, you generally note this by way of your intonation and phrasing. I don't hear that in Palin's statement.
So I think she goofed - which is not a big deal.
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 09:14 AM (TU3mr)
That doesn't bode well for a Palin presidency.
Posted by: Y-not at June 07, 2011 09:14 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 09:14 AM (r1/m6)
Now I doubt if they teach anything about him at all. Palin was wrong on one thing, right on the other and had some muddled speaking.
The MFM was wrong on just about all of their descriptions and we still haven't seen the entire video with the original question.
Posted by: Vic at June 07, 2011 09:14 AM (M9Ie6)
The National Journal guy transcribed Palin thusly:
He who warned, uh, the British that they werenÂ’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as heÂ’s 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 and we were going to be armed.
So, journalists are NOW including the "uhs" in politician quotes?
That would send a shudder down the spines of Obama's PR mavens.
Posted by: CJ at June 07, 2011 09:14 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at June 07, 2011 09:14 AM (SB0V2)
If this was not a slip of the tongue, it might very well be a calculated move to have the media make fools of themselves.
Im rather enjoying the show with her leading the media around by the nose. If she does nothing else, she is putting cracks in the media's stranglehold on political discourse, especially presidential elections. Doesnt matter whether she ultimately runs or not...
Posted by: Leigh T at June 07, 2011 09:15 AM (TkzZY)
Posted by: Reality Man at June 07, 2011 09:15 AM (9AQdP)
See, not only is Palin perfect, she smarter than everyone else.
I get it Drew, you troll your own (co)blog. Is that like self-mutilation or something?
Posted by: PeePeePundit at June 07, 2011 09:15 AM (+sBB4)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 07, 2011 09:16 AM (AZGON)
I don't believe for a moment Palin is stupid. Liberals always say that about conservatives.
President Obama on the other hand. Aside from the fact that academically, I believe he heavily benefited from Affirmatie Action, anyone who believes in socialist policies can't be the brightest bulb in the drawer. Or they just choose to be evil.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 07, 2011 09:16 AM (GKQDR)
How is this history not widely known?
Oh, public schools. I keep forgetting.
I'm sure the "widely known" facts have even been replaced by LGTQxyZ sensitivity training by now.
Posted by: dagny at June 07, 2011 09:16 AM (u8cj+)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 09:17 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ✡phoenixgirl✡I STAND WITH ISRAEL at June 07, 2011 01:09 PM (eOXTH)
Or.... even when she's right... she's wrong???
Its like that ancient conundrum.... If a Man speaks in a Forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 09:17 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: B. Hussein Obama at June 07, 2011 09:17 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 09:17 AM (TU3mr)
Wait, Sean, are you saying that Sarah is AMISH?!?
Well, where I'm from if you used that syntax you'd be a Canuck.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 07, 2011 09:17 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 07, 2011 09:17 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: oic at June 07, 2011 09:18 AM (dDBDn)
No Salmon in Hawaii.
...they both have Coastlines. But not Salmon.
Posted by: garrett at June 07, 2011 12:49 PM (9bj/S)
They do in Alaskawaii.....dumB dumB
Posted by: Flappy McKenya at June 07, 2011 09:18 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 09:18 AM (r1/m6)
I give you: Yale Law School.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:18 AM (T0NGe)
Interesting 'cerpt from Wiki on Israel Bissel...
At the end of Bissell's first leg, in Worcester, his first horse collapsed and died from having been driven so hard. At each town along the way, church bells were rung and muskets fired to spread the word; when he reached Philadelphia, the pealing of the Liberty Bell caused a crowd of 8,000 to assemble to hear the news. Bissell then returned to Connecticut, where he joined the army alongside his brother, Justis. After the war, he moved to Middlefield, Massachusetts. Bissell died in 1823 and was buried in the Maple Street Cemetery in Hinsdale, Massachusetts.
Posted by: fixerupper at June 07, 2011 09:18 AM (C8hzL)
"Nobody flunks out of law school. Unlike mathematics or science or engineering, there's very little that a law school student can do to wash out of the program if he still pays tuition. Once you get accepted, they print your diploma."
You know, I had to go to municipal court last week to take care of an old traffic ticket. What you are saying is quite true, and any fucking retard can be a municipal court judge. All you do is put on a black robe and shuffle paperwork like any office clerk. It is appalling how many genuine idiots have law degrees. This is the democratization of higher education at work, and it's why a B.A. will not get you a job worth a damn.
Posted by: Beth at June 07, 2011 09:18 AM (5NfIh)
Posted by: cvb at June 07, 2011 09:18 AM (3VKcM)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 07, 2011 09:19 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 09:19 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Grover Fucking Cleveland at June 07, 2011 09:20 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Reality Man at June 07, 2011 09:20 AM (9AQdP)
The checks didn't clear.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:20 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Leigh T at June 07, 2011 01:15 PM (TkzZY)
Or the one that pretty much started the meme... 'what does the Vice President do?'
I would LOVE to have a Republican Vice President, take up his Constitutionaly mandated JOB of presiding over the Senate...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 09:20 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 09:20 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 09:21 AM (Xm1aB)
Hey Drew,
Since you are such a genius whay don't you call Boston University History Professor Brendan McConville and tell him he's fucking idiot just like Palin.
You can also call Patrick Lehay of the Paul Revere House and tell him that up, you and Palin are both idiots.
Then you can get in touch with Zombie Paul Revere and tell him, you know that letter you wrote about your ride. You were fucking wrong man. You have no idea what you did that night because a fucking Poet told us all 100 years later what reall went down.
They are called books, you history revisionists should read them.
Maybe you could start with this article in the Boston Herald.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 09:21 AM (MtwBb)
Please, don't get me started. I had a whole 2nd half of the post about Saint Sarah the Infallible but I decided to skip it.
But if you want to do the opposite of what the media does -- just as dumb, just the opposite -- and claim that a simple slip of the tongue was actually a strangely-unsignaled attempt to convey a bit of history not widely known, Because Sarah Palin Does Not Make Mistakes As Mortal Man Is Prone To (TM), be my guest.
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 12:56 PM (nj1bB)
THANK YOU! This "story" would have died instantly if the explanation was that it was just a slip of the tongue. Obviously she (and everyone) knows that Paul Revere warned the Colonists that the British were coming.
OTOH, if you read a transcript of what she actually said in the clip, it's tough to map that sentence and know what she was getting at. It's a mess, and plays right into the media's meme about her being confused and stupid. These aren't mistakes she should still be making at this point.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 09:21 AM (H9eC4)
Seriously? That's why you think they were out there that night, that was the plan?
You're sticking with that?
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 09:21 AM (2f1Rs)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 07, 2011 09:22 AM (AZGON)
I'm not going either way on this. It is fact that he warned the British, but that isn't what I'm looking at.
What continually astounds me is how easily she stirs the MFM pot. She's very good at it. We need more conservatives like her, which might be one of the reasons she's on this tour. Teaching candidates that expressing conservative core values is well recieved by the American population.
The woman draws large, enthusiastic crowds wherever she goes. Her popularity scares the shit out of lefties and many here on AoSHQ. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Drew. And others.)
Posted by: Soona at June 07, 2011 09:22 AM (LDIop)
Posted by: beasn at June 07, 2011 09:22 AM (aiWtu)
Posted by: Dr Spank at June 07, 2011 09:23 AM (k0TKJ)
The reflexive system gets first crack at making most judgments and decisions. It is primarily headquartered underneath the cerebral cortex and serves as our "auto-pilot" since our day to day routines are not in need of deep analytical thinking.
If the reflexive parts of your brain are the default system, the "go-to" circuits that use intuitive processing to tackle problems first, then the reflective areas are the backup machinery, the "uh-oh" circuits that engage analytical thinking. The reflective brain resides largely in the prefrontal cortex.
As with Paul Revere or 57 states, if you give the reflexive portion of the brain enough chances, it will inevitably let you down. "It's kind of like a guard dog. It makes rapid but sort of sloppy decisions. It will always attack the burglar, but sometimes it might attack the postman, too."
Posted by: Mule at June 07, 2011 09:23 AM (pGRhe)
Posted by: Tom at June 07, 2011 09:23 AM (nQR0p)
Posted by: steevy at June 07, 2011 09:23 AM (r1/m6)
The media have created and promoted an image of Palin as a dumb,
greedy, bimbo. Too many conservatives either climb on this bandwagon, or act like it's her fault for letting
this happen.
Similarly, Dick Cheney has been caricatured in the media as a blood-thirsty, torture-loving, warmonger... but the same conservatives who cut and run from Sarah Palin rightfully blame the media smears and defend his honor when it comes to Dick Cheney.
Looks like a double-standard to me.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 07, 2011 09:23 AM (PLvLS)
It was called the “alarm and muster”.
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at June 07, 2011 09:24 AM (he7jI)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 07, 2011 09:24 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 07, 2011 09:24 AM (i6RpT)
I don't cite this video to prove Obama is dumb. I cite it to prove the media is dumb. And also dishonest.
Obama isn't dumb, but he isn't brilliant, either. He's got about the intelligence of the average college student, I would guess. But I would cite the video as evidence - no, proof - that he is not culturally an American. He's one de jure, but not de facto. No person who is culturally an American would ever get the number of states wrong, under any circumstances, any more than one would mispeak and say Thomas Jefferson was the first President. A slip of the tongue would be immediately recognized and corrected. That Obama did not recognize his error and immediately correct it speaks volumes.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 07, 2011 09:24 AM (ap/w5)
You confuse amuse with 'scare'.
There's this conceit among Palin supporters that people who don't like her 'fear' her or are simply falling for the media line.
Does it never occur to you that some of us just might not find her all that impressive as a prospective candidate or conservative thought leader?
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 09:25 AM (2f1Rs)
Posted by: Charles Gibson at June 07, 2011 09:25 AM (Hx5uv)
And if you're going to drop some knowledge that flies in the face of common understanding, you generally note this by way of your intonation and phrasing. I don't hear that in Palin's statement.
So I think she goofed - which is not a big deal.
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 01:14 PM (TU3mr)
This is it exactly. It was a flub, which really doesn't matter. Turning it into "I didn't flub! I NEVER flub!" is just tedious.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 09:25 AM (H9eC4)
Wait...he's not? Are you trying to commit blasphemy? That's what we like about him, damn it!
Posted by: Slublog at June 07, 2011 09:25 AM (0nqdj)
And I do acknowledge the example of one Albert Gore, Jr. "Nobody" wasn't to be taken literally, but as hyperbolic derision.
Keep in mind that in the sciences you don't even have the issue of financing, people don't drop out because they can't afford it anymore -- there are TAs -- they drop out because they actually flunk.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:25 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 07, 2011 09:25 AM (AZGON)
Why can't Sarah Palin and Obama do that? Neither one of them can laugh at themselves AT ALL. Even Biden can laugh at himself.
Posted by: Beth at June 07, 2011 09:25 AM (5NfIh)
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 01:25 PM (2f1Rs)
Drew, when you come upon a mugging victim, barely conscious in a pool of his own blood, do you bend down and say, "You know, you really shouldn't have been in this neighborhood to begin with."?
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:26 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: MSM at June 07, 2011 09:26 AM (iSTOS)
Posted by: nevergiveup at June 07, 2011 09:26 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 07, 2011 09:26 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: sexypig at June 07, 2011 09:27 AM (UmEOs)
Because she's teh stoopit. Not sophisticated like the Usual Suspects here. Uneducated. Rube-like. Worse, she has a vagina.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 09:27 AM (a/VXa)
Posted by: oic at June 07, 2011 01:18 PM (dDBDn)
I remember Kennedy calling himself a jelly doughnut, but he did it in German so I guess that doesn't count...
Posted by: Nighthawk at June 07, 2011 09:27 AM (OtQXp)
The Colonists were British.
Even back then, there weren't 57 states, not even 1 unless you consider the State of rebellion..
Posted by: Max Entropy at June 07, 2011 09:27 AM (lH6z9)
They are claiming that she does not possess the common knowledge possessed by a first grader.
Have you seen the state of our education system? I would be happy if a slim majority of high schoolers know about Paul Revere.
Posted by: Vyceroy at June 07, 2011 09:27 AM (mqy6N)
Seriously? That's why you think they were out there that night, that was the plan?
You're sticking with that?
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 01:21 PM (2f1Rs)
First of all read the link at 162 before you embarrass yourself anymore.
She didn't say that was Paul Revere's mission, she said that is what happened. Right down to the firing of muskets and ringing of bells.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 09:27 AM (MtwBb)
She said he warned the British that they shouldn't take the colonists lightly.
I don't exactly see what's wrong with what she said, and considerign the history that backs her up.
But I was just listening to Barry on rush today and he is such a douche, he just blabbers and blabbers...he talks just like I did when I was trying to bullshit teachers...in 10th grade.
Seriously!
So, we have this stuff over here, that's causing something that we should all be afraid of and have to deal with, and so, this stuff over here...
I'd love to have some idiot journalist ask him what bond yields are.
He has no fucking idea about anything.
Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz at June 07, 2011 09:28 AM (s5aNX)
And no you don't get credit for a "technically" correct answer if that wasn't what you had in mind when you gave it. I think she goofed - which happens. So why can't we all be honest about that? And yes I'm disappointed in Palin for trying to spin her way out of this.
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 09:28 AM (TU3mr)
So because the media was horrible to her, it's incumbent upon me to pretend Palin is everything her supporters claim to be?
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 09:28 AM (2f1Rs)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 09:28 AM (Xm1aB)
How is this history not widely known?
Oh, public schools. I keep forgetting.
I'm sure the "widely known" facts have even been replaced by LGTQxyZ sensitivity training by now.
Sigh.
Bad little bald monkeys deserve whatever they give themselves.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 09:28 AM (IsLT6)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 01:21 PM (Xm1aB)
Single payer. That's all I'm sayin'.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:28 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: PeePeePundit at June 07, 2011 09:28 AM (+sBB4)
57 states is one thing. The corpse-man thing is something else. Misspeaking it as corpse-man once could be excused as a simple mistake, jet-lag, "I was thinking about my short-game" etc.
The second "corpse-man" in the same prepared speech tells me that he had no idea how to properly pronounce a relatively common word in the English language.
I absolutely believe that English is his first language, so I'm gonna have to go with "he's a fuckin' idiot".
Actually, I don't believe for a second that he has any language other than English.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 07, 2011 09:29 AM (CaMwV)
Posted by: Beth at June 07, 2011 09:29 AM (5NfIh)
Similarly, Dick Cheney has been caricatured in the media as a blood-thirsty, torture-loving, warmonger..
and I suppose he doesn't wear Cougar Skin Condoms, either?
Posted by: garrett at June 07, 2011 09:29 AM (9bj/S)
Letter from Paul Revere to Dr. Jeremy Belknap, c. 1789
"Dear Sir,
Having a little leisure, I wish to fullfill my
promise, of giving you some facts, and Anecdotes, prior to the Battle of
Lexington, which I do not remember to have seen in any history of the
American Revolution. [...]"
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 07, 2011 09:29 AM (2wfuC)
Posted by: joejm65 at June 07, 2011 09:30 AM (BDB5n)
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 01:25 PM (2f1Rs)
Drew,
when you come upon a mugging victim, barely conscious in a pool of his
own blood, do you bend down and say, "You know, you really shouldn't
have been in this neighborhood to begin with."?
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 01:26 PM (T0NGe)
Wow, that's some analogy.
I've always thought some of the support for Palin had to do with people who want to avenge her for what the MSM did to her in 2008. The evidence is starting to pile up.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 09:30 AM (H9eC4)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 07, 2011 09:30 AM (AZGON)
Maet... is a mind reader. You're killing me.
The more likely reason is that Palin just finished a guided tour of New England and she was just parroting some facts given by the guides. She is too stupid to know this stuff, doncha know.
Posted by: PeePeePundit at June 07, 2011 09:30 AM (+sBB4)
Similarly, Dick Cheney has been caricatured in the media as a blood-thirsty, torture-loving, warmonger..
Caricatured my ass. That's the man in a nutshell. And it's fuckin' awesome.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 07, 2011 09:31 AM (CaMwV)
I didn't have any problems, but I was an English major. Perhaps others don't rise to that level of expertise.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 09:32 AM (a/VXa)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 09:32 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Beth at June 07, 2011 09:33 AM (5NfIh)
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 01:28 PM (TU3mr)
Oh fuck me running. Being correct isn't good enough anymore? Did you really just say that? I mean really?
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 09:34 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: sexypig at June 07, 2011 09:34 AM (UmEOs)
Posted by: Beth at June 07, 2011 09:34 AM (5NfIh)
The more likely reason is that Palin just finished a guided tour of New England and she was just parroting some facts given by the guides. She is too stupid to know this stuff, doncha know.
Posted by: PeePeePundit at June 07, 2011 01:30 PM (+sBB4)
I'm just going by how she appeared in the video clip - where I think she just misspoke. If you're going to point out a fact that isn't commonly known, you introduce it as such. She didn't, so I'm assuming that that wasn't her intention.
People misspeak all the time in normal conversation - I don't see why this is such a big deal.
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 09:34 AM (TU3mr)
Uh........not sure about all law schools, but the
one I attended, you could and people did. Actually, about 10% wash out.
10%?
Ten percent?
That's it?
That's statistical noise.
About 1/2 of those who wash out elect to leave.
So we're down to 5%. How many of those elected to leave because it was costing too much or because they just figured this wasn't the life for them?
My failure/drop rate for one course of multivariable calculus is about 33%. That's after two weedings (calc 1 and 2).
I'm supposed to be impressed by Mr. Ultra-Super-Gamma-Irradiated-Brain-Supergenius Barack Obama because he went to Harvard Law School (remember, that is the ONLY evidence we have of his intellect) and your reasonably good law schools have a failure rate of 5%?
But more to the point, what's the rate at Harvard?
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:36 AM (T0NGe)
Part of this was posted earlier, but it really deserves little more, plus the link. NPR:
"Sarah Palin caused a colonial-era commotion last week with comments she made in Boston about Paul Revere's famous ride. Melissa Block speaks with Robert Allison, a professor and historian at Suffolk University about Palin's comments to see just how historically accurate they were..."
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.
BLOCK: Are there other historians, Professor, whom you've talked with who say you're being entirely too charitable towards Sarah Palin here, and she really did misread American...
Prof. ALLISON: I haven't talked to many - well, I don't know. I mean, I haven't talked to too many historians today. And, you know, Sarah Palin is a lightning rod. I just was thinking about how many times, you know, I've spoken about Paul Revere. I've organized events about the American Revolution. No one ever pays any attention. Suddenly, Sarah Palin comes to town, makes an off-the-cuff remark about what she learned, and suddenly, you're calling me to find out what I think about Paul Revere and the American Revolution.
Posted by: CJ at June 07, 2011 09:36 AM (9KqcB)
I've thought that for some time. It's ridiculous what they charge, so that only the well-to-do can get justice.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 09:36 AM (a/VXa)
I think she goofed - which happens. So why can't we all be honest about that?
We can.
I think you're fucking biased and being retarded. Why can't we all be honest about that?
I say 'biased' - I don't know why, or how, but I cannot fathom anything else.
Bizzarro world.
How does she 'goof', correctly and with correct details, better than I knew before she did it?
And look at the context - the idea of Revere warning the Brits fits with what she was saying.
Look ...
This is it exactly. It was a flub, which really doesn't matter. Turning it into "I didn't flub!
Why do you think she flubbed and got right by accident?!?
Seriously, why?
Because of the way she didn't phrase it very clearly? Why do you assume the 'flub' is that she said 'warned the british' instead of phrasing it more clearly? It's totally speculative. It cannot not be biased.
Based on 'most people' using 'markers' to designate 'I'm about to learn you something you didn't know' or some such. It's ridiculous.
Maybe the 'flub' was that she forgot the 'marker'? No, no. No.
Why?
Cuz - why can't she be honest and admit she's wrong.
This seriously blows my fucking mind.
And I don't even think she's going to run. Presumably I'm some derranged Palinsta anyway.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 09:36 AM (IsLT6)
Do I get cast out if I admit that Sarah Palin is starting to bore me?
Death by stoning. Dawn, at the edge of town.
Too good for you if you ask me, blasphemer.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 07, 2011 09:36 AM (WRW1S)
Posted by: jeannebodine at June 07, 2011 09:37 AM (nvlAW)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 09:37 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 01:25 PM (2f1Rs)
I'm sure you'd be saying exactly the same thing about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, etc., if you lived in their time. I haven't been convinced by anything you've written that you even understand what leadership is.
Posted by: Soona at June 07, 2011 09:37 AM (LDIop)
Oh, wait, that's our caricature of Romney.
How about Paul Ryan and the old lady in the wheelchair, then? If the media portrayed Sarah Palin that way, most of the commenters here along with half the editors at NRO and all the ones at the Weakly Stuttered would be clucking their tongues and saying, "No way will America elect a woman president who pushed an old lady over the cliff in a wheelchair."
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 07, 2011 09:37 AM (PLvLS)
I didn't have any problems, but I was an English major. Perhaps others don't rise to that level of expertise.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 01:32 PM (a/VXa)
Her quote: "He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free."
He warned the British after he was captured. The warning shots and bells were to alert the Colonists. Her giant run-on sentence is all over the place.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 09:37 AM (H9eC4)
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 01:34 PM (MtwBb)
Yes. Being unintentionally correct isn't the same thing as being consciously correct. We even have a word for that - a "lucky guess". Why is this is so beyond the pale?
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 09:39 AM (TU3mr)
Posted by: sexypig at June 07, 2011 09:39 AM (UmEOs)
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 01:34 PM (TU3mr)
Or, she was still assimilating new knowledge into her worldview... and had not enunciated that thought before... so was looking for words while not really paying attention...
Thus, technicly correct, but not said with the artfull delivery we come to expect from politicians who are constantly delivering Speeches or boilerplate positions?
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 09:39 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Max Entropy at June 07, 2011 09:39 AM (lH6z9)
If you're going to point out a fact that isn't commonly known, you introduce it as such. She didn't, so I'm assuming that that wasn't her intention.
Always.
Everyone.
What the fuck world do you live in?
Reality based..... I quit.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 09:39 AM (IsLT6)
Funny, but she never said anything about warning the British by talking to them. She said he was "ringing those bells" and "send those warning shots and bells".
So her own words mention nothing about what her defenders claimed.
Of course, that misses the bigger point. Revere's ride had nothing to do with warning the British.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 09:39 AM (2f1Rs)
Pretzels for all.
Posted by: PeePeePundit at June 07, 2011 09:40 AM (+sBB4)
SHUN THE NON-BELIEVERS!!!! SHUN!!! SHUN!!!
(I still think the libs and the lib media is hateful and stupid and dishonest)
Posted by: Beth at June 07, 2011 09:40 AM (5NfIh)
These Palin threads represent why she is not the "best" candidate. I don't think I can watch eight or eighteen months of this. It is too easy to divert from the topic [whatever it is] to a discussion of whether Sarah's a dumbass. I don't think she is, but the presidential election needs to focus on whether Obama is a dumbass.
Right now, Palin serves the Country, by being the poster child for media bias from a media that constantly misrepresents anyone who advocates conservative ideas. In my mind, the "Palinistas" shouldn't be criticized for defending her in this latest episode. By defending her, they are establishing the broader point of MFM BS. I don't see a lot of upside by bagging on her supporters or her. Rather it is an opportunity to continue to beat on the media, which I thought was Ace's point.
A better response for her would have been: "You know what I meant [asshole]."
Too bad none of the other candidates will step up and say to the MFM "You know what she meant [assholes]."
OT: I think it would be fun to re-edit the Obama Big Brother ad that he ran against Hillary. Put Obama on the screen in front of the zombies and have Sarah throw the hammer that breaks the trance.
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at June 07, 2011 09:40 AM (qwK3S)
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 01:25 PM (2f1Rs)
I'm sure you'd be saying exactly the same thing about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, etc., if you lived in their time. I haven't been convinced by anything you've written that you even understand what leadership is.
Posted by: Soona at June 07, 2011 01:37 PM (LDIop)
Based on what?
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 09:40 AM (H9eC4)
Posted by: Caroline Kennedy at June 07, 2011 09:40 AM (An8Cu)
Posted by: JackStraw at June 07, 2011 09:41 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: jeannebodine at June 07, 2011 09:41 AM (nvlAW)
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 01:39 PM (TU3mr)
Because you don't get "lucky" including details of ringing bells and firing muskets. Those are facts that she just learned at the Paul Revere house or maybe she learned them somewhere else. I am not a mind reader. Ask my ex-wife.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 09:42 AM (MtwBb)
I've always thought some of the
support for Palin had to do with people who want to avenge her for what
the MSM did to her in 2008. The evidence is starting to pile up.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 01:30 PM (H9eC4)
Just keep piling on, then. That's it. Keep hitting her with ridiculous attacks. That'll teach those proles not to try to get into the ruling class.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:42 AM (T0NGe)
I'm not a Palin supporter. I don't like assholes that make up stuff on either side. And I'm not a mind reader.
Posted by: PeePeePundit at June 07, 2011 09:42 AM (+sBB4)
In the VP debate when Biden claimed that the US and France chased Hezbollah out of Lebanon, this is not a slip of the tongue, it's a falsehood. And, it's coming from the guy who's supposed to make up for Obama's lack of foreign policy expertise.
When Obama bragged that his Kenyan uncle helped Patton liberate a Polish labor camp, this was not a slip of the tongue. It was a candidate who has poll problems with the military trying to bullshit some empathy.
When Palin argues that firing Dr. Laura from her radio show violated her 2nd Amendment rights, she's wrong. Freedom of speech does not obligate someone to give you a microphone.
This is how you critically judge what someone says. The Revere thing is just the press taking an ambiguity and choosing an interpretation that makes her look bad. Just like the "if she refuses to name a newspaper that means she's never read one in her life" nonsense.
That liberals and far too many conservatives walk around carrying so many lies in their head about Palin is a sad commentary on the intelligence of the modern American.
Posted by: CrustyB at June 07, 2011 09:42 AM (GvSpB)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 09:42 AM (Xm1aB)
LOL, Nuke school in the Navy ran about 50% when I went through and they started with a minimum GCT+ARI requirement of 120 (OCS was 110). If you count it up all the way from boot camp to successfully making it to the fleet the drop out rate was even higher.
There were about 25 or 30 "nukes" in my company in boot camp. I was the only one to make it all the way through.
Posted by: Vic at June 07, 2011 09:43 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Sara P at June 07, 2011 01:34 PM (UqKQV)
Sigh. As I said I actually like Palin. But by not going 100% along with the Palin supporters gets me exiled to RINOville.
I guess I can live with that.
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 09:43 AM (TU3mr)
Posted by: Jean at June 07, 2011 09:43 AM (WkuV6)
Well...yeah. Like spoken sentences do when typed out. Somehow I doubt your spoken speech is the model of erudition you display here.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 09:44 AM (a/VXa)
Why do you think she flubbed and got right by accident?!?
Seriously, why?
Because of the way she didn't phrase it very clearly? Why do you assume the 'flub' is that she said 'warned the british' instead of phrasing it more clearly? It's totally speculative. It cannot not be biased.
That it wasn't entirely clear what she was trying to say is her fault, not anyone else's.
Had she said something along the lines of "Paul Revere rode through town warning the colonists that the British were coming to disarm them, and in doing so he sent a message to the British that we would stand up and fight for our freedoms.", there'd be no question of what she meant.
Instead, she made it sound as though Revere was riding through town with the main intent of warning the British. Again- that's on her.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 07, 2011 09:44 AM (WRW1S)
Posted by: Caroline Kennedy at June 07, 2011 01:40 PM (An8Cu)
Remember that Meggie Mac went to Columbia undergrad. So did Obama.
Well, not really. Obama went to the General Studies program.
Which is roughly like getting a communication degree from Cornell Ag School.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:44 AM (T0NGe)
that is "their" stance.......sarah being right...threatens "them" "they" can't handle it...
Posted by: ✡phoenixgirl✡ I STAND WITH ISRAEL & SARAH at June 07, 2011 01:40 PM (eOXTH)
I don't give a rats ass whether they like or are afraid of Palin.
I do care about unfair criticism base on their own ignorance of history.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 09:45 AM (MtwBb)
/just poking the nest a little
Posted by: PeePeePundit at June 07, 2011 09:45 AM (+sBB4)
I've always thought some of the
support for Palin had to do with people who want to avenge her for what
the MSM did to her in 2008. The evidence is starting to pile up.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 01:30 PM (H9eC4)
Just
keep piling on, then. That's it. Keep hitting her with ridiculous
attacks. That'll teach those proles not to try to get into the ruling
class.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 01:42 PM (T0NGe)
It's a "ridiculous attack" to say that she flubbed a sentence about Paul Revere? The only ridiculous thing about it is the freakout about how she was really right all along and outsmarted anyone who doubted her. Wouldn't it have been easier to admit she misspoke but then reassert the point she was trying to make (which may have been valid but has now been completely lost)?
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 09:46 AM (H9eC4)
Posted by: Soona at June 07, 2011 01:37 PM (LDIop)
In what fucking world is Sarah Palin anything like Washington, Lincoln or Reagan?
Jebus...serving a half year as a Governor and appearing on Fox News doesn't exactly get you into that club.
All three of them were incredibly accomplished before becoming President. Palin, like most people, simply can't a hold a candle to any of them.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 09:46 AM (2f1Rs)
Not upper. Lower. Lower math classes.
It doesn't have the same washout rate as College Algebra. Which is actually High School Algebra.
Mae, I'm sure you're a perfectly intelligent person, but when the aliens come to earth and say, "Find us your most brilliant human or we will destroy the planet." we ain't gonna be spending any time at all in the law schools.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:46 AM (T0NGe)
All we have is Palin's original statement, a few ignorant reporters' "gotchas," a couple of historian's responses, Palin's response that it wasn't an error, and about 40 billion flailing blog comments.
No wonder we never get anywhere.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 07, 2011 09:47 AM (bxiXv)
It's a "ridiculous attack" to say
that she flubbed a sentence about Paul Revere?
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 01:46 PM (H9eC4)
Why. Even. Mention. It.?
Why. Pile. On.?
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:47 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: garrett at June 07, 2011 09:47 AM (9bj/S)
Posted by: jeannebodine at June 07, 2011 09:47 AM (nvlAW)
Well...yeah. Like spoken sentences do when typed out. Somehow I doubt your spoken speech is the model of erudition you display here.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 01:44 PM (a/VXa)
Which would be fine if it made sense. Paul Revere's ride wasn't about warning the British. He rode to warn the Americans about the British and then told the British to back off once he'd been captured. Her quote just smushes it all together into one thing and it doesn't work.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 09:48 AM (H9eC4)
Posted by: Fritz at June 07, 2011 09:49 AM (p2IBw)
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 01:42 PM (MtwBb)
Well let's say that she actually intended to make that point.
Then she mangled her statement and made it sound like she flubbed it. Which was <gasp> a mistake. Like any regular public speaker Palin messes up on occasion. Like I said it's not a big deal - except that we're not allowed to ever acknowledge this.
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 09:49 AM (TU3mr)
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 01:39 PM (2f1Rs)
Yes, because the Brits, who were on a SECRET mission, would never HEAR the guns and bells going off...
You know, those guns and bells which it was common knowledge at the time brought forth the Militias?
Remember, the people at the time were not in Rebellion yet.... they were trying to make a statement just short of bloodshed... by showing the Brits they were willing to stand up for themselves (which is why the Redcoats made it a SECRET mission).
Both sides were under orders NOT to Fire... both sides were trying to get the other to blink first... and when Revere was captured he DID tell them about the Coloinist Militia, in the hope that they would halt the operation.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 09:49 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 07, 2011 09:50 AM (2wfuC)
Actually, Washington was not a terribly articulate person -- writing or speaking. He was the strong, silent type. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton -- those were the brains of the outfit. If you read some Madison and Jefferson and then read some of Washington's letters, you will see that he was not very full of rhetorical flourish.
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was considered at the time to be a minor speech of no great import.
Even Reagan's intellect was derided, even by the Right. In fact, there was no vindication for him until his letters were published.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 09:51 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 12:56 PM (nj1bB)
I hope you saved it. I'd like to read it, and besides, you KNOW you'll have ample opportunity in the future to publish it.
Posted by: Vyceroy at June 07, 2011 09:51 AM (mqy6N)
It's a "ridiculous attack" to say that she flubbed a sentence about Paul Revere?
It is ridiculous to say that a true statement is false and deserves correction.
Fuck Palin and fuck her oratory.
It is goddamn ridiculous.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 09:52 AM (IsLT6)
It's a "ridiculous attack" to say
that she flubbed a sentence about Paul Revere?
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 01:46 PM (H9eC4)
Why. Even. Mention. It.?
Why. Pile. On.?
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 01:47 PM (T0NGe)
Because it's a valid criticism. No one would give an S about the flubbed sentence but now the story is dragging on and on while she and her supporters try to convince everyone that she was right all along and never, ever misspoke. It's this strategy that we're criticizing. Is this winning her any new supporters? Is this helping her get her message out?
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 09:52 AM (H9eC4)
Then she mangled her statement and made it sound like she flubbed it. Which was <gasp> a mistake. Like any regular public speaker Palin messes up on occasion. Like I said it's not a big deal - except that we're not allowed to ever acknowledge this.
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 01:49 PM (TU3mr)
Or we could just say that all you knew before today of Paul Revere's ride you learned from a fucking poet who left out some things and embellished some things while writing a poem and now you just won't get off your position and admit you are wrong?
I'm just mindreading here.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 09:53 AM (MtwBb)
You're wrong. That's ok, it happens.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 09:54 AM (a/VXa)
All I'm saying is the after the fact claim about how Revere warned the British doesn't match her actual words.
But we're supposed to ignore that while you continue to revise and extend her remarks.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 09:54 AM (2f1Rs)
Actually, Washington was not a terribly articulate person -- writing or speaking. He was the strong, silent type. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton -- those were the brains of the outfit. If you read some Madison and Jefferson and then read some of Washington's letters, you will see that he was not very full of rhetorical flourish.
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was considered at the time to be a minor speech of no great import.
Even Reagan's intellect was derided, even by the Right. In fact, there was no vindication for him until his letters were published.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 01:51 PM (T0NGe)
Lincoln cut his teeth in the Lincoln-Douglas debates about slavery. Reagan delivered some amazing speeches going back to the 1964 Presidential election and articulated his ideas successfully as a two-term governor of California.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 09:55 AM (H9eC4)
Because "She's retarded" is a step too far, but not as much of a step too far as "She's probably about as smart as me, and knows a thing I don't."
You are psychotic about Palin. Full Sullivan.
Posted by: oblig. at June 07, 2011 09:55 AM (xvZW9)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 09:55 AM (Xm1aB)
Or, she was still assimilating new knowledge into her worldview... and had not enunciated that thought before... so was looking for words while not really paying attention...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 01:39 PM (NtXW4)
Occam's razor
Posted by: CJ at June 07, 2011 09:56 AM (9KqcB)
You're wrong. That's ok, it happens.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 01:54 PM (a/VXa)
I like the "Shut up!" argument you're using here. Persuasive.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 09:57 AM (H9eC4)
All I'm saying is the after the fact claim about how Revere warned the British doesn't match her actual words.
What we should be pointing out is what, I think ace, mentioned above.
-If she was trying to make the point her supporters insist we concede that she was making, she failed to do so cogently.
-If she was making this point because she was just reminded of its veracity on a recent visit to a Historical site, how could she get it so awfully wrong in the retelling?
Posted by: garrett at June 07, 2011 09:58 AM (9bj/S)
But we're supposed to ignore that while you continue to revise and extend her remarks.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 01:54 PM (2f1Rs)
You are starting to sound like a birther. It matches her words and meaning exactly. In fact, Revere inflated the number of colonists when warning the British to try and convince them the colonists weren't fucking around.
You should really read more before you talk.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 09:58 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 09:59 AM (Xm1aB)
Why is it Breitbart can do this sort of stuff and he is a genius but Palin is never given credit for making the oafs look like oafs? Even Ace, who I respect greatly, doesn't come out of this looking too good either since he obviously wasn't up to snuff on everything that transpired. I think in his heart he has bought into the unelectable and ignorant memes. Those may be true but they are only true because the Republican establishment is about to be deposed and has an interest in playing along with the riff.
Palin's style of speaking and accent is annoying as hell but we aren't electing the person with the best grammar. Maybe she doesn't bother me as much because I never listen to what a politician says. I only care about what they do and so far she doesn't have any Romneycare albatrosses circling her carcass.
Posted by: Let's all apologize for being right at June 07, 2011 09:59 AM (JKX4x)
Posted by: Mætenloch at June 07, 2011 01:49 PM (TU3mr)
SO what the fuck am I reading now? It sure as shit looks like that's what you're doing.
Oh, you mean no one is allowed to argue with you about it. Gotcha.
That's easy enough, start a blog that doesn't allow comments. PROBLEM SOLVED.
Nothing personal, Maet, but you're reminding me of James Hansen, who gave hundreds of interviews while he worked at NASA, repeatedly claiming he wasn't being allowed to speak about his ideas. In interviews. Publicly. That he wasn't allowed.
(Insert picture of cat pushing watermelon out of a lake here.)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 07, 2011 10:00 AM (bxiXv)
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 01:54 PM (2f1Rs)
NO.... I'm revising and extending MY remarks, thanyou very much...
She did NOT speak eloquently... and have said as much... it was an off the cuff remark on somthing she had probably never articulated before...
But many piled on her for being STUPID, not for making a factualy correct inelegant statement....
And lumped those of us with a different viewpoint, as Living in 'some other Reality'...
Oh... and for the record, I am NOT a Palin Supporter... I like her views but do not believe she is electable because her voice and delivery GRATES on many in the electorate... myself included...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 10:00 AM (NtXW4)
And even I immediately understood this as a transparent "misspeaking" gaffe that didn't reflect even the slightest bit on her intelligence. Of COURSE she knows what happened on Paul Revere's ride. This is completely stupid media "gotcha" bullshit, her gaffe is absolutely identical to Obama's "57 states" error, and any other interpretation (either way) is tendentious BS. C'mon now, there are so many other good reasons to oppose Sarah Palin as a presidential candidate, and the media is fixating on THIS?
P.S. Once again, this thread proves that Palin's supporters are often her worst enemy. Dear god, you guys need to stop being so obstreperous.
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 07, 2011 10:00 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Obama at June 07, 2011 10:00 AM (lH6z9)
I dunno about the rest of you, but when I look at a media scrum around Palin, I see a gal who's spent a lifetime doing realtime multi-tasking: Brothers and sisters, mom and dad, kids pulling at her begging for something, while she's talking to a friend/constituent on the phone, husband asking 'what's for dinner - did you buy the beer?' All of that, all the time.
Those of you who did not grow up in large families or within driving range of kith and kin might not grasp the type of personality of a woman living in the eye of daily organized chaos.
She wants to give a bit to everyone, what comes out is quintessential American mom.
Posted by: mrp at June 07, 2011 10:01 AM (HjPtV)
Or, she was still assimilating new knowledge into her worldview... and had not enunciated that thought before... so was looking for words while not really paying attention...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 01:39 PM (NtXW4)
Occam's razor<<CJ
Fuckin' A right, Occam's goddamn razor, which suggests exactly what Romeo was saying.
Christ on a crutch. I have never seen so many people so dedicated to tearing down a public figure they theoretically agree with around the margins, to the point of declaring, "She CAAAAN'T be right, and if she is, she's really wrong, because she's too stupid to know what she meant!" It's like I stumbled into a Peggy Noonan/David Brooks/Chris Buckley* slumber party and you're already down to making s'mores and talking about that slutty Palin girl in 6th period.
*I'd have included that other chick, the Katherine or Kathleen person, but I can't remember her name.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 10:01 AM (a/VXa)
What we should be pointing out is what, I think ace, mentioned above.
-If she was trying to make the point her supporters insist we concede that she was making, she failed to do so cogently.
-If she was making this point because she was just reminded of its veracity on a recent visit to a Historical site, how could she get it so awfully wrong in the retelling?
Why, yes, yes, of course. What a good idea. Unlike NPR which just goes around blaring the fact that she's right all day. We should be criticizing her endlessly and finding fault with everything she says, every mannerism and the way she speaks and sowing disagreement among conservative ranks.
Posted by: jeannebodine at June 07, 2011 10:01 AM (nvlAW)
Posted by: Reality Man at June 07, 2011 10:02 AM (9AQdP)
Lincoln cut his teeth in the
Lincoln-Douglas debates about slavery. Reagan delivered some amazing
speeches going back to the 1964 Presidential election and articulated
his ideas successfully as a two-term governor of California.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 01:55 PM (H9eC4)
And yet, after all that teeth-cutting, Lincoln couldn't really wow the crowd, could he?
Now...what makes you think speechmaking or rhetoric in general is indicative of intellect?
I know geniuses. True actual geniuses. You know how articulate they are? Not at all.
You know who is articulate? Actors.
Like Alec Baldwin. And Matt Damon (MATT DAMON!).
The two skills are completely independent.
And we aren't talking about a speech here, we're talking about extemporaneous speaking. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of ways to measure these things.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 10:02 AM (T0NGe)
Washington was also the leading colonial military figure coming out of the French and Indian War and a leading businessman and farmer in Virginia.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 10:02 AM (2f1Rs)
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 01:51 PM (T0NGe)
True, but the Palin-Reagan comparisons are just too weak. Reagan was writing and delivering speeches for decades before being elected president.
Somewhate related...video of Reagan at Yale in 1967 where he gave regular talks. (Video of him between talks.) More than a decade before running for president.
http://tinyurl.com/3leqhys
Posted by: CJ at June 07, 2011 10:03 AM (9KqcB)
Lincoln cut his teeth in the Lincoln-Douglas debates about slavery. Reagan delivered some amazing speeches going back to the 1964 Presidential election and articulated his ideas successfully as a two-term governor of California.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 01:55 PM (H9eC4)
You need to go back and do some serious research about the elections of both these men. Both were mercilessly vilified, especially by the northeastern press (sound familiar?) during every prospective election.
Posted by: Soona at June 07, 2011 10:04 AM (LDIop)
You're wrong. That's ok, it happens.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 01:54 PM (a/VXa)
I wouldn't bother trying to persuade you, you've got such a nice, solid grasp of your worldview you are quite impervious to fact.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 10:05 AM (a/VXa)
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 07, 2011 10:05 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 10:06 AM (Xm1aB)
Who cares about speeches? Really? Do you actually know what constitutes intellect?
I'm not making the comparison myself, but any drooling imbecile who can't tie his own shoes can speechify. That's why "rhetoric" has such a negative connotation.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 10:06 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 10:06 AM (Xm1aB)
Yeah, Lincoln's Cooper Union address was really dismissed by those damn north-easterners.
Posted by: DrewM. at June 07, 2011 10:07 AM (2f1Rs)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 02:06 PM (Xm1aB)
Thread Winner!
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 07, 2011 10:08 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 07, 2011 02:05 PM (hIWe1)
It is a surprise to you for the same reason that a fish does not know it is wet.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 07, 2011 10:08 AM (bxiXv)
Good Lord....Why do some many of you believe that Sarah Palin can Win? I don't gt it? I like Sarah Palin, but she is not going to be the President.
She has no chance.....
Posted by: Jimi at June 07, 2011 10:09 AM (JMsOK)
Whoa. I never made that connection.
Book em, Dano.
Posted by: toby928™ at June 07, 2011 10:09 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: JackStraw at June 07, 2011 10:09 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: jeannebodine at June 07, 2011 02:01 PM (nvlAW)
I'm beginning to think that Obama isn't the only one who thinks that it is still 2008.
The PALINISTA crowd seem to believe that as well...
The answer to those questions is simple. She tripped over her tongue.
But keep on comparing her to the 'Great Communicator'.
You must be right. Simply. Must. Be.
Posted by: garrett at June 07, 2011 10:09 AM (9bj/S)
But their comments are completely 100% correct. The fervor of Palin's defenders in insisting that no, she didn't make an error at all, she was just playing National History Educator, is embarrassing. My god, it puts in the mind of the Krazy Kos Kiddies who kept looking for reason after reason to explain Weiner's behavior right up until the point he spilled his guts.
She fucked up. She misspoke. It isn't a reflection on her intelligence, it's just a silly speech error of the sort that people all the time, every day. The insistence of some that Palin was right on a technicality and that therefore that's clearly what she meant to say all along is...just plain weird.
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 07, 2011 10:10 AM (hIWe1)
You're wrong. That's ok, it happens.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 01:54 PM (a/VXa)
I wouldn't bother trying to persuade you, you've got such a nice, solid grasp of your worldview you are quite impervious to fact.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 02:05 PM (a/VXa)
Yes, my worldview is clearly the problem here. Not the fact that your arguments are nothing but ad hominem attacks so far.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 10:10 AM (H9eC4)
I'm glad to see O's mis-speak posted again. But, probably not for the same reason as most.
What I find interesting is how it has been repeatedly carachterized as "stupid".
Don't get me wrong - I despise this man's politics! But, I think this clip shows something different than how it's been interpreted - even here.
As I see it: He says 57 states and 1 to go... and then explains why he is NOT counting/visiting Alaska and Hawaii. So that people understand why his counting of states visited and yet to visit ended on an "8" and not a "0".
My use of Occam's Razor ( and the benefit of doubt ) has me take it he was just campaign road weary and mis-spoke.
I think some of us are too eager to jump on things like this and we see it as worse than it really is because it looks like it helps our cause. I think it only helps us when it's used as: "Look, see? Even the One can mis-speak too!" Instead of taking the position that he doesn't know how many states there are in the Union. I think it makes us less than genuine to play it as he's ignorant.
First post here. Big fan of Ace and many of the contributers here.
A daily Must Read site.
-Dad
Posted by: DadOf3 at June 07, 2011 10:10 AM (c6TbV)
This post is damaging to......ACE. I will forgive his brainfart because of his contribution to bringing down Weiner.....and..... my assumption that readers of this blog are overwhelmingly made up of junkies that read many other blogs, as I do, and know that Palin was correct and just "messing with the force".
Posted by: Inatizzy at June 07, 2011 10:10 AM (+vVib)
"He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms ...."
He did do that did he not? She didn't say he warned the British that the rebels were coming.
She specifically implied that he warned the British that they were going to fail in their mission to take away the colonists arms.
I've never seen someone make such an accurate mistake.
Ooops.... now I defended Sarah. I'm a mindless Palinbot. Who doesn't want her to run for president.
Posted by: eleven at June 07, 2011 10:10 AM (7DB+a)
Why, yes, yes, of course. What a good idea. Unlike NPR which just goes around blaring the fact that she's right all day. We should be criticizing her endlessly and finding fault with everything she says, every mannerism and the way she speaks and sowing disagreement among conservative ranks.
Posted by: jeannebodine at June 07, 2011 02:01 PM (nvlAW)
Heh, facts just don't matter to some people. Palin is wrong, she's an idiot!!!!! I don't give damn what the facts are!!!
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 10:10 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: jeannebodine at June 07, 2011 10:11 AM (nvlAW)
Posted by: Dave at June 07, 2011 10:11 AM (Xm1aB)
Of course, they won't make it impossible for your guy to actually live his life without vicious, threatening and incessant stalking and that there was no way that he or his family would ever be left alone. But there you go.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 10:11 AM (T0NGe)
Lincoln cut his teeth in the Lincoln-Douglas debates
about slavery. Reagan delivered some amazing speeches going back to the
1964 Presidential election and articulated his ideas successfully as a
two-term governor of California.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 01:55 PM (H9eC4)
You need to go back and do some serious research about the elections of both these men. Both were mercilessly vilified, especially by the northeastern press (sound familiar?) during every prospective election.
Posted by: Soona at June 07, 2011 02:04 PM (LDIop)
Wait, wait, wait -- you mean both men had political enemies who vilified them?? Shocking. Next you're going to tell me that other political figures from other eras were also vilified by their enemies.
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 10:12 AM (H9eC4)
Now when Obama runs ads blaming Romney for labor strife, at a company his firm had already sold off, or TPaw and/or Bachmann, are caught up in the pardon scandal for a convicted drug smuggler, and future embezzler, I'm sure you will say
that's unfair, and we will laugh at you,
Posted by: Randolph Duke at June 07, 2011 10:12 AM (YGNmh)
Amish...I agree with most of your post, but:
No competition from bright American students. Let's face it, the electrical engineers, mathematicians and nuclear physicists are out of the pool that applies to law school.
Nobody flunks out of law school. Unlike mathematics or science or engineering, there's very little that a law school student can do to wash out of the program if he still pays tuition. Once you get accepted, they print your diploma.
I went to law school with many engineers and physicians. In my class of 150, there were at least 4 medical doctors and numerous engineers. Additionally. There are still many law schools where 1/3 of the entering class is gone at the end of the first year. That being said....I do not think Obama is bright. I do not think that he can teach from knowledge. Much like his speeach giving is from a teleprompter, his teaching is from a pre-designed syllybus. Though I do know people who were in his classes and for some reason LOVE the idiot. maybe the class was easy peasy and that is why they liked it. I have met smart people of all educational persuassions....and dumb ones too.
Posted by: giftogab at June 07, 2011 10:13 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 07, 2011 02:10 PM (hIWe1)
You are fucking wrong and it's not a reflection on your intelligence it's a reflection on your hate for Palin.
There are 3 revolutionary war historians that have said she was right on the air and in newspapers. Somehow you know better? I don't think so.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 10:13 AM (MtwBb)
Of course, they won't make it impossible for your guy to actually live his life without vicious, threatening and incessant stalking and that there was no way that he or his family would ever be left alone. But there you go.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 07, 2011 02:11 PM (T0NGe)
Who in this thread is talking about which schools she attended?
Posted by: robviously at June 07, 2011 10:14 AM (H9eC4)
Wait!
Being right is a technicality these days????
Why...that's just obstreperous!!!
Posted by: beedubya at June 07, 2011 10:14 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Morgan at June 07, 2011 10:15 AM (M3TPv)
Ace, here is the evidence:
-- She spoke in mangled syntax.
-- She was factually correct.
By this evidence, IMO it is perfectly reasonable to assume that she didn't know the facts; but here's the deal: neither you nor I know what she knew, so simply asserting that she didn't know, without any acknowledgment that she was correct, is BS.
You don't say "she's right, but probably by accident," you merely say "she's wrong". Sounds suspiciously like you are trying to lead the jury to the "correct" opinion by leaving out pertinent facts.
What gives with you and Palin? Did she kill your dog or something?
BTW, I do not necessarily support her for president. She may be too flaky, but policy-wise she is the real deal. I'll wait and see.
Posted by: Ken at June 07, 2011 10:16 AM (3ar4L)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was stupid and she's stupid and the Tea Partiers are stupid...because the revolution didn't start until 1776.
wut?
Posted by: beedubya at June 07, 2011 10:16 AM (AnTyA)
Being right is a technicality these days????
Why...that's just obstreperous!!!
Posted by: beedubya at June 07, 2011 02:14 PM (AnTyA)
Heh, we don't want our politicians being right. We just want them to agree with our ignorance of history.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 10:17 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: The Schwalbe: © at June 07, 2011 10:17 AM (UU0OF)
Christ on a crutch. I have never seen so many people so dedicated to tearing down a public figure they theoretically agree with around the margins,
I'm not going to go that far Kerry. Conservatives are just exhausted from having to defend her at every turn. She's just not worth it. Sorry, but winning the greater battle vs. socialism is more important than embracing Palin because liberals treat her so unfairly. We did that with W. No more. No one politician is bigger than the cause.
I was blown away by Palin's convention speech in 2008, and disappointed ever since. I was projecting my political hopes onto her, wanting her to be something she wasn't. It was great while it lasted, but it's over.
At least for now. She needs to spend some time not being a reality TV celebrity.Maybe run for Senator or something. Then, who knows...
Posted by: CJ at June 07, 2011 10:18 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 07, 2011 10:19 AM (Z05lF)
She didn't need to explain it to me, I grasped it at once. So...who's the standard for this entirely delightful rule? The dumbest person in the potential audience? We'd certainly hear a lot less from our politicians, period.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 10:19 AM (a/VXa)
Why, yes, yes, of course. What a good idea. Unlike NPR which just goes around blaring the fact that she's right all day. We should be criticizing her endlessly and finding fault with everything she says, every mannerism and the way she speaks and sowing disagreement among conservative ranks.
Or instead of agreeing upon the obvious and criticising the media for making a mountain out of a molehill, we can pretend there is no molehill at all and that she never, ever makes the mistake of giving a poorly phrased answer to a spontaneous question.
No one here is suggesting that she didn't know that Revere's main purpose was to warn the colonists, even if the MSM unfairly tries to spin it that way. That there was a story at all, however, is due to the poorly worded answer on her part, and one that was kept in the news by her attempts to spin her way out of it.
A simple clarification that made the same point she was trying to make, and this all would've gone away. Instead, Mrs. Drama Queen and her supporters take it a step further and argue that there was nothing whatsoever wrong with what she said or how she said it.
What should've been a criticism of the MSM for their double-standard when it comes to minor gaffes by Republicans (the main point of Ace's post) then becomes... well, what we have in this thread now.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 07, 2011 10:21 AM (WRW1S)
If your knowledge comes from a wadsworth poem you may not be as smart as a 5th grader.
revere did get caught and told the british that the people were up in arms.
perhaps in the hope they would go back, but defiantly none the less with the prospect of being hanged in the offing
As the great Antony Weiner maybe once said
Giggedy Giggedy Goo
Posted by: leperous at June 07, 2011 10:22 AM (Q6qGS)
hey, man...sorry to bug...but I have another repair question for you. Know anything about electronic appliances??
I have an over-the-stove mounted and vented 1000 watt microwave that just quit..period...nada, and it's just over a year old...which of course makes it out of warranty.
Nothing is working. I pulled it down and did reisstance tests on both the fuse and the HV capacitor, and they're both good. Then I got to thinking that at least the light should come on despite any problems with the elctronics.
to be honest...i don't know enough to follow the schematics
Could it be a door switch issue, maybe??
Posted by: beedubya at June 07, 2011 10:22 AM (AnTyA)
What's ad hominem about telling you your interpretation of what she said is wrong? Just offering my opinion. Just as you are.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 10:22 AM (a/VXa)
Geeez....this just sucks! We have 18 months till the election, and we aren't even going make it.
At this rate.....We are all going to end up voting for a third party candidate, becuase we don't what the other Conservatives guy to win.
The Democrats are gigleing all the way to bank!
Posted by: Jimi at June 07, 2011 10:24 AM (JMsOK)
"I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from, & what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he as-ked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River,
and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms. He then orderd them to advance, & to lead me in front."
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 07, 2011 10:24 AM (2wfuC)
Who cares about speeches? Really? Do you actually know what constitutes intellect?
Er, demonstrating mental ability and knowledge? You need that to write a speech designed to persuade. Reagan did it for decades. When is the last time Palin ever tried to persuade someone, as opposed to playing her string of medleys diehard fans?
Posted by: CJ at June 07, 2011 10:24 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Reality Man at June 07, 2011 10:24 AM (9AQdP)
I'm sure you'd be saying exactly the same thing about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, etc., if you lived in their time. I haven't been convinced by anything you've written that you even understand what leadership is.
Posted by: Soona at June 07, 2011 01:37 PM (LDIop)
Now we've reached my favorite part of the "debate", when the Palinistas fight back by insinuating that not only is a Palin critic not an authenticate conservative at the moment, but that there is no point in time in our nation's history that the critic would represent American or conservative values.
Admit it, Drew. Your hatred of Palin is clearly based upon your hatred of America.
Posted by: Vyceroy at June 07, 2011 10:26 AM (mqy6N)
I think a minor gaff by Obama was also part of Ace's post, IIRC.
Just thought I'd point that out in case you forgot.
Posted by: mrp at June 07, 2011 10:26 AM (HjPtV)
Geeez....this just sucks! We have 18 months till the election, and we aren't even going make it.
We'll be cool once Palin says she's not running. Which she's not. She has no operation. She faces a 37% disapproval rating in her own party. She can't win. Not now anyway. Maybe later.
Posted by: CJ at June 07, 2011 10:27 AM (9KqcB)
Yeah...but, isn't being right just a technicality??
...because the media tells us she's so stupid that even though she's right...she's has to be wrong...just because??
Posted by: beedubya at June 07, 2011 10:27 AM (AnTyA)
Ace, how can you hate this whole stupid Paul Revere thing when you apparently have not yet been exposed to the most basic facts of the story? You've been busy we know, but... let me fill you in: Palin DID mean to say that Revere warned the British (that their butts were about to be kicked), and she was RIGHT. It is part of Paul Revere's own account. While he was out rousing the countryside he got cornered by some Brits and told them it was too late, the troops they were sending to disarm Lexington and Concord were already going to meet massed resistance.
Apparently I am one of the few people who knew that before Palin said it, maybe because I grew up in Lexington. I remember being stunned to hear that he had such a loud mouth. Isn't it normal practice in war to not volunteer information? We weren't at war yet, but still. Come on Revere.
The only SLIGHT innacuracy in Palin's account was to say that Revere had rung bells and shot guns in the air, when it was actually the people he warned that rang bells and shot guns in the air, but that wasn't a mistake, it was just attributing the raising of the alarm to Revere, as is common historical shorthand, when everyone knows that the raising of the alarm involved LOTS of people. (Otherwise Revere would have failed to raise the alarm.)
So really, there was nothing wrong with Sarah's statement at all. Nice defense, Ace, excusing her for a simple mis-speak, but she didn't mis-speak. You are way off base. Go back to Weinergate for the afternoon. Your mind is obviously not ready to move on yet.
Posted by: Alec Rawls at June 07, 2011 10:28 AM (kTTUz)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 07, 2011 10:32 AM (Z05lF)
Christ on a crutch. I have never seen so many people so dedicated to tearing down a public figure they theoretically agree with around the margins,
I'm not going to go that far Kerry. Conservatives are just exhausted from having to defend her at every turn. She's just not worth it. Sorry, but winning the greater battle vs. socialism is more important than embracing Palin because liberals treat her so unfairly. We did that with W. No more. No one politician is bigger than the cause.
I was blown away by Palin's convention speech in 2008, and disappointed ever since. I was projecting my political hopes onto her, wanting her to be something she wasn't. It was great while it lasted, but it's over.
At least for now. She needs to spend some time not being a reality TV celebrity.Maybe run for Senator or something. Then, who knows...<<<
I realize one's stamina may vary. I projected nothing on her, but I extended to her the same courtesy I extended to Obama: I listened to their speeches and took both of them quite literally. Obama has done nothing in fact he didn't promise beforehand. He indicated numerous times that he thought American standards of living were too high, and that we weren't paying enough for energy; therefore, I am not surprised that he deliberately crashed the economy and drove fuel prices up out of sight. Conversely, Palin has principles I happen to share, therefore, it doesn't weary me to defend them. I don't give a damn what liberals say about her, since I know the poisoned well from which they draw their vitriol. What I cannot understand is the "conservative" who attacks her because she's not acceptable to the squishy middle, or for a host of rather stupid secondary reasons (her voice is teh screechy! she's too folksy! she winked at the podium! horrors!).
Please understand, I want her to run because I want her to lay out her policies, then I can judge whether I can support her in the larger battle. I want everyone to run that has a mind to; I like choice. But I will not desist from defending her or anyone else from wrongheaded attacks based on nothing more than personal animosity or attachment to some other political figure. I don't attack Giuliani because I want to promote Palin; if you would have peace, do her the same courtesy.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 10:33 AM (a/VXa)
Posted by: mrp at June 07, 2011 10:34 AM (HjPtV)
Posted by: Andrew Sullivan in a Tri-Corner Hat at June 07, 2011 10:34 AM (9bj/S)
...but...but...she's from Alaska...and she talks funny...and and.....Tina Fey said that she said that she could see Russia from her house...
...and FUCK IT ALL....Davids Frum and Brooks hate her
Posted by: beedubya at June 07, 2011 10:34 AM (AnTyA)
Are we really arguing over a clip from TPM of all places? A clip, obviously, that was taken out of context? TPM? Really?
What was the damn question? What did she say before the clip in question? What did she say after the clip in question?
Oh, and when the time comes that TPM or some other shit blog clips remarks from other candidates or potential candidates, I don't want to see any of their supporters try to explain what was said or meant. I don't want to see any of their supporters try to defend whatthefuck happened. Because, you know what? It's going to happen. The left is going to twist and mangle whatever the fuck they can to try to make all the Republican candidates look like liars or idiots.
Oh, and don't blast those who don't support those candidates when they mock them for their stoopid ass clipped remarks, flubs or when those candidates deny they made a mistake, and were right in their initial remarks.
Just remember, folks, your time is coming. That's what the left & some on the right (you know who you are) does, and if you want to perpetuate their bullshit, get ready for when it pops you in the face.
I'm not defending or trying to explain anything in this stupid ass, bullshit, nothing story, but please you all go right ahead. For those of you piling on against her, have at it. Just remeber this when it happens to your preferred candidate. I will be watching with amusement.
Posted by: Steph at June 07, 2011 10:34 AM (AkdC5)
Posted by: Oily Taints at June 07, 2011 10:37 AM (ffj4J)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 07, 2011 02:32 PM (Z05lF)
...but...but...that's only where the battle was actually fought...so that means she would only be right...ON A TECHNICALITY!!!!!
Posted by: beedubya at June 07, 2011 10:37 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: curious at June 07, 2011 10:41 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Reality Man at June 07, 2011 10:41 AM (9AQdP)
....or maybe paid attention during 3rd grade history class and not picked lint out of your navel.
Forgive me, but I actually was under the impression that most really were aware of this "technicality"
Posted by: beedubya at June 07, 2011 10:41 AM (AnTyA)
Here's another fact. If any other Republican candidate had responded as Palin did her fans would be tearing that candidate to pieces.
Posted by: JackStraw at June 07, 2011 02:09 PM (TMB3S)
Bank on it. If this was something Romney had said? Please. The'd be chortling about it endlessly. Months from now, when the primaries happened, they'd be laughing their asses off about how "Mittens" didn't know his history.
I was blown away by Palin's convention speech in 2008, and disappointed ever since. I was projecting my political hopes onto her, wanting her to be something she wasn't. It was great while it lasted, but it's over.
Posted by: CJ at June 07, 2011 02:18 PM (9KqcB)
This. I have a rep over at Hotair (probably not so much here, I don't post in the comment threads as much) as one of the "anti-Palin brigade", but the hard truth is, in 2008, I WAS a Palinista. I was excited about her, wasn't thrilled with McCain, and in fact grew increasingly morose and morbid as I watched him fucking throw the election away. But I loved Palin then.
Except she just didn't turn out to be who I thought she was. It happens, I mean, they're politicians - they're going to disappoint you more often than most people would. I don't dislike or hate her, but I think she's terribly flawed and would be a very poor choice to run for president (at least in 2012). It's not so much her that I have issues with, so much as it is followers.
Posted by: Vyceroy at June 07, 2011 10:42 AM (mqy6N)
The insistence of some that Palin was right on a technicality
What the fuck technicality?!?
Revere warned the british, they rung bells and shot guns to muster the colonists and alert the British that they were prepared for armed resistance and they should just leave.
Guy gets charged on raping a girl at 11:30PM in New Jersey.
He's on tape taking cash out of the ATM at 11:29PM in Boston.
He got off on a technicality.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 10:45 AM (IsLT6)
"He who warned, uh, the British that they werenÂ’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells "
So is the claim of the flub theorists that she meant to say that he warned the colonists that they weren't going to be taking away their own arms? The idea of transposing British and colonists in the actual context of the quote doesn't make sense.
It's quite morbidly fascinating.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 10:48 AM (IsLT6)
And her original point was a tie in to the 2nd Amendment. How many times has that been mentioned so far today Out of 371 posts, that tie in has been noted about 3 times. So, even among the really smart people, it was clearly lost. Thus, the rule stands.
The rule stands... in it's new location. The goalposts have been relocated. But the conclusion of course, remains always accurate.
Now she 'flubbed', 'mispoke' because she wasn't effective and convincing enough.
Why can't Sarah Palin just admit that she sucks?
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 10:49 AM (IsLT6)
Let's not forget that Uberscholar Barry also had an uncle liberating Auschwitz, even though his mother didn't have any siblings, and Auschwitz was liberated by the Russkies. (OK, he did have a great-uncle over there, doing something).
But a better comparison is to Joe Biden. My step-great neice is all spun up about how this woman "could have been VP". She is apparently completely ignorant about the VP who actually won. Didn't he have a screw-up just about every time he opened his mouth?
Posted by: Optimizer at June 07, 2011 10:50 AM (F56VB)
It has puzzled me all along and I still see no clear answer as to why this is so. Krauthammer and George Will, men I admire even when I occasionally disagree with their views, have one of the strangest reactions to Palin that I've ever witnessed. It is gut level with little attempt to conceal a downright distaste for her.
If they know something concrete about her character that makes them this way, some hidden thing that maybe the rest of us outside of The Beltway do not know about, how about sharing it with us so we can judge for ourselves? Did she star in a porn movie in college or something? Did she steal money out Salvation Army pots at Christmas? Do you know for a fact her IQ is actually very low but she's a great actress? Does her head spin around on her neck now and then while she screams "DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!!!" ? I just wanna know. Educate me.
Because otherwise I might be prone to draw the conclusion that they hate her because 1) she's shot more moose than they have; 2) she's actually had business experience; 3) she's too darn proud and consistent with her conservative values.
I have a dirty little secret I want to share. Do you know why Carter won in 1976 and then Reagan in 1980? Nixon called it the "Silent Majority" (no attempt to extol Nixon should be taken) but others call it the "enthusiasm gap". Fewer and fewer conservatives bothered to vote because the choices became bland -- Frick and Frack without the zing.
Reagan changed all that. Why? He was a constant quantity -- he had changed little politically since the Goldwater years but he had gotten better at delivering the message. They called him "The Great Communicator". He didn't dumb-down the message, he spoke plainly and clearly but he did not act embarrassed about his beliefs, he did not try to couch terms to avoid offending liberal darlings, he did not wince when he spoke about the world of reality.
He ignited a sea change. You have to remember this was before Rush Limbaugh -- Limbaugh's first radio broadcast in his current incarnation did not occur until 1988.
Enthusiasm. Finally, someone had come along who shared their views -- and a reminder that Nixon's "Silent Majority" did exist and that the biggest problem with liberals -- a sentiment many here share -- is that "they know so many things that just aren't true."
I read pundits claim that what we need now is someone who is NOT exciting, that "people" are hungering for vanilla. Raise campaign money on that sentiment. Get voters to lose four or more hours just to stand in line and vote. Let me know the results.
Or, we can go back to those days when conservatives sort of ducked, and acted embarrassed, overflowing with "oh, did I offend?", because we don't want our liberal friends to suspect we're dead-in-the-head Reaganites or Palindrones.
70 trillion of unfunded debt later ... and counting ... we are the red-headed stepchildren of politics.
But maybe Mitt has the winning forumula. I hope so. Because another 4 of Obama and you can stick a fork in this Late Great USA. It may already be too late.
Posted by: Full Moon at June 07, 2011 10:52 AM (m75CK)
Could it be a door switch issue, maybe??
Posted by: beedubya at June 07, 2011 02:22 PM (AnTyA)
No not really, I would just be guessing at the same things you are and if I knew what was wrong with it it would just be a technicality.
Did you check the power supply? It sounds like you may have blown a fuse.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 10:58 AM (MtwBb)
-Ace
I thought that was wrong, but it appears the term '5-O', slang for police, comes from Hawaii 5-O's name.
Not only did I learn something about Paul Revere, I learned something about slang. This qualifies my status as a well-rounded individual.
Posted by: blindside at June 07, 2011 11:00 AM (3Uns6)
Before the bus tour how many Americans remembered the full account of Paul RevereÂ’s ride?
Posted by: sleepy-beans at June 07, 2011 11:00 AM (5617J)
And like it or not, yes, politics involves a certain ability to make a concise, clear and perfectly understandable point in twenty seconds. On that measure, her statement fails.
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and Killer of Polar Bears at June 07, 2011 02:47 PM (OWjjx)
Jesus fucking christ. Now being right isn't enough, she has to explain an offhanded comment in a serving line so a 5 year old can understand it?
Ok fine, we going to treat all of our candidates this way. Parse every fucking word because they didn't say it the way that retards can understand it?
Just admit it. She could spell it out on one of Glenn Becks chalkboards and you would find something wrong with it.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 11:03 AM (MtwBb)
And her original point was a tie in to the 2nd Amendment. How many times has that been mentioned so far today Out of 371 posts, that tie in has been noted about 3 times. So, even among the really smart people, it was clearly lost. Thus, the rule stands.<<<Mallamutt
That's peculiar fact to cite from your side, considering that none of the critics (that's you guys) care to point it out, since it reinforces the idea that she had a friggin' point and knew what she was talking about. So, uh, thanks.
>>As noted, politics is a medium of mass consumption. If the original point (the need to preserve the second amendment, the importance of the second amendment) is lost over quibbling of historical accuracy or inaccuracy, then was it an effective point? Clearly not.
And like it or not, yes, politics involves a certain ability to make a concise, clear and perfectly understandable point in twenty seconds. On that measure, her statement fails.<<
Like Robviously, you're simply wrong here. But again, it's ok--it happens to all of us sometime.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 11:03 AM (a/VXa)
Here is what happened with Palin. She was correct, it was an offhanded remark in a serving line at a cafeteria.
The people bitching about it were ignorant of the history and only knew of Paul Revere from a poem. Now they are being dickwads because they are embarrassed about ther ignorance of history.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 11:05 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: sexypig at June 07, 2011 11:13 AM (UmEOs)
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and Killer of Polar Bears at June 07, 2011 03:07 PM (OWjjx)
I personally don't give a shit whether she runs for president or goes fishing.
I do get damn tired of people first claiming she's wrong, then claiming she's right but didn't mean to be and then claiming she's right but didn't explain it well enough while getting her food in a serving line.
You can do all the mindreading and wishcasting you want with that.
The fact remains she was right, the facts support what she said. I don't understand you guys I really don't get it.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 11:15 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 02:33 PM (a/VXa)
That's fine. I don't attack Palin, nor mindlessly champion her. This Revere thing seems to be another OMG!! PALIN!! MSM half-assed hit job. The media's disdain for her is established.
But don't kid yourself into thinking that any criticism of her is "nothing more than personal animosity or attachment to some other political figure." There are other possibilities. Such as: She is clearly not running for office (or clearly can't win at this point), but is still requiring our time and efforts.
Posted by: CJ at June 07, 2011 11:16 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life and Killer of Polar Bears at June 07, 2011 03:07 PM (OWjjx)
Speaking of which that's what you are saying isn't it. Either you misunderstanding of history or the way she said it you didn't understand it. Instead of doing some research on something you didn't understand you blamed her for your problem with it.
That's what we're talking about here isn't it?
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 11:18 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: ace at June 07, 2011 11:20 AM (nj1bB)
And yes, I still make fun of him for it, and call him stupid for it. Why? Because the media has set the standard, and I'm not about to let them destroy our candidates/politicians without having some form or mutual assured destruction.
Posted by: Darin H at June 07, 2011 11:21 AM (fwzVq)
Posted by: ManiacMom at June 07, 2011 11:24 AM (bumPW)
I can't count the times people have said they don't want her to run, but hope she stays out their fighting for conservative principals, and will be a "cheerleader" for the nominee.
Yep, not good enough to run or win the primary, but whoever wins the nomination will need her to push them over the line.
WTF does that say about the other candidates?
Posted by: Steph at June 07, 2011 11:25 AM (AkdC5)
Posted by: Steph at June 07, 2011 11:26 AM (AkdC5)
Posted by: ManiacMom at June 07, 2011 03:24 PM (bumPW)
Heh, you are late to the party. Those are just irrefutable facts. Facts don't matter on this thread. They are just technicalities. We are now talking about how good of a professor of history Palin is while getting her lunch.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 11:26 AM (MtwBb)
Look, I think I made it clear (granted, I am not nearly the orator that Sarah Palin is) that the entire topic of Sarah Palin bores me. I think, however, that any candidate (or potential candidate) forays into the public can provide a learning moment about the future campaign. And I thought (again, I am not as smart as Sarah) that this was an excellent example of why that old rule still applies.
OK.
My bad, apologies.
I read that post as Maentenloch, who was (like most on that side including Ace) saying 'she didn't mean that'.
Your view basically concedes that she meant what she said and it wasn't 'right by accident' but that you disapprove of the delivery. No one can claim the "uhm, british" run on statement was the best speech of Winston Churchhill's career.
That would have been a goal-post move, if you were ever taking that line, but apparently you never have. My bad.
Disapprove of her oratory delivery all day long, knock her on it, I don't care... that's not insane.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 11:31 AM (IsLT6)
And as for the defense of "its a lunch line comment" hey...welcome to modern politics. George Allen lost an election because of an off-the-cuff remark at a rally that got videotapped.
Yeah go with that, calling a black guy Maccacca while standing on stage giving a speech is just like Palin correctly reciting history, just like that. I can see where you are coming from.
Tell me something, do you think George allen would have lost that election if instead he would have said "Revere warned the British that the americans were waiting and were serious"?
Yeah I am sure he would.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 11:31 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Master of My Own Domain at June 07, 2011 11:33 AM (O7Q1u)
Rly? "Requiring"? Piper came over and forced you to post? Damn cheeky of her.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 11:34 AM (a/VXa)
Heh, you are late to the party. Those are just irrefutable facts. Facts don't matter on this thread.
Facts? I like to call them "technicalities".
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 11:34 AM (IsLT6)
I'm sorry, the fact that you typed "death-con" instead of "defcon" and made the plural of one possessive rendered this entire paragraph absolute gibberish. But I think we can all learn from it.
Posted by: Kerry at June 07, 2011 11:39 AM (a/VXa)
Yep, not good enough to run or win the primary, but whoever wins the nomination will need her to push them over the line. WTF does that say about the other candidates?
That they recognize she has a lot of passionate supporters, not enough to win anything but enough to influence a race. That happens a lot.
Posted by: CJ at June 07, 2011 11:44 AM (9KqcB)
Mallamutt, I still disagree with you, in that this strikes me as the latest iteration of the "I hope he fails" debate. I think your standard is impossible. She was in a lunch line... I can provide similar flubs for any other candidate, yadda yadda. The media is hostile, period full stop. (See Kerry razzing you about 'death-con').
But you're not insane. It's not at all unreasonable, you're fully entitled to your view and you're it's perfectly fine for you to knock her on it. I don't care if you like her or vote for her. On the whole I've no interest in debating the merits in another round of "I hope he fails"/"mission accomplished" or whatever. And I don't think ANYONE can honestly claim it was a very well articulated statement.
That's something entirely different from some of the wicked contorted mental gymnastics going on from some others. For you, it's not about history but optics. For me, this kerfluffle isn't about the politics at all.
Nor really about the history - since no one's really denying it.
More of this absurdness I cannot even define or put a name to.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 11:56 AM (IsLT6)
Thank you. Yes, this is not about histroy. Its about messaging. Lets assume Palin had a message plan for this tour. That message plan is now worthless because this ...whatever you want to call it......has now made that plan worthless.
I think her plan was to "educate and energize Americans about our nationÂ’s founding principles" Aren't we all educated now about Paul Revere and what he stood for? Not so worthless, eh?
Posted by: sleepy-beans at June 07, 2011 11:58 AM (5617J)
O.k....your dense, I get it. So I am gonna try and explain this one more time to you. It won't work. Why, because it is Saint Sarah for you.
Its about messaging. Its about communications. Its about an ability to get a message out. She is losing the message battle because it is no longer about the message, it is round 632 of the media vs. Sarah Palin death match. Its about staying on message, on script, being disciplined. And when it takes 2 or 3 days to explain a message...that message isn't working. Move on...do not continue to debate the failed template. Adjust.
Oh fuck you. I already said I could give a rats ass what Palin does. Like everything else that doesn't fit your narrow fucking worldview. You can't accept it, the same way you can't except she was right and you were too lazy or dumb to figure it out.
Making a racist comment to a black guy is very poor political messaging. Correctly citing history is not.
You won't let it go because you have to be right, regardless of facts that make you very wrong.
Like I said, I don't understand you guys and I really don't care too. I don't think it's possible.
Posted by: robtr at June 07, 2011 11:58 AM (MtwBb)
And you just double down and argue every remote point because there can be no criticism of Sarah.
I do think she's a little over-sensitive to criticism.
But she's doing things a different way. Better? Dunno don't care. She may have different objectives - if she's NOT running (and I don't think she is), playing media vs. Sarah Palin death match is great red meat and probably very lucrative.
But it all boils down to media tactics. I'm not really interested in this topic from that angle. Kind of : "Whatever". I don't care.
Totally not at all related to some of the other debates going on in this thread that just read like absolute nonsense, I really cannot take them at face value and understand them at all. They're blatantly unworkable and silly foils or justifications for... whatever, I dunno what. I really don't.
Posted by: Entropy at June 07, 2011 12:03 PM (IsLT6)
I think intelligence in politicians is generally overrated anyway. It's not really that important to the job. Sorta like a catcher in baseball being a fast runner. It looks flashy, and people mistake all that zipping around to mean they're actually good, but ultimately it's not an important skill, given what they really need to do.
And if they stick around long enough, they will lose all their speed because the nature of the position is what it has always been. Plus they're on their knees a lot.
Posted by: Mr. Fire at June 07, 2011 12:10 PM (TOk1P)
Thanks Sarah, without your 'mistake' I would not have known that Paul Revere actually DID warn the British not to take our arms, hence the 'birth' of what would become the 2nd Amendment.
Gee, maybe thats what it was all about, maybe she just learned it too from her guide. Found it interesting and wanted us all to be educated. She just didn't say it like a professor.
Posted by: The Schwalbe: © at June 07, 2011 12:25 PM (UU0OF)
Posted by: macbrooks at June 07, 2011 12:57 PM (h02wk)
Posted by: Book at June 07, 2011 01:04 PM (Td07T)
Posted by: NoNationBuilding at June 07, 2011 01:28 PM (dalQ+)
Posted by: bjwilson83 at June 07, 2011 02:22 PM (ywaIz)
Posted by: Cindy in San Diego at June 07, 2011 03:48 PM (IB258)
Posted by: Cindy in San Diego at June 07, 2011 03:55 PM (IB258)
Posted by: Cindy in San Diego at June 07, 2011 03:56 PM (IB258)
Posted by: Cindy in San Diego at June 07, 2011 04:22 PM (IB258)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 07, 2011 04:25 PM (mHQ7T)
So this happened, what, 100 years ago in Ezra Klein years? And the media is in a tizzy when after the VP Debate in 2008 they cared not at all the Sheriff Joe was riding the short bus on the way to his Middle East briefings. My favorite was Hezbollah in Lebanon: from memory Joe B said that Bush had let the Hezzies back into Lebanon and that was really stupid. Of course on Planet Earth Bush had done nothing of the kind and, in fact, the Hezzies have been a force in Lebanon for every day of the last three decades and have pretty much governed solo the South of the country since the early 90s.
This is like saying that Jerry Sloan was a lousy Basketball coach. Why the hell did he let Michael Jordan come back from retirement?
Posted by: East Bay Jay at June 07, 2011 06:18 PM (svwGR)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 07, 2011 08:43 PM (NITzp)
She's been deemed guilty (like deem-and-pass), so drop the facts, already.
Just enjoy the freaking spam.
Posted by: K~Bob at June 07, 2011 10:19 PM (amz4v)
"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed."
Posted by: Presidential candidate from Illinois at June 08, 2011 01:01 AM (rrkE9)
I once thought that Palin had an IQ of 40. I now see this was overly generous.
Posted by: a. jones at June 09, 2011 11:48 AM (FWW4k)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.6323 seconds, 537 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Vic at June 07, 2011 08:44 AM (M9Ie6)