PJ: There's not much in the international news about US politics except the follies of Palin. A sad day for American politics to be sure.
The Canadian Press
Palin's revisionist take on Revere sparks debate about smarts, U.S. history
By Lee-Anne Goodman, The Canadian Press
WASHINGTON — It's not a jab from a clever Republican rival or a nimble Barack Obama that's causing Sarah Palin trouble these days — it's her recent resurrection of long-dead Paul Revere and her placement of the legendary midnight rider on the wrong side of U.S. history.
The iconic Revolutionary War figure is suddenly the subject of intense historical debate thanks to Palin's recounting of his ride in 1775 to alert American militia that British troops were approaching.
"He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms by ringing those bells, and makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free," she said.
Her comments were met with immediate ridicule from pundits and academics and glee from late-night comics like Stephen Colbert.
But Palin has been unapologetic, defending herself in the face of the uproar about her original remarks, which came in response to a question she characterized as "gotcha" journalism: "So, what have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?"
"You know what? I didn't mess up about Paul Revere," she said over the weekend. "Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, 'Hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms."'
As is often the case with Palin, the latest brouhaha has also resulted in a national debate about her intelligence, in addition to American history.
She was utterly wrong, says the author of a book on Revere.
She was totally right, says a conservative political commentator.
"When I heard this, I groaned," Joel Miller, author of "The Revolutionary Paul Revere," wrote in a post on The National Review's website.
"From Revere's own account, it's clear that he didn't fire a shot, he didn't ring a bell, and he didn't intend to warn the British of anything."
Andrew Malcolm begged to differ in a blog post on the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday.
"Now that so many Americans have wallowed in their smug confirmation that Palin is an idiot unqualified for anything but repeating sixth-grade history, how far, wide and fast do you think the contradictory news will spread that the former governor of Alaska was indeed correct?" he wrote.
"Revere was captured by said redcoats and did indeed defiantly warn them of the awakened militia awaiting their arrival ahead and of the American Revolution's inevitable victory ... Palin knew this."
Others have poked holes in that interpretation, pointing out Palin's original remarks seem to suggest Revere was bravely defending the Second Amendment to the U.S. constitution, also known as the right to bear arms. That amendment did not come into existence until 16 years after Revere's ride.
Miller also pointed out that Revere travelled in silence in a secret mission to alert John Hancock and Samuel Adams that they were in danger — and was most certainly not ringing bells and firing shots to warn the British that they weren't going to be successful in any attempt to take American arms.
Palin's mangling of the story near and dear to Americans has even resulted in the padlocking of the Wikipedia page about Revere after suspected supporters tried repeatedly to edit the entry to mesh better with the former Alaska governor's version of events.
"That's pretty uncommon, in terms of coming to Wikipedia and attempting to change history," said Jay Walsh, spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation.
"The reality is that Wikipedia isn't a place for original research. It needs to be a proven piece of information before it can be added in Wikipedia."
The Wikipedia drama resulted in lively a war of words in the page's discussion section.
"These people who support Palin are a right-wing group of extremists who will stop at nothing short of altering history in order to vindicate her inane statements," one editor wrote.
In the wake of her Revere remarks, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll says two-thirds of Americans "definitely would not" vote for Palin for president of the United States, even though she placed second behind Mitt Romney among Republican voters as their favoured presidential candidate.
There was more bad news for Palin on Tuesday. She told a British newspaper over the weekend that she hopes to meet this summer with her longtime idol, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
That isn't happening.
"Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin," an unnamed Thatcher aide told The Guardian. "That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gh9cWC7QXx7UZijqjiyv47LxvDLQ?docId=7080259
No comments:
Post a Comment