You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid?

You may have heard recently something about that Sarah Palin telling a reporter that Paul Revere warned the British on his famous rousing revolutionary ride.

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?

That the Republican non-candidate, in fact, knew more about the actual facts of Revere's midnight ride than all those idiots unknowingly revealing their own ignorance by laughing at her faux faux pas? How secretly embarrassing this must be, to be forced to face that you're dumber than the reputed dummy.

As it happens, though, such phenomena are regular occurrences in American politics, reminding consumers of news to be wary when some fresh story seems to fit contemporary assumptions so absolutely perfectly.

The well-known fable is Revere's late-night ride to warn fellow revolutionaries that....

...the British were coming. Less known, obviously, is the rest of the evening's events in which 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. The on-scene reporters did not and ran off like Revere to alert the world to Palin's latest mis-speak, which wasn't.

Like a number of famous faux gaffes in American politics, the facts of the situation no longer really matter.

The initial impression was eagerly grabbed by so many, starting with the reporter and millions of others gleefully sharing the story that reinforced their beliefs and/or desires.

This phenomenon is actually not a new one in American politics, although its immediate spread is obviously hastened by the Internet. Speaking of which, Al Gore did not invent it. Nor did he claim to, as often as you've heard otherwise.

In 1999, the hapless former journalist, who should have known to make a better word choice, told CNN that in Congress he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Democrat Gore never used the word "invented." That was part of another willful misinterpretation that fit expectations of Gore's boasts and was gleefully spread by opponents as further proof of his unseemly hubris. It lives on to this day.

Perhaps you remember how one day during a photo op President George H.W. Bush was overheard asking a store checkout clerk how this price scanner thing worked?

That quote was immediately transmitted as proof of how disconnected that Republican chief executive was, that he had no knowledge of something as ordinary as a checkout scanner.

The fact is, asking such inane and often obvious questions as "what are you doing here?" is a bipartisan ploy used by politicians to fill the awkward time void they are hanging around someone working while photographers snap their photos several hundred times.

President Obama likely said much the same thing last Friday in that Toledo Chrysler plant when for the benefit of nearby photographers he feigned interest watching assembly-line worker Anthony Davis install a dashboard instrument panel. (See photo below)

A classic example of this faux faux pas was in 1992 when Vice President Dan Quayle agreed to participate in a New Jersey classroom spelling bee.

Working from a placard, Quayle corrected one sixth-grader by telling him to add an "e" to "potato." Journalists gleefully noted the spelling misteak. And Quayle's dunce hat was glued in place.

Trouble is, that mis-spelled placard was actually written out by the classroom teacher herself, either through her own ignorance or, a few suspect, some sly political set-up. Quayle knew he hadn't written it and thought the error was the point of the lesson.

And because the classroom spelling bit was a last-minute addition, aides who would have foreseen the everlasting damage of their boss inexplicably adding a mistake to a student's work did not know what the placard said. Quayle subsequently forbade them from explaining the error to the media, for fear of embarrassing the teacher.

One of the immutable laws of public communications in politics and other fields is, if you have to explain something, you lose. Seeking to explain you were for something before being against it simply digs a deeper hole.

This time the mistake for Palin, who used to be accused of dodging reporters' questions, was bothering to answer such an amateur media gotcha question in a noisy, moving crowd. Better would have been a simple dismissive and cheery, "You're kidding, right?" Such are the ongoing lessons for primary candidates. Which she isn't now, of course.

Early in a previous race for the Republican presidential nomination almost 12 years ago, then Texas Gov. George W. Bush was in a jammed New Hampshire airport meeting room, answering questions from local media. Apropos of nothing, one reporter (perhaps prompted by an opponent's camp) asked Bush his pre-written gotcha: Name the new president of Pakistan.

Obviously, Pervez Musharraf had nothing to do with New Hampshire issues and is similar to some Democratic candidates flubbing the name of Russia's then prime minister during 2008 debates (Dmitry Medvedev).

Bush didn't know the Pakistani leader's name that day and looked clumsy attempting to answer. He could have brushed it away by instantly asking the reporter some arcane political who's-who, laughing off their mutual ignorance and quickly taking the next question. But he didn't and took media lumps for several days.

As everyone now knows, such a splashy gaffe can effectively doom any chance a candidate has of winning two terms in the White House.

Related:

Sarah Palin plays the media like a violin; They'll try to get even

Piper Palin shares her Mom's hot/cold attitude toward the media

Mitt Romney leads in Iowa poll, Sarah Palin comes in second, Ron Paul falls to 7th

-- Andrew Malcolm

Don't forget to follow The Ticket via Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Or click this: @latimestot. Our Facebook Like page is over here. We're also available on Kindle. Use the ReTweet buttons above to share any item with family and friends.

Photos: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters; Gary Hershorn / Reuters; Jeff Kowalsky / EPA (Obama at Chrysler, June 3).

Comments

[kP]

I know babbling when I hear it.

[Thomas bodetti]

You know the way the media have been behaving recently and that includes fox news, is really rather like watching a terrible wreck, you think Oh my God, and you want to turn your head away, but you find your self repulsed at the stupidity and interested in just how ignorant these people really are.

The funny thing about the media today is that for the most part, back in the 1960s when the media really began to grow, into its own, the average intelligence of most Americans was that of a fifth grader, (at least that is what the media believed at the time) today that number may have risen, however, they have failed to consider the influence of the internet in the educational level and thus the intellectual level of the average consumer.

The media still thinks that they are the only ones with access to knowledge this is just not the case, if it ever really was, perhaps in the old days when Harry Reasoner would face the camera every afternoon things were different, however it is not the same any longer things have changed and the media have not changed, that is the problem.

[Agee]

Andrew Malcolm is a former flunkie of Laura Bush who never lets facts get in the way of his mission. The fool even criticized Obama for lighting the National Christmas Tree and leaving the lights on.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/obama-national-christmas-tree-xmas-tree.html

[Max Udargo]

This is a pathetic attempt at revisionism.

I'm beginning to understand that Palin's incoherent babbling was the result of an effort to twist the story of Revere's ride into some sort of 2nd Amendment fable - something she probably read on some right-wing blog or something. But Palin doesn't have the verbal skills for such mythic retooling and her memory always seems to fail her.

My favorite Palin "gaffe" was when she responded to President Obama's call for a "Sputnik moment" by informing us that the United States lost the Space Race and that the Soviet Union's spending on space exploration was what caused its economic collapse. It took a moment to unravel, but she was obviously confusing the space programs of the 60s with Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative, and half-remembering some right-wing talking point about how Reagan won the Cold War. Throw them in the salad bowl and toss.

Anyway, Revere's mission that night was not to warn the British. His mission was to warn the revolutionaries that the British army was coming. He did not ring bells or fire warning shots. He was not warning the British as he rode through town (he was being as quiet as possible, hoping to escape detection).

And I think it's a stretch to say he "defiantly" told the British of the plans of the militiamen. He had been captured by British troops who pressed a pistol against his chest and demanded he tell them what he knew. I'd say it's a more likely characterization to say he cracked under the pressure and spilled the beans. But it certainly wasn't his mission to warn the British of the plans of the revolutionaries.

No, Palin butchered the history and made a fool of herself, and it shows how little value some people place on America and its history and its treasured lore that they are willing to sacrifice the ride of Paul Revere to rationalize Palin's silliness.

[RocketRicochet]

Ok, but what's Obama's excuse for saying he visited all 57 States? Time travel?

[Heidi]

Ha ha ha ha ZING, liberals heads exploding.. Sarah Palin, living in your minds and heads, rent free...

Ha ha ha ha ha

Rock on Sarah.

[sdgsdfg]

"Journalists gleefully noted the spelling misteak" - too rich - is there such a thing as an editor anymore?

[Melker]

Good try, but wrong. In Palin's follow up where she claimed she was right we have this statement:

“But remember, that the British had already been there,” Palin said. “Many soldiers for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere’s ride — and it wasn’t just one ride — he was a courier, he was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn British that were already there. That, ‘Hey, you are not going to succeed. You are not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have.’ He did warn the British. And in a shout out, gotcha question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history.”

So she is saying that he set out on his ride with the intention of warning the British Soldiers in this area. This is total nonsense.

[YouGottaBeKidding]

OH COME ON NOW. She wasn't right, she just happened to say something that happened to be true.

The mere concept that the half-governor would know something subtle about American history is preposterous. If it's not in those kid's magazines at the Dentist's office, she doesn't know it.

More likely, she was referring to the well-worn Paul Revere myth, and just plain got it wrong. Like a broken clock, even she is right twice a day.

[JNH]

The media cannot be trusted.

[RoseYoung-Stewart]

It's really comical the things she comes up with. I guess it's true she didn't learn much at the five colleges she attended. (smiling)

[GJ Tryon]

Whoa, Andy! Rein in that indignation and mount a little horse sense. The reference to "warning shots and bells" (!) suggests that Palin was citing the famous midnight ride, not the subsequent interrogation by the British. At best, she's conflating the two events with typical Reaganesque goofiness. More broadly, the press SHOULD go after the pols, cuz that's the name of the game. If you can't take the heat, go back to the kitchen, Sarah!

[Jason]

Yep, I just watched it again and she had it wrong. Whoever wrote this is either very bias or very deaf. I thought maybe Palin herself wrote this but there is no "Umm" or "Uhh" written so...... it's probably not her.

[joey boy]

Now it's Andrew Malcom who looks stupid. There is no conceivable way to connect the struggling nonsense of the under educated political opportunist to that article. Profs though on calling people reading your blog idiots. I have to laugh at the mentally challenged right wing who did not bother to read the author of Tony Pierce's blog and blamed Andrew Malcolm for shining the spotlight on Sarah's ignorance. It appears that Republicans don't prefer to read rather they just rant.

[sdgsdfg]

Not that you're foolish or anything:

-- She obviously forgot the"one if by land,two if by sea"portion also(as she remarked that alerted the British using "bells and shots" --

One if by land two if by sea was to alert runner to come find him - NOT to warn anyone - but blather on...

[Phil Studge]

Now who looks stupid?

Andrew Malcolm.

[Brian Boyson]

Spelling misteak? Really?

[sdgsdfg]

'She is still and idiot.'

How deep - did MIT let out early this year?

[ruby2sday]

Prior to 1776 we were all "British"!

[brenro]

When did Rupert Murdoch buy the LA Times?

[Heidi]

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people

[sdgsdfg]

no less credible than all the excuses the Left has been making for three years as to why the idiot in chief is one big screw up after another but that's OK. Makes me laugh at how much effort they spend on someone they claim is insignificant. Of course that wouldn't be the first time a Lefty has been utterly dishonest.

[BubbaDAarkvark]

I don't know if anybody noticed this or not, but not one person has actually given the account in detail.

Paul Revere was a Minuteman. His job, being close to the Barbour, was to take off like a shot and warn the rebellious colonials that the British were making their move. He got caught along the way and was force to tell them what was up. Now they place too much in the Paul Revere story, as he did not have the courage to keep his mouth shut, and thus compromised the colonial resistance. If he had had the balls, he would have let them kill him.

No, Paul Revere's story is that of a coward and a wimp who shot off his big mouth in a meeting, got caught for subversive acts and should have been executed. But he wasn't and got out and told his story of cowardice in the face of risking the lives of hundreds of people.

[Surly_Curmudgen]

Sarah was right, her detractors wrong. Some of her antagonists with a deranged malicious streak.

[jfhdsiu]

There are numerous instances in "loosely accepted" history that are factually inaccurate. Such as Washington chopping down the cherry tree. It didn't happen, the biographer added that and the lie about tossing a silver dollar across the Potomac because Washington was such a dull, 'non-happening' kind of guy. Lincoln did indeed return the book across town, but 'across town' was within eyesight. Not that far! Besides, why aren't the media types more informed about history? I would expect them to be the most educated, but from a lot of the things I've seen written by them, they aren't!

[Jason]

It's unbelievable that there are people still following the Republicans after what has happened to our economy. Obama is getting flack for the economy because he won't fix it overnight. The Republicans have no suggestions other than dig up useless dirt on Obama (i.e. birth certificate, college certificates). Remember people, who put us in the situation we're in. I will tell you it is not Obama. As for Palin, she is a moron and a great spokesperson for the Right.

[niht]

Ummm...can you show me where in the history there were "bells" used by Revere? How was she right again?

[Jill]

How funny when you libs so easily accept Obama thinking we had 55 states. It must be hard being perfect all the time. Never making a mistake or misspeaking once. How I hope I too can be perfect like you libs one day-not!

[Gino]

Like some of the other readers have already noted, Palin misunderstood the intent of Paul Revere's ride. She thought Paul Revere was on the side of the British. So while she might have been partially correct in terms of "warning the British", she was essentially wrong.

[BubbaDAarkvark]

And the Palin Drones, holy crap, what is up with you guys. This is

A) Not a news paper article, it is an opinion piece.

B) Palin is a fumbling everything she does. She is on a publicity tour and

c) and her SarahPAC is just a way to get you morons to pay for it all ignorantly

D) Did she actually pay attention in her school? I (being a Liberal) could have given a superior speech involving Paul Revere and outline Conservative principals on par with Palin and been historically accurate only needing to remember my fourth grade education IN JAPAN.

[E Klein]

Wow Andrew, the length you idiots will go to defend this bimbo astonish. Watch the video, she had no idea what she was talking about. She’s a absolute moron.

[Michael Kennedy]

I have listened to the audio several times and what she said was he was riding to warn the British were going to seize the colonist's arms. She omitted "that" before British but it is still a true statement. If you folks had diagrammed sentences for a few months with a nun standing over you, you would understand. She just omitted the object of the sentence. It was assumed.

[r finley]

This has got to be the thinest attempt at proping up this foolish woman that has ever been attempted!

[Bill Moore]

You people make me sick. Going back and forth about some mundane statement as if such a statement alone should point you toward what kind of president a candidate might make. All the while, each candidate has several years of voting records which would be an easy indicator of their future voting trends, yet they are easily cast aside as too difficult to research on your own and not as much of a priority as what someone might answer to some obscure question with no relevance whatsoever.

[me]

Writer- are you an idiot? So paul set out on his ride to warn the british? Okay maybe I am too detailed here and maybe I am dumb. The ride was to warn the american militia. When paul was captured he then warned the british. So was this what palin said? I'm thinking, she did not, so again a reporter that may not be smarter just better at twisting the story, for a story. The story here does not change either way palin is not intelligent.

[P Toy]

Oh for crying out load. EVERYONE makes a slip of the tongue “EVERYONE”.
If you are the kind of person that jumps on this kind of crap to prove how much you hate Palin, then you are the idiot. If you have nothing useful to say and just vomit up the sound bites that you are fed, then say them or shut the hell up. Every time this stupid stuff happens it just makes us all look dumber and dumber. I can’t stand Obama and even I would not do this. The media knows you just eat this crap up…so maybe you are dumb. Most of the people I know that don't like her will say some of the sickest things about her, but could not pick her out of a line up.

[Jeff]

Just because the articles claim it was the case, doesn't mean that's what she said. The mainstream media is always going to cast her in the most negative light possible.

[mra]

There are two possible explanations for Palin's answer:

1) She has an extraordinarily deep and nuanced knowledge of the biography of Paul Revere, such that she is able on the spot to shed new light on one of the most famous events in American history;

2) She is a dolt.

Occam's Razor says choose 2. Why make a fool of yourself alongside her? Just accept that she is an idiot an move on already. Why is it so hard to believe? She's just a stupid, stupid person. There are plenty of them in the world. John McCain happened to pluck one of them from obscurity. Let her go back.

[Ivan]

How can people accept profound ignorance? Look at who is in the white house today!

[Jack]

I am actually glad that someone picked up this story. I have been removed from elementary for some 30+/- years now but I remember this story from those days. From my memory, Revere was captured and warned the British that the militia were already waiting for them. I am willing to bet that there will not be much more made about how she was correct in her statement and its a shame. If you are wrong, admit that you are wrong and be on with it.

Just my opinion.
Cheers

[William Reedy]

Watch the video of Ms. Palin answering the reporter's question. Throughout the encounter she wears the classic "deer caught in the headlights" facial expression of someone who is using catchphrases and sentence fragments to disguise her inability to answer the question. This type of mumbo jumbo is often seen at beauty pageants when contestants are asked "character" questions. Sarah Palin cannot blame the "lamestream media" for this telling display of her ignorance.

[LukeJohn]

@Donaldump: "How people can defend profound ignorance like this is beyond me."

You are of course referring to President Obama right?

Anyone who doesn't even know how many states are in the Union which he is supposed to head is definitely ignorant way beyond profundity. And between the "great O" and his sidekick Joe B. they have more gaffes between them than Palin, Quale, and both Bushes combined.

[Daniel]

Hey Andrew Malcolm,

Remember, "Such as."? You're a riot! Twist and turn and research and maybe we can find something and put it together to make it seem that Sarah had confidence when retelling the Paul Revere story?

Oh, Andrew, Ignorance is bliss.

[bob]

Odumbo's referrence to visiting 54 States seems to me the most glaring and under reported indication of stupidity to date.

[Ted]

This is nothing but a pathetic attempt to justify a boneheaded mistake. As any child will tell you, Paul Revere is a name that rolls off of every American's tongue for saying one thing: "The British are coming." Trying to justify this gaffe with any sort of spin whatsoever is laughable and condescending to the public.

[Tom]

Obama must have decided he has a chance if Palin runs against him, or this would never be in the LA times.

[bob]

To all of you who say he wasn't out to warn the British, here is an obvious question. What do you think people in the colonies believed themselves to be at the time. I sure wasn't Americans...

[DemonDuck]

This time the mistake for Palin, who used to be accused of dodging reporters' questions, was bothering to answer such an amateur media gotcha question in a noisy, moving crowd. Better would have been a simple dismissive and cheery, "You're kidding, right?" Such are the ongoing lessons for primary candidates. Which she isn't now, of course.

----------------

Well this is what the Right Wing sees as competence and integrity -- the ability to lie while smiling.

[Rick]

Sorry, but we all saw the video. That was not a person who knew what she was talking about. That'd be like saying that she was right on when she said "All of them", when asked by Katie Couric what magazines and newspapers she reads on a daily basis. We know the truth. Good grief. If elected, she'd probably hit the nuclear launch button thinking she was calling for room service.

[beninosantiago]

I like how you make such a smug and drastic claim, touch on the subject for a brief minute, and then continue on to use all sorts of other examples to justify it. Sure, some hold more merit and, in turn, fit in with your attempt at pointing out everyones swift movement to discredit a women who constantly says things that are either half-truths or flat out wrong.

I'm willing to bet she didn't even know this when she said it. Her statement was, provided we play along and assume she was 'sorta, kinda - you know, right *wink*' she still was wrong on most of her account of the specific matter.

Palin is an idiot, this we know. We shouldn't be so quick to try and redeem her quote because it was 'partially right.' She was still partially wrong, more so than not.

How many times is Palin going to have to be proven wrong on her statements, or say something completely baffling, before we stop giving her a pass? I know, some will say we don't give her many passes, but we do. We still entertain her as if she has some worthy contribution. At times it feels more like a celebrity following with the 'media.' They entertain the notion that she is going to actually pull a 180 and do something worthwhile.

Please, what a foolish article making such a bold and drastic claim. She wasn't 'entirely right,' and so we shouldn't now be calling others stupid because she wasn't 'entirely wrong.' She still has a broad misconception about the whole event, which is not surprising in the least, so we should actually give her a pass on the matter?

I'm sorry, but no. Just, no.