Quotes of the day

posted at 10:40 pm on June 2, 2011 by Allahpundit

“PPP’s first national poll looking at the Republican Presidential race since Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump announced they wouldn’t run finds Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin in a tie at the top with 16% each. Tim Pawlenty at 13% and Herman Cain at 12% are also in double digits with Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul each at 9%, and Jon Huntsman at 4% rounding out the field.

“Romney’s support is built on moderate and center right Republicans, while Palin’s winning the most conservative faction of the party. With moderates Romney’s at 26% with only Pawlenty at 15% also reaching double digits and Palin in third at 8%. With ‘somewhat conservative’ voters Romney likewise leads with 19% to 15% each for Pawlenty and Palin. But with voters identifying as ‘very conservative’ Romney finds himself well back in 5th place at 11% with Palin leading the way at 20%, followed by Cain at 15%, Bachmann at 13%, and Pawlenty at 12%.”

***
“‘In my opinion, any mandate coming from government is not a good thing, so obviously … there will be more the explanation coming from former governor, Romney, on his support for government mandates,’ Palin told reporters today. When a reporter followed up that Romney has distinguished his state mandate from the federal one President Obama signed into law in 2010, Palin responded that even state mandates are problematic.

“‘He makes a good argument there that it does. States rights and authority and responsibility allowed in our states makes more sense than a big centralized government telling us what to do,’ she said. ‘However, even on a state level and even a local level, mandates coming from a governing body, it’s tough for a lot of us independent Americans to accept, because we have great faith in the private sectors and our own families … and our own businessmen and women making decisions for ourselves. Not any level of government telling us what to do.’”

***
(Berman) what do you make of her visit do you think she’s trying to step on your toes?

Mitt Romney: Oh no. She’s on a nationwide tour if you will a rally behind a very legitimate concern, the government is too big spending too much the president has failed that’s a message that all of the republicans who are looking at this presidential race will be taking forward. She’s a person of great energy and passion she does a great job for our party in creating greater interest and conviction that we can change the current president and put someone in that can get this country growing.

(Berman) so you think it’s a coincidence she’s here today?

Mitt Romney: I think it is, yes.

***

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

***
“In fact, if he personally would be offended by me stepping foot in a state that he is in, I wouldn’t do it.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

I thought Romney did extremely well in the interview…I came away thinking he’s the one to beat. He’s a lot sharper than I ever recall. I see why he is leading the polls and the establishment favorite. He also answered to RomneyCare quite definitively if I may say so.

RepubChica on June 3, 2011 at 9:19 AM

Groan. Palin really botched it when it came to her history lesson on Paul Revere. When she is good she is very, very good, but when she is bad she is horrid.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 8:40 AM

Yeah, that.

The British officers began to interrogate Revere, whereupon Revere astonished his captors by telling them more than they even knew about their own mission. (HA!) He also told them that he had been warning the countryside of the British plan and that their lives were at risk if they remained in the vicinity of Lexington because there would soon be 500 men there ready to fight. Revere, of course, was bluffing.

The Regulars had Revere remount his horse and they headed toward Lexington Green, when suddenly, they heard a gunshot! Revere told the British officer that the shot was a signal “to alarm the country!”. Now the British troops were getting very nervous (hehe).

A few minutes later, they were all startled to hear the heavy crash of an entire volley of musketry from the direction of Lexington’s meeting house and then the Lexington town bell began clanging rapidly! Jonathan Loring, a Lexington resident captured earlier, turned to his captors and shouted “The bell’s a’ ringing! The town’s alarmed, and you’re all dead men!”LINK

Stupid Sarah. Bells and guns and Paul Revere?!

Oh, yeah. She’s right. Again.

Cindy Cooper on June 3, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Groan. Another stupid ABP/PDS nut who doesn’t know his history. What an idiot.

What? If you don’t want to be called an idiot, don’t spout idiocy.

Pattosensei on June 3, 2011 at 9:22 AM

I don’t see where it’s that terribly botched.

pseudoforce on June 3, 2011 at 9:11 AM

It appeared she was relating the actual ride. There were no bells ringing etc. And the Brits were coming to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock not to take away guns.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM

He also answered to RomneyCare quite definitively if I may say so.

RepubChica on June 3, 2011 at 9:19 AM

No he didn’t. The only answer is “it was a mistake” instead of this foolishness of calling ObamaCare a disaster while at the same time wanting 50 separate disasters at the state level. It’s going to sink him.

pseudoforce on June 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM

I had been ignoring this because I figured it was just another smear job on Sarah. But she really did botch it didn’t she? See, this is the kind of stuff the media will focus on. She isn’t doing herself any favors with this stuff.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:06 AM

How’s that crow taste (see above).

Pattosensei on June 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM

He also answered to RomneyCare quite definitively if I may say so.

RepubChica on June 3, 2011 at 9:19 AM

His answers still suggest that it’s fine to mandate on a state-wide level, but unconstitutional if the Federal government does it, which leaves me uneasy. And, even if I accept his assurances that he wants to repeal ObamaCare, I don’t think he has the credibility to rally Congress to do it.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 9:31 AM

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 9:31 AM

I’m sure he’ll be challenged on these things in future debates by our other fine candidates…I look forward to hearing his responses. It won’t be a softball, rep-enhancing interview then. The Hannity sit-down was very favorable to him.

RepubChica on June 3, 2011 at 9:42 AM

How’s that crow taste (see above).

Pattosensei on June 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM

“see above” is NOT what Sarah said. See below for what she REALLY said and the context in which she said it……

Transcript of Sarah’s comment on the midnight ride of Paul Revere….

“He who warned, uh, the, the British…..”

WTH? He didn’t warn the British. He was warning the patriots.

Okay, no big deal. Lets move on….

“…that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms….”

No, he was warning that the British were on the move. His main goal was to warn Adams and Hancock.

I guess all that matters is the perception, not the truth. Moving on….

“…by ringing those bells and um making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells….”

Revere’s ride was over before the warning shots and bells were happening.

The rest is simply the fluff she injects into all her comments. They are cool comments, but are flavorless because she uses them as filler.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:44 AM

I don’t see where it’s that terribly botched.

pseudoforce on June 3, 2011 at 9:11 AM

It appeared she was relating the actual ride. There were no bells ringing etc. And the Brits were coming to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock not to take away guns.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM

History, unlike children’s fairy tails and DNC talking points, is multi-dimensional with more than one perspective. Because arrest was a primary objective, disarming the militias is not precluded. Choosing to focus on a certain, less-common perspective, is not wrong — just different. As when Bush was said by some to have “lied” about the war in Iraq, due to his having given more than one rationale.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

History, unlike children’s fairy tails and DNC talking points, is multi-dimensional with more than one perspective.

Her perspective isn’t what Paul Revere wrote was his perspective. Who should I defer to? Palin or Revere?

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:52 AM

And, even if I accept his assurances that he wants to repeal ObamaCare, I don’t think he has the credibility to rally Congress to do it.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Yeah. I can imagine Romney saying to congress….”Well, maybe Obamacare isn’t so bad?”

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Who should I defer to? Palin or Revere?

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Revere and others — you know, the other folks who were involved in the events before, during and after “the ride”, I’d say.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Yeah. I can imagine Romney saying to congress….”Well, maybe Obamacare isn’t so bad?”

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM

That’s more imagination than I have, but the argument that it was fine for MA, but wrong for America seems subtle to me.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 9:59 AM

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Agree.

That’s more imagination than I have, but the argument that it was fine for MA, but wrong for America seems subtle to me.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 9:59 AM

My imagination about what Romney is capable of is driven by fear. *shudders*

The distinction does seem subtle. I seen him on F&F this am and he seemed to lay it out more clearly. But that may be because I have heard it so many times. meh.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM

She doesn’t know the bells weren’t ringing during the ride. Let’s hang her.

Same old, same old. Petty criticisms and insults in place of substance in attempts to deny her a shot at the primaries. This disqualifies her? How? I mean, I’d bet she knows the exact number of states in the union, unlike some others.

I like Palin strictly because she is not smooth and practices the Mark Twain wisdom that when you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember your story.

Some will call me a Palinbot, but who is really guilty of mindless obsession, the peope who are willing to give a candidate a chance, or the ones who engage in knee-jerk attacks at every poor quote?

They write books about the stupidest things ever said and the targets selected are always predominantly republican. You want to be like those authors?

Get over yourselves – you’re acting like Obamaniacs.

Cricket624 on June 3, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Get over yourselves – you’re acting like Obamaniacs.

Cricket624 on June 3, 2011 at 10:11 AM

BINGO !
I was just about to post the same.

pambi on June 3, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Pattosensei on June 3, 2011 at 9:22 AM

To begin with, I don’t have PDS. Someone who had PDS would not say “when she was good she was very, very good”. But more important, what does what you posted have to do with Palin’s assertion that Paul Revere’s mission was to keep the Brits from “taking away our arms”?

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM

That’s more imagination than I have, but the argument that it was fine for MA, but wrong for America seems subtle to me.
littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 9:59 AM

All 50 states have unique laws which do not apply to the rest of us. What’s “subtle” about that?

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Agree.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM

From the context of her brief remarks, though, it is clear that she was describing more than just “the ride”. I’m amazed that some folks are so accepting of the narrow media narrative on this.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Gage determined to send a force to seize the weapons and ammunition held by the Congress in the armoury at Concord some 15 miles from Boston. Lieutenant Colonel Smith was dispatched with the grenadier and light infantry companies from each of the regiments in the garrison. Boston was sealed overnight to prevent word being passed of the departure of the force which was rowed across the harbour late on the night of 18th April 1775 to Charles River. The troops landed and began the march, but the sound of bells ringing showed that the countryside had been alerted.

HondaV65 on June 3, 2011 at 10:31 AM

All 50 states have unique laws which do not apply to the rest of us. What’s “subtle” about that?

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM

The distinction between the mandate being wonderful at the state level, but a horror at the Federal level.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 10:35 AM

ramrants on June 2, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Why oh why didn’t ramrants educate his/herself before posting at HA and getting bishslapped in public?

And, for all you parrots squawking about her need to raise her numbers and get past the media smears of her – what do you THINK the bus tour is DOING? Look at the photos and videos from EVERY stop, see the people she is reaching – right now in the Northeast the LIBERAL Northeast – whou bought into the crapola. Wake up.

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 10:48 AM

The distinction between the mandate being wonderful at the state level, but a horror at the Federal level.
littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 10:35 AM

That’s not a subtle difference either! And keep in mind that, unlike ObamaCare, the Massachusetts mandate was popular with voters and can easily be adjusted or revoked altogether. Try doing that with a federal program. Hawaii had a disastrous child health care law which they easily overturned.

It took 40 years for the EPA to get rid of an insane ruling which said that milk was oil, and spilled milk at dairy farms had to be treated the same way as an oil spill. Entitlements are a gazillion times more difficult to get rid of on the federal level, and Romney has always said that what is right for one state cannot be imposed on another state as all states have unique circumstances.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM

From the context of her brief remarks, though, it is clear that she was describing more than just “the ride”. I’m amazed that some folks are so accepting of the narrow media narrative on this.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

It didn’t appear that way. She specifically mentioned the ride and what he was doing on it. All the pieces of what happened that night were there, she had them in the wrong order etc.

I don’t really know how much this really matters though. I think most Americans are clueless enough that her version seems pretty okay with them.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:01 AM

HondaV65 on June 3, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Yes, we have pointed out that Sarah had the events correct, but the order was wrong. She attributed events to Revere that never happened.

Because you know, the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. The Germans were our enemy and Pearl Harbor was bombed. The details don’t matter.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM

She doesn’t know the bells weren’t ringing during the ride.

Espousing to be a Tea Party type patriot presupposes that you know who they were, what they did, and why they did it. Where is the credibility in a candidate that uses patriots as props?

I mean, I’d bet she knows the exact number of states in the union, unlike some others.

Making her the least stupid candidate isn’t a winning strategy. I avoid comparing my candidate as not as dumb as Obama.

I like Palin strictly because she is not smooth and practices the Mark Twain wisdom that when you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember your story.

Cricket624 on June 3, 2011 at 10:11 AM

I like the fact that she isn’t a slick greasy politician, but she shouldn’t come off as weak on the facts either. It is my experience that when you tell the truth, your story happens to be factually accurate, not a mishmash of the events in a weird random order, and doesn’t change substantially.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:16 AM

It didn’t appear that way. She specifically mentioned the ride and what he was doing on it. All the pieces of what happened that night were there, she had them in the wrong order etc.

I don’t really know how much this really matters though. I think most Americans are clueless enough that her version seems pretty okay with them.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:01 AM

I must have missed the part where she said, “Listen, my children, and you shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere.” She made reference to several significant events, including the ride. The order in which they were made had no relevance so far as I could tell to her meaning.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM

It took 40 years for the EPA to get rid of an insane ruling which said that milk was oil, and spilled milk at dairy farms had to be treated the same way as an oil spill. Entitlements are a gazillion times more difficult to get rid of on the federal level, and Romney has always said that what is right for one state cannot be imposed on another state as all states have unique circumstances.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Exactly the reason the progressives led by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, sacrificed the economy for Obamacare. They know eventually the republicans will clean up the mess they made of the economy and are too spineless to do away with entitlements. Well, too spineless up to this point. I am encouraged by the drubbing the Tea Party gave the progressives in November and I hope it is the permanent sea change we need to start rolling back the traitorous progressive agenda.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM

The order in which they were made had no relevance so far as I could tell to her meaning.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Okay, explain how this comment is not relevant to the order in which it happened.

“…by ringing those bells and um making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells….”

He did not fire shots or ring bells as he was riding his horse through town. That came after his ride was over and he was in custody of the British.

We do not say that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan ended the war in Europe even though both events happened. She needs to be factually correct AND a strong conservative voice.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Sometimes when making quick remarks she uses a short-hand manner of speaking that is akin to texting. It is clear that she was talking about Revere in context — certainly he wasn’t riding while ringing bells, firing shots, etc. The significance of Revere, the men of Lexington and Concord, etc., were to serve notice to the British that we would not be disarmed and we would have our freedom. Now, if folks want to chide her for her manner of speaking, I certainly can’t stop them, but to say she was reciting a “version” of the ride of Paul Revere and not referring to the wider historical context as well doesn’t make sense to me.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 11:50 AM

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 11:50 AM

I understand your take on it. I am simply trying to create an example of another series of historical events that could be dealt with the same way and not raise eyebrows over it. I haven’t been able to find one. I’ve tried with Reagan’s Berlin wall speech etc, and the historical inaccuracy is too glaring to ignore. Hopefully for her, Americans will see it from your perspective and not mine.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I would rather hear her say something like this:

“Patriots like Paul Revere were not going to put up with King George’s crap! They did what had to be done in order to give the experiment in democracy a fighting chance. The experiment succeeded and God bless them !”

Something similar….the in your face statements.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 12:03 PM

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I think it is safe to say Americans see much from a persective other than yours

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 12:05 PM

She doesn’t know the bells weren’t ringing during the ride.
Espousing to be a Tea Party type patriot presupposes that you know who they were, what they did, and why they did it. Where is the credibility in a candidate that uses patriots as props?

I mean, I’d bet she knows the exact number of states in the union, unlike some others.
Making her the least stupid candidate isn’t a winning strategy. I avoid comparing my candidate as not as dumb as Obama.

I like Palin strictly because she is not smooth and practices the Mark Twain wisdom that when you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember your story.

Cricket624 on June 3, 2011 at 10:11 AM
I like the fact that she isn’t a slick greasy politician, but she shouldn’t come off as weak on the facts either. It is my experience that when you tell the truth, your story happens to be factually accurate, not a mishmash of the events in a weird random order, and doesn’t change substantially.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Dude, you TOTALLY made my point for me!!!

Don’t you know when you’re being baited?

Thanks, I love ya, man (girl, whatever)!

Cricket624 on June 3, 2011 at 12:15 PM

‘Nother thought.

I love the existence of Sarah Palin and how she keeps beating the mush out of the other side even as they think they’re knocking her out. It’s as if a pack of coon hounds have run down their quarry and discovered too late that it’s a fire-breathing dragon.

I don’t care in the least if she runs for President at all. In fact, I so enjoy the grip she has on the political scene and the throats of her antagonists that I might be genuinely disappointed to see the situation change.

We waste so much time arguing about whether she’d be a good president that we leave the field wide open for her to take ownership of the debate. That’s why she hasn’t Quayled-out (note to csdeven – “potatoe” is in fact, a proper spelling for “potato” – that poor guy), but instead seems only to accumulate power, political, social and financial.

Gotta love watching this show.

Cricket624 on June 3, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Palin goes to…

Connecticut??

Former Republican vice presidential candidate and ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin stopped in Cromwell Wednesday afternoon at exit 21 on 372, not far from Willowbrook Spirit Shoppe, according to Tony Gagnon, a local resident.”It was a complete surprise,” Gagnon said. “It was wonderful. Whenever you see a celebrity or politician, it’s always interesting to meet them.”Gagnon described Palin as “very down to earth and gracious.” He had been on his way to Lowes when he got off the exit and saw her bus, he said.”She was just standing in the parking talking to people and handing out pocket constitutions,” Gagnon said.Palin was stopping traffic, according to Gagnon, who said that during her brief stay while her bus marked “We the people” and “One nation” gased up people were cycling in and out to meet her.”She is a very impressive individual,” Gagnon said.
http://middletownpress.com/articles/2011/06/02/news/doc4de7f9711206b157371048.txt

powerpro on June 3, 2011 at 4:53 AM

I wish I could have been there!

For those non-Nutmeggers on HotAir, Cromwell, CT is a very interesting place for Palin to stop. Near the intersection of I-91 (the main north-south Interstate running from New Haven through Hartford) and State Highway 9 (which runs southeast through blue-collar Middletwon toward Groton), Cromwell is home to Holy Apostles College, where more men are studying to be Catholic priests than at any other seminary in the state. Although neither Palin nor any other GOP candidate has any hope of winning deep-blue CT from Obama, Palin may be trying to reach the pro-life vote for the primary in CT, which is particulary strong in Cromwell.

Possibly some of the seminarians might have taken the time to meet Sarah Palin in Cromwell, and some of them may be priests by 2012, ready to tell their parishioners about Palin’s pro-life views…

Steve Z on June 3, 2011 at 12:47 PM

“…by ringing those bells and um making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells….”
csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM

I don’t have a problem with this particular statement from Palin. She was using it as a metaphor for sounding the alarms about America’s fiscal situation. I don’t mind her slip up referring to the Brits when she meant the revolutionaries. But her comment about “taking away our arms” was not helpful.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 1:12 PM

“I thought Romney did extremely well in the interview…I came away thinking he’s the one to beat. He’s a lot sharper than I ever recall. I see why he is leading the polls and the establishment favorite”

LOL. yeah, ok whatever. your an obvious mittens troll. that was one of the lamest roll outs i’ve ever seen. yeah, he is the establishment favorite. THATS the problem. the establishment sucks and IS the problem with party. doesnt that tell you something about mittens?

but trust me, he ISNT the frontrunner. palin is. and she will roll him. romney plays this good cop bad cop crap where he has his minions trash and smear palin and he plays all nice. he’s full if sh!t

muittens is a joke

sidewinder22 on June 3, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Christ, even dumba*s me from the great white north knows w t f Paul Revere did.

The tapdancing to defend her appalling ignorance of American history is highly entertaining.

You jump on Obama’s number of states gaffe (and rightly so) yet Palin gets a pass as you spin your heads off to downplay her ignorance.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 1:16 PM

lol. palin has more brains in her left toe nail than maobama has in his whole body, including his big dumbo ears. keep fishing palin haters, your making morons out of yourselves as usual

sidewinder22 on June 3, 2011 at 1:18 PM

That’s not a subtle difference either! And keep in mind that, unlike ObamaCare, the Massachusetts mandate was popular with voters and can easily be adjusted or revoked altogether. Try doing that with a federal program.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM

And whether you know it or not, you just articulated why I am afraid of Romney, and will NOT vote for him. He has demonstrated his lack of character, as willing to “go with the flow” even when the bill proposed would bankrupt his state… this in a time when our country teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, with a $14+ TRILLION debt hanging over our heads like the Sword of Damocles.

Yes, the idea of “President Romney” scares me.

dominigan on June 3, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Good Lord, Palin is an embarrassment. The Revere debacle just a few short days after her “I just love the smell of…the emissions” remark. I thought Sarah knew better than to ever go full retard.

lawya on June 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM

lol. palin has more brains in her left toe nail than maobama has in his whole body, including his big dumbo ears. keep fishing palin haters, your making morons out of yourselves as usual

sidewinder22 on June 3, 2011 at 1:18 PM
——
If Obama had mangled history this badly what would your reaction be?

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 1:29 PM

I would rather hear her say something like this:

“Patriots like Paul Revere were not going to put up with King George’s crap! They did what had to be done in order to give the experiment in democracy a fighting chance. The experiment succeeded and God bless them !”

Something similar….the in your face statements.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 12:03 PM

We’re a Constitutional Republic! What a horrible, inaccurate PC summary! Experiment? You honestly think of this country as some weird biology mutation in a test tube, with scientists watching from the sidelines? Thank God she didn’t screw up as badly as you just did!

dominigan on June 3, 2011 at 1:31 PM

You jump on Obama’s number of states gaffe

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Personally, I prefer the “corpse-man” quote because it wasn’t a gaffe — he seriously didn’t know how to pronounce the word.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 1:32 PM

The thread changed instantly at around 6:30am.

Apparently the Mitt trolls go in early to work!

dominigan on June 3, 2011 at 1:33 PM

If Obama had mangled history this badly what would your reaction be?

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Like this: OMG! He even knows who Paul Revere was??!!!

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 1:34 PM

But her comment about “taking away our arms” was not helpful.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Why? Because it reflected the reason for the ride? You do realize that the British had been dispatched to seize the militia arms… right?

dominigan on June 3, 2011 at 1:36 PM

You jump on Obama’s number of states gaffe

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Personally, I prefer the “corpse-man” quote because it wasn’t a gaffe — he seriously didn’t know how to pronounce the word.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 1:32 PM
——–
Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. But there’s a big difference between not knowing how to pronounce a word and completely bungling a basic story from the American fight for independence.

Palin obviously doesn’t know the P.R. story since she told it completely wrong.

Will you apply the same standard to her words as you do to Obama’s?

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Like this: OMG! He even knows who Paul Revere was??!!!

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 1:34 PM
——
So you have no guts to admit you’re a double standard hack. That’s okay.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Palin obviously doesn’t know the P.R. story since she told it completely wrong.

Will you apply the same standard to her words as you do to Obama’s?

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Firstly, she was telling the “P.R. story”. She was putting it in historical context.

Secondly, things like typos and slips of the tongue, like the states comment, don’t bother me. I like to reference them when folks try to make such things examples of ignorance — folks like you.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 1:44 PM

The MSM is failing to recognize that they already report to Sarah Palin.

She is assuming the Presidency step-by-step despite them.

Having abandoned the business of news reporting, the MSM is now only capable of comic relief.

landlines on June 3, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Sorry, I meant to say, she was NOT telling the P.R. story. I guess that shows my ignorance.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 1:29 PM

You mean like “we’ve been in 57 states and have one to go?”

Gee, which is the bigger “manglement?”

Moron.

The ironic thing is if the media and YOUR ilk had simply LET her go back to Alaska after the last election and serve out her term as governor, instead of trying mightily to tear her down and FORCING her into the national arena, you just MIGHT have gotten what you want and she would be a non-entity now. Hoist on your own petard – dumba$$es.

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 1:57 PM

lawya on June 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM

The embarrassment stares at you while you shave in the morning

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 1:29 PM

You mean like “we’ve been in 57 states and have one to go?”

Gee, which is the bigger “manglement?”

Moron.

The ironic thing is if the media and YOUR ilk had simply LET her go back to Alaska after the last election and serve out her term as governor, instead of trying mightily to tear her down and FORCING her into the national arena, you just MIGHT have gotten what you want and she would be a non-entity now. Hoist on your own petard – dumba$$es.

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 1:57 PM
————
At least you’re not a total clown – you admit her mangling of history should be ridiculed.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 2:01 PM

I admit no such thing, go back to your masturbation

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 2:10 PM

At least you’re not a total clown – you admit her mangling of history should be ridiculed.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 2:01 PM

She mangled nothing. You fail to comprehend. You’ve mangled your mangling.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 2:18 PM

sidewinder22 on June 3, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Pot kettle much?

Why? Because it reflected the reason for the ride? You do realize that the British had been dispatched to seize the militia arms… right?
dominigan on June 3, 2011 at 1:36 PM

It wasn’t the reason for the ride. His primary role was one of a messenger delivering a warning about the movement of British troops, not, Look out! They plan to seize our arms!. I honestly don’t know what Palin’s point was in this regard.

He has demonstrated his lack of character, as willing to “go with the flow” even when the bill proposed would bankrupt his state……
dominigan on June 3, 2011 at 1:25 PM

What do you mean by “go with the flow”?

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 2:19 PM

I admit no such thing, go back to your masturbation

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 2:10 PM
—-
ha ha ha keep up the hilarious double standarding.

You’re the kind of tool Palin laughs at as she gets richer and richer on your dime.

But it’s probably time you got back to photoshopping Palin’s head onto naked bodies, isn’t it. So I’ll let you get to it.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 2:22 PM

She mangled nothing. You fail to comprehend. You’ve mangled your mangling.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 2:18 PM
——
ha ha ha ha amazing

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Sorry, I meant to say, she was NOT telling the P.R. story. I guess that shows my ignorance.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 1:46 PM
—–

“He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms uh 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 going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.”
——-

You’re right – a basic check of historical facts against this garbled mess proves she wasn’t telling the P.R. story.

But she thought she was.

You must love the hole you’re in because you keep digging it deeper.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 2:32 PM

It wasn’t the reason for the ride. His primary role was one of a messenger delivering a warning about the movement of British troops, not, Look out! They plan to seize our arms!. I honestly don’t know what Palin’s point was in this regard.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 2:19 PM

I suppose they just wanted to know how many settings they would need for dinner.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM

You’re right – a basic check of historical facts against this garbled mess proves she wasn’t telling the P.R. story.

But she thought she was.

You must love the hole you’re in because you keep digging it deeper.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 2:32 PM

She was not. She was in the process of signing autographs, greeting folks and responding to questions. She was referring to Revere in historical context, not telling the “story of Paul Revere”. The sentence structure is disjointed because she is distracted by everything she is doing and everything that is going on around her. You’re the one who’s digging — digging for dirt to dump on Palin. There are the simple-minded who will look at this out of context and buy it, but you won’t find many here who are so gullible.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM

I suppose they just wanted to know how many settings they would need for dinner.
littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM

I have no idea what your point is, and you have not offered an explanation as to what Palin’s point was, so this is a lose-lose comment.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 2:48 PM

She was not. She was in the process of signing autographs, greeting folks and responding to questions. She was referring to Revere in historical context, not telling the “story of Paul Revere”. The sentence structure is disjointed because she is distracted by everything she is doing and everything that is going on around her. You’re the one who’s digging — digging for dirt to dump on Palin. There are the simple-minded who will look at this out of context and buy it, but you won’t find many here who are so gullible.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM
——-
You have got to be fu*king kidding.
The sentence structure is disjointed? That ‘s the way she always talks.
Carry on.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM

She was using it as a metaphor for sounding the alarms about America’s fiscal situation. I don’t mind her slip up referring to the Brits when she meant the revolutionaries. But her comment about “taking away our arms” was not helpful.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 1:12 PM

It’s clear she has the story in her head but when it comes out it is a convoluted mess.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 2:54 PM

It’s clear she has the story in her head but when it comes out it is a convoluted mess.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 2:54 PM
——-
Pfffft

No it’s not clear.

You have no proof she knows the true reason for his ride

How come this is the one time she says fact X, which is totally wrong, and you all say that’s okay she said fact X because she meant fact Y?

Ridiculous.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Obviously, she knows, you don’t Rywall.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1261.html

“Revere became suspicious in mid-April when he noticed that British landing craft were being drawn out of the water for repairs — a clear indication that something was afoot. On the 16th he made a trip to Concord, a key community because it was the temporary home of the Provincial Congress and also a storehouse for militia guns, powder, and shot. He warned the residents there that redcoats were likely to be dispatched in the near future to seize the town’s arms supply. Revere’s warning was taken to heart and the townspeople began to hide arms and valuables in barns, wells, and the neighboring swamps.”

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM

She was referring to Revere in historical context, not telling the “story of Paul Revere”.
littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM

What was the “historical context”? We all get the sounding the alarms metaphor, but what about “taking away our arms”? Is she trying to make a point about the Second Amendment? I don’t have a clue, but I’m all ears.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 3:04 PM

dominigan on June 3, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Did I say we are a pure democracy? No. Nice attempt at a straw man though.

Considering it was never tried before, it was an experiment. An experiment that Lincoln was committed to save as he laid out in the Gettysburg Address.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 3:04 PM

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM
—–

Awww, look at you, taking time out from hanging your soggy Palin poster out to dry to google something you never knew, read it for the first time in your life, learn something about your history you never knew, and then spit it out here as if it proves Palin isn’t a dim bulb.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 3:06 PM

I think it is safe to say Americans see much from a persective other than yours

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 12:05 PM

And your proof of that is a 60% disapproval rating for Palin?

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 3:06 PM

That comment is beyond stupid and proves once again what an insufferable ass you can be. First, you have no way of knowing what he knows or knew. Second, so what if he didn’t know that until today? There’s something wrong with expanding knowledge now? Maybe you’re still reading Walter Duranty’s glowing reports on the Soviet Union?

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 3:15 PM

That he looked up some obscure facts about Revere to build his “case” AFTER bloviating non stop about it proves something, that’s for sure.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Oh, I knew it, Canuckistani, just had to have a resource to cite for YOU, moron.

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 3:43 PM

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:06 AM

And, maybe not…

Remember when Palin said “We’re going to party like it’s 1773!” and some people said “What’s Stupid Sarah saying? Doesn’t she know history?!”

Yeah, that.

The British officers began to interrogate Revere, whereupon Revere astonished his captors by telling them more than they even knew about their own mission. (HA!) He also told them that he had been warning the countryside of the British plan and that their lives were at risk if they remained in the vicinity of Lexington because there would soon be 500 men there ready to fight. Revere, of course, was bluffing.

The Regulars had Revere remount his horse and they headed toward Lexington Green, when suddenly, they heard a gunshot! Revere told the British officer that the shot was a signal “to alarm the country!”. Now the British troops were getting very nervous (hehe).

A few minutes later, they were all startled to hear the heavy crash of an entire volley of musketry from the direction of Lexington’s meeting house and then the Lexington town bell began clanging rapidly! Jonathan Loring, a Lexington resident captured earlier, turned to his captors and shouted “The bell’s a’ ringing! The town’s alarmed, and you’re all dead men!”LINK

Stupid Sarah. Bells and guns and Paul Revere?!

Oh, yeah. She’s right. Again.

Cindy Cooper on June 3, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Gohawgs on June 3, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Oh, I knew it, Canuckistani, just had to have a resource to cite for YOU, moron.

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 3:43 PM
—–
sure you did

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Considering I was already arguing the point, dippy

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM

And, obviously, and more importantly, you DIDN’T.

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Considering I was already arguing the point, dippy

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM
——
You’re so all over the place you must be wearing some Palin heels, a red suit and some hockey mom lipstick (it’s Friday)

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 4:13 PM

What was the “historical context”? We all get the sounding the alarms metaphor, but what about “taking away our arms”? Is she trying to make a point about the Second Amendment? I don’t have a clue, but I’m all ears.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Perhaps you’ve seen some other posts by now regarding disarming the militias, but that is the context. To subdue the population, end resistence, enforce the will of the crown, British forces were to sieze arms. Revere’s ride was to alert the locals about the coming of the King’s men — who would seek to arrest, put down, subdue, and yes sieze arms. Bells, shots fired, etc. were references to the historical events that “warned” the British that we would resist.

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM

(it’s Friday)

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Finally got something right! Huzzah!!

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Oh, it’s ME who has been all over the place? Consistently arguing she was not historically incorrect while you twist in the wind, factually bereft and trying to “smarta$$” your way out of it? Not even a good try, go slink back under your rock.

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 4:19 PM

…But more important, what does what you posted have to do with Palin’s assertion that Paul Revere’s mission was to keep the Brits from “taking away our arms”?

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM

By 1775, tensions between the American colonies and the British government had approached the breaking point, especially in Massachusetts, where Patriot leaders formed a shadow revolutionary government and trained militias to prepare for armed conflict with the British troops occupying Boston. In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from Great Britain to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against Concord and Lexington.

LINK

Cindy Cooper on June 3, 2011 at 6:10 PM

littleguy on June 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM

I know all that. How is the militia/seizing arms part a metaphor for today? Surely Palin was talking about Paul Revere to make a point, not to show off her knowledge of history.

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Buy Danish, you cannot be serious. We have a government at this point who wants to do the exact same thing, seize or control our arms, and you can ask that question with a straight face?

PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 6:16 PM

“He who warned, uh, the, the British…..”

WTH? He didn’t warn the British. He was warning the patriots.

csdeven on June 3, 2011 at 9:44 AM

As the cite states that was pointed out to you:

[Revere] also told [the British] that he had been warning the countryside of the British plan and that their lives were at risk if they remained in the vicinity of Lexington

Cindy Cooper on June 3, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Buy Danish, you cannot be serious. We have a government at this point who wants to do the exact same thing, seize or control our arms, and you can ask that question with a straight face?
PJ Emeritus on June 3, 2011 at 6:16 PM

To say that Obama is not a fan of the Second Amendment and is correct and reasonable. To say they want to “Seize our arms” is speculation. It’s one thing for a blogger, pundit, or commenter to speculate that way. For a Presidential candidate to go there starts to get into conspiracy territory and will not be a winning way to beat Obama. There are plenty of things which are immediate threats that we have no need to speculate about. Perhaps we should concentrate on those. But thanks for solving the puzzle of Palin’s point…

Buy Danish on June 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM

I “solved” nothing for you. There is one person and one person only who can “solve” that for you. My name is not Palin.

PJ Emeritus on June 4, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5