Jun 072011
Recently Sarah Palin has been taken to task for getting her history of Paul Revere wrong. But National Public Radio, no less, found themselves a history expert… who backs her up:
BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.
Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did.
The Washington Times adds some details.
6 Responses to “Palin/Revere”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The Republicans could ensure Obama’s victory in 2012 by giving Sarah Palin the Republican nomination.
Undoubtedly. Palin is “damaged goods.” But she could serve a useful purpose… keep herself out there, front and center, and the Dems and their attack dogs in the media will continue to make stuff up about her. And won’t have as much time to devote to tearing up the actual candidate.
I have a feeling you would make a good, if not, excellent political strategist.
I’d need to be a bit more Machieavellian.
Still… if I were the Dems, I’d publicly scream and hollar that Weiner needs to resign, but privately tell him to stay. The Republicans will go after *him* rather than real targets.
“It’s hard for us to understand, if I can put it that way,” says Cameron, straining for understatement, about the Palin phenomenon, as we chat in his Parliament offices shortly after the New Year.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/04/david-cameron-201004?currentPage=1
I think that pretty much sums up how the world views Sarah Palin.
In general I like the woman, but I won’t pretend that she’s the world’s best public speaker. Her statement in this case came across as rather incoherent unfortunately.