Michael Medved, Sarah Palin Was Not ASKED To Explain The Purpose Of Paul Revere's Ride!
Michael Medved fell into the popular inclination to analyze every word Sarah Palin says, as a submitted essay response to a question of their own imagination. He assessed Palin’s answer to a questioner about what she took from her visit to Boston’s “Freedom Trail” as a submission for an encyclopedia on the history, purpose, and accomplishment of Revere’s ride. Most people know the story that Revere took the message from lanterns in the North Church tower, “One if by land, two if by sea.” But Palin was particularly inspired by Revere’s warning to the British who in fact had captured him, that the people were warned and would actively resist attempts at disarming and controlling them. Not at all harshly, but a tad didactically, Medved advised that hers was not a competent description of Paul Revere’s ride. Her words were never intended to be more than a response to the question of what she took from her tour. This is the email I sent to Medved:
“She was asked what SHE took from her experience. And the disarmament and control of the public is a particular concern to a liberty-minded Western frontier American. I would assume that most people assume the standard explanation of Paul Revere’s ride. The challenge to the British that their efforts to control would be knowledgeably resisted was important to HER. This analysis, of whether her report was a complete analysis of history, is to submit to the rabid hyper-critical disposition toward everything she says and does. What would she do as president? (Medved’s question to a caller) This kind of question from people like yourself is fascinating to me. And I’m a regular listener in great general agreement with you. I’m thinking: seriously, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Sometimes people who adopt this disposition seem never to have explored her record. She will be THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND MOST COMPLETE at unwinding the terrific harm that has been done over time, and most sweepingly in the past few years. And why? Because she is a policy wonk and an academic as Obama and others are said to be? No. Ironically enough, it’s because she is not in a contrived way, but quite naturally endowed with more testicular fortitude than any candidate or potential candidate at least since Reagan. And boy, do we need it.”