Historians Agree: Palin Was Right About Revere

[red states rule]

Sarah Palin to the intellectually superior liberals and rulling class Republicans: “I won”





Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.

Palin prompted howls of partisan derision when she said on Boston’s Freedom Trail that Revere “warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms 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.”

Palin insisted yesterday on Fox News Sunday she was right: “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.

In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British

http://bostonherald.com.nyud.net/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353

[CSM]

Hey, the libs rewrite history anytime they need to support their own position so whether or not Palin was accurate just doesn't matter.

[Monkeybone]

Other than this article, that will probably be all we hear about how she was right.


Hey, the libs rewrite history anytime they need to support their own position so whether or not Palin was accurate just doesn't matter. lol, I was just saying that to Nukeman yesterday.

[maineman]

"Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British."

wow...now that's what I call a ringing endorsement!

Steve Colbert had an AWESOME bit on this just last night.:laugh:

[jimnyc]

"Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British."

wow...now that's what I call a ringing endorsement!

Steve Colbert had an AWESOME bit on this just last night.:laugh:

You laugh at her, now we laugh at you, fat boy. MANY historians have come to the plate to say that Palin was correct in her statements. Should we believe YOU, fat boy, or Revere's own notebook and what MANY historians have now come forward and stated? I'll wait...

[jimnyc]

So, are you going to say that Revere's own words are wrong too, chubs?


In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”


http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353

http://www.personalliberty.com/news/boston-historians-back-palin%E2%80%99s-paul-revere-claim/

[maineman]

Oh....no doubt... Sarah's got it right and we all learned it wrong in school all those years ago. Paul Revere actually rode through the countryside saying, "The colonists are coming! The colonists are coming!" :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Oh....no doubt... Sarah's got it right and we all learned it wrong in school all those years ago. Paul Revere actually rode through the countryside saying, "The colonists are coming! The colonists are coming!" :laugh2:

So who do we believe, REVERE'S OWN NOTEBOOK, the historians in Boston - or a queer fake preacher & liar from Maine? :laugh2:

[maineman]

So who do we believe, REVERE'S OWN NOTEBOOK, the historians in Boston - or a queer fake preacher & liar from Maine? :laugh2:

go with sarah....

"The colonists are coming! The colonists are coming!"

that sounds about right, eh?

he wasn't riding to spread the alarm to every Middlesex village and farm, he was riding to spread the alarm to the redcoats.

tea party history. gotta love it.

[jimnyc]

go with sarah....

"The colonists are coming! The colonists are coming!"

that sounds about right, eh?

he wasn't riding to spread the alarm to every Middlesex village and farm, he was riding to spread the alarm to the redcoats.

tea party history. gotta love it.

So you're saying you cannot dispute what is in Revere's notebook, correct, Virgil the III? And What the historians have already stated? Maybe if you stop playing with Virgil the IV's weiner long enough to read the links you would see you are making an ass out of yourself, again, as usual.

[DragonStryk72]

go with sarah....

"The colonists are coming! The colonists are coming!"


Again, not what you were being asked. Are the historians, and revere's own accounting wrong?

Answer that question, and quit the bullshit evasion answer you continue to spit forth here, or be a man, cop to it, and back down.

[red states rule]

Oh....no doubt... Sarah's got it right and we all learned it wrong in school all those years ago. Paul Revere actually rode through the countryside saying, "The colonists are coming! The colonists are coming!" :laugh2:

This from the fake preacher who never strops defending the "most intelligent" President we ever had who

said there were 57 states

signed a Guest book on the UK trip May 23, 2008

botched the toast to the Queen

who said kids with asthma should be treated with a breathalyzer

bows to foreign leaders

need more Virg?

[red states rule]

Oh....no doubt... Sarah's got it right and we all learned it wrong in school all those years ago. Paul Revere actually rode through the countryside saying, "The colonists are coming! The colonists are coming!" :laugh2:

Looks like Virgil has a Super Sized Shitburger to eat





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.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

[gabosaurus]

Did anyone actually see the original clip? Palin is an idiot.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oS4C7bvHv2w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

Did anyone actually see the original clip? Palin is an idiot.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oS4C7bvHv2w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Did you bother to read to OP? Probably not knowing you




In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

[jimnyc]

Did anyone actually see the original clip? Palin is an idiot.

Looks like your own hometown "Mexican Times" even agrees Sarah was right, as per RSR's last link!

[red states rule]

Looks like your own hometown "Mexican Times" even agrees Sarah was right, as per RSR's last link!

Gabby and Virg are in a state of denial Jim. They refuse to see the facts, and admit the libs are screwing everything up. They both have a short fuse right now

and what they really gets under their thin skin is a smart, strong, independent women is NOT a liberal and is running rings around them and there is not a damn thing they can do about it

[gabosaurus]

I did read the OP. And why should I trust what a Boston U professor says? They are a brain dead liberals, ya know.
I think it is funny how the radical right is rushing to Palin's defense when it is obvious that she merely mixed up her words. You guys need to take your hands out of your pants when it comes to Sarah stuff.

[red states rule]

I did read the OP. And why should I trust what a Boston U professor says? They are a brain dead liberals, ya know.
I think it is funny how the radical right is rushing to Palin's defense when it is obvious that she merely mixed up her words. You guys need to take your hands out of your pants when it comes to Sarah stuff.

and Paul Revere's own diary?

I know Gabby - so what is he was there? What does that prove? :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

I did read the OP. And why should I trust what a Boston U professor says? They are a brain dead liberals, ya know.
I think it is funny how the radical right is rushing to Palin's defense when it is obvious that she merely mixed up her words. You guys need to take your hands out of your pants when it comes to Sarah stuff.

It was in Revere's own writing, you dumb fuck! And there are more than one links posted in this very thread - there are plenty of historians backing up Palin - but the best one is Revere's own words. Can YOU dispute what the man himself wrote?

[red states rule]

It was in Revere's own writing, you dumb fuck! And there are more than one links posted in this very thread - there are plenty of historians backing up Palin - but the best one is Revere's own words. Can YOU dispute what the man himself wrote?

This is Gabby's liberal version of history Jim

In her world, America did not with the Revolutionary War. No the British got bored, went home, and went back to their jobs

Like she does here when the heat gets to much for her :laugh2:

[hortysir]

Oh....no doubt... Sarah's got it right and we all learned it wrong in school all those years ago. Paul Revere actually rode through the countryside saying, "The colonists are coming! The colonists are coming!" :laugh2:
Why not?
You don't actually believe that Columbus discovered America and the Pilgrims were the first settlers in this "new world". do you?
Or that a young George Washington lied about chopping down a cherry tree????
:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Poor Virgil, even one of his previous sources now goes against him

My apologies to gabby as well :laugh2:





In Tuesday’s story, both the introduction by anchor Lester Holt and a soundbite from NBC historian Michael Beschloss took aim at how, in Holt’s words, Palin had “said Revere was out to warn the British.” The main piece, by Cowan, did not quarrel with Palin at all, but documented how the “Wikipedians” at Wikipedia have had to chase down “dozens of revisions” in recent days, to the point where now, Cowan revealed, “the site is now temporarily locked.”

But the now “locked” Wikipedia site, presumably now cleansed of partisan shenanigans, recounts how Revere was captured by the British and told his captors “that British army troops would be in some danger” (a warning?) and how the “town bell began to clang rapidly” to alert the town — all of which would seem to confirm Palin’s rendition.

Here’s the relevant paragraph from the Wikipedia page on Paul Revere (which I grabbed at about 8pm ET on June 7):

Revere was captured and questioned by the British soldiers at gunpoint. He told them of the army's movement from Boston, and that British army troops would be in some danger if they approached Lexington, because of the large number of hostile militia gathered there. He and other captives taken by the patrol were still escorted east toward Lexington, until about a half mile from Lexington they heard a gunshot. The British major demanded Revere explain the gunfire, and Revere replied it was a signal to "alarm the country". As the group drew closer to Lexington, the town bell began to clang rapidly, to which one of the captives proclaimed to the British soldiers "The bell's a'ringing! The town's alarmed, and you're all dead men!" The British soldiers gathered and decided not to press further towards Lexington, to instead free the prisoners and to head back to warn their commanders.

The correspondent footnote attributes the information to the book Paul Revere's Ride, by historian David Hackett Fischer -- written in 1994, long before Palin’s account became a media controversy.


Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2011/06/07/third-straight-weeknight-nbc-continues-obsess-over-sarah-palin-s-revere-#ixzz1OfZKV8Gj

[CSM]

.... You guys need to take your hands out of your pants when it comes to Sarah stuff.

Now that is ironic! Libs get all bent out of shape over Palin's every move even to the point of attacking her children and then folks like Gabby accuse others of obsession with Palin. You just can't make this crap up!

[DragonStryk72]

And if we're going to be historically accurate here, it's worth noting that Revere only rode from Boston to Cambridge. It was Israel Bissell who rode all the way to Philadelphia warning the colonists.

[Gaffer]

And if we're going to be historically accurate here, it's worth noting that Revere only rode from Boston to Cambridge. It was Israel Bissell who rode all the way to Philadelphia warning the colonists.

Thanks I couldn't remember his name.

[gabosaurus]

OK, whatever, it doesn't matter in the long run.

[jimnyc]

OK, whatever, it doesn't matter in the long run.

Actually, it does, it shows a large portion of the nation just how retarded many on the left are, and even when they have proof shoved in their faces.

[gabosaurus]

But is it worth arguing about? This is not exactly Wienergate. Or some guy looking for gay sex in a bathroom stall.
Let's wait for Palin's next publicity stunt and argue that instead.

[jimnyc]

But is it worth arguing about? This is not exactly Wienergate. Or some guy looking for gay sex in a bathroom stall.
Let's wait for Palin's next publicity stunt and argue that instead.

I don't think it's worth arguing about. But it's the left who jumps up and down like little kids about Palin's every move. Then when proven wrong they claim it's not worth arguing about. :slap:

[Abbey Marie]

No, it wasn't worth attention in the first place. But despite Palin being proved correct, creeps like Joy Behar will mention this in a scathing tone to criticize her for years to come.

[red states rule]

OK, whatever, it doesn't matter in the long run.

You made the Rush Limbaugh yesterday Gabby. Congrats!!




CALLER: I have the answer for you about why Republican women and a lot of women don't like Sarah Palin, and I'm probably gonna cause World War III here but it's a numbers game. Because Sarah Palin is a "10,"and anyone I've found that below an "8" can't stand her. Women are women first and conservatives and Republicans second, and the women that I talk to are so jealous of her. I don't see them that way with Michele Bachmann, but I don't know that Michele Bachmann has what Sarah Palin has. I love Sarah Palin, and I find that when I bring this up with women, they're just insanely jealous.

RUSH: Really?

CALLER: Yeah. Because they can't give me a reason, and I see in other areas. Now it doesn't matter if they're conservative or they're liberal, they're like eaten up with jealousy -- and if you look at Sarah Palin, she's beautiful, she's smart -- no matter what anyone says, she's smart -- she's got a nice looking husband, she's got beautiful kids, she's got a lot of integrity, and women do not like women who have it all. They just don't. Unless they're really secure. If they're really secure, then they do, but every woman that I find that is real negative about her when I ask 'em what it is about her, they can't put their finger on it -- and then they have to take a good look at the woman, and if she's not above an "8," she hates Sarah Palin.

RUSH: Well, now, wait a second here, now, the "8s" and "10s" and all this is a little subjective. What may be an "8" to you might be a "6" or a "5" to somebody else.

CALLER: Well, sure. So like in my book, if I look at someone and that's how it's perceived, I mean, they just are really, really jealous of her, and women are like that. They are.

RUSH: The starting point here with these women, they don't like Palin, in their mind she's a "10"?

CALLER: Yes.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060811/content/01125110.member.html

[red states rule]

But is it worth arguing about? This is not exactly Wienergate. Or some guy looking for gay sex in a bathroom stall.
Let's wait for Palin's next publicity stunt and argue that instead.

Trying to change the subject again Gabby when you can't keep up? Or are you going to tell us Wiener was alerting the Brits about the Battle of the Bulge?

[CSM]

But is it worth arguing about? This is not exactly Wienergate. Or some guy looking for gay sex in a bathroom stall.
Let's wait for Palin's next publicity stunt and argue that instead.

Better yet, let's wait for Obama's next faux pas and argue about that! That is, unless you want to talk about those he's already committed. Palin may or may not have gotten the Paul Revere story right but I'm betting she knows what year it is!

[red states rule]

Better yet, let's wait for Obama's next faux pas and argue about that! That is, unless you want to talk about those he's already committed. Palin may or may not have gotten the Paul Revere story right but I'm betting she knows what year it is!

Would he comment he is not worried about a double dip rescission count?

Another top member of his economic team has jumped ship. The economic news continues to be bad, Consumer confidnece is decreasing

Yet HE is not worried? He is the only one I know who isn't

[red states rule]

First Chris Matthews and his version of US history

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/102644" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


and now the facts from the Natonal Park Service




What was the reason for the British expedition to Concord?
On the evening of April 18, 1775, General Thomas Gage sent approximately 700 British soldiers out to Concord (about 18 miles distant) to seize and destroy military stores and equipment known to be stockpiled in the town. His orders to Lt. Col. Smith, the British officer who was to lead the expedition, were as follows:

Sir:
Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provision, Artillery, Tents and small arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will march with the Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your command, with the utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provision, Tents, Small Arms, and all military stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the inhabitants, or hurt private property.

Under great pressure from his superiors in England to bring Massachusetts back under control of the "lawful government," General Gage sent the troops to Concord in the hopes that by doing so, he could convince the colonists to back down, and thus avoid an armed rebellion.

General Gage also believed that seizing stockpiles of weapons was not only a militiary necessity, but also his prerogative as governor of the colony. The colonists actively disagreed.

http://www.nps.gov/mima/north-bridge-questions.htm





To Gabby and Virgil - any questions class? If not, class dismissed

[SassyLady]

But is it worth arguing about? This is not exactly Wienergate. Or some guy looking for gay sex in a bathroom stall.
Let's wait for Palin's next publicity stunt and argue that instead.

No, it's not worth arguing about. It's not even worth mentioning. Who thought it was newsworthy and brought it to media attention anyway? Liberals or conservatives?

[red states rule]

No, it's not worth arguing about. It's not even worth mentioning. Who thought it was newsworthy and brought it to media attention anyway? Liberals or conservatives?

NBC Nightly News covered the "story" for nearly a full week. and Chris Matthews attacked Ms Palin on a nightly basis as well

But I am sure Gabby does not consider them liberal. No she will probably say they are tools for the right to try and embarrass the fair and impartial media that is keeping the uninformed masses infomed

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/102542" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/102644" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[SassyLady]

Seems that Obama being elected didn't cure the Bush Derangement Syndrome....it just morphed into the Palin Derangement Syndrome.

[red states rule]

Seems that Obama being elected didn't cure the Bush Derangement Syndrome....it just morphed into the Palin Derangement Syndrome.

From the liberal media of the Palin emails




“News organizations mobilized teams of reporters and even recruited online volunteers to scan more than 24,000 pages of e-mails from Sarah Palin that were released on Friday, prompting some critics to accuse the news media of overkill at best and vigilantism at worst…

“The New York Times and The Guardian sent reporters armed with scanners and then solicited readers’ assistance. Politico enlisted a dozen editors, reporters and interns who worked as a team from their Northern Virginia newsroom ‘plowing through’ the documents, as one editor described it. The Washington Post initially asked for 100 volunteers to sift through the documents. They were quickly overwhelmed with too many applicants. Unable to screen all of them, the paper abandoned the plan late Thursday, opting instead to invite reader comments…

“‘This is not a witch hunt,’ said Jim Roberts, an assistant managing editor at The Times. ‘There are 25,000 documents here, and we can use all the eyeballs we can get.’”
***

“The spectacle on Friday was unusual even for Palin, who is known for her ability to inspire a media frenzy. Eager to be the first to post the messages online, news outlets — including The Post — dispatched reporters armed with scanners to Juneau for the 9 a.m. release of the e-mails, which were not distributed electronically but in stacks of printed paper…

“Even some liberal journalists pondered the public-interest value of the exercise as early as Friday morning.

“‘Don’t get me wrong. There’s always some nominal value in paging through the communiques of a public figure, and Palin — who’s been as public a figure as any — is a good candidate for this attention,’ wrote Jason Linkins, a media reporter for the Huffington Post, before the e-mails had been released. ‘But it’s really not hard to think that the joke might somehow be on us.’”

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/11/quotes-of-the-day-712/

[MtnBiker]

Oh....no doubt... Sarah's got it right and we all learned it wrong in school all those years ago. Paul Revere actually rode through the countryside saying, "The colonists are coming! The colonists are coming!" :laugh2:


Obama and a Maine semen err I mean navy man must have learned in school all those years that Lincoln was the founder of the Republican party. :laugh2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlgfuMn30d8

[ConHog]

Who gives a shit? Anyone who knows history knows that Paul Revere's famous ride has been overblown since day one and that the facts surrounding the ride have long since been lost to the myth.

Further, anyone with a brain realizes two things. 1. Politicians are not historians and so when they embellish historical facts to make a point rebuking them for any errors, if indeed any were made , is just stupid and 2. Politicians often have silly gaffes when speaking in public and then later on don't want to admit to said gaffe. Palin is NO different in that respect than any other politician.

This stupid game of holding Sarah Palin to a higher standard than the average politician is getting old. Are yall that scared of her?

[beanerboy]

Who gives a shit? Anyone who knows history knows that Paul Revere's famous ride has been overblown since day one and that the facts surrounding the ride have long since been lost to the myth.

Further, anyone with a brain realizes two things. 1. Politicians are not historians and so when they embellish historical facts to make a point rebuking them for any errors, if indeed any were made , is just stupid and 2. Politicians often have silly gaffes when speaking in public and then later on don't want to admit to said gaffe. Palin is NO different in that respect than any other politician.

This stupid game of holding Sarah Palin to a higher standard than the average politician is getting old. Are yall that scared of her?

actually... I think if you were to ask most democrats, they would say that Palin is their fantasy choice for the GOP nomination. They'd like nothing better than for the teabaggers to nominate Caribou Barbie.

[ConHog]

actually... I think if you were to ask most democrats, they would say that Palin is their fantasy choice for the GOP nomination. They'd like nothing better than for the teabaggers to nominate Caribou Barbie.

I doubt she even wants the nomination. Why would she want to take a cut in both her power and her salary?

Seriously, for how dumb you buffoons like to act like she is, you sure are scared of her.

[beanerboy]

I doubt she even wants the nomination. Why would she want to take a cut in both her power and her salary?

Seriously, for how dumb you buffoons like to act like she is, you sure are scared of her.

again... I know of no democrat who is "scared of her". I dream about how marvelous life would be if she got the nomination. the moronic teabaggers may be the loudest and command the megaphone now, but the middle of the political bell curve thinks they are a bunch of morons and they will not be supporting the darling of the tea party come general election time, imho.

I notice how you ran away from having to retract your lie in the other thread, corndog. Is that how you always do business?

[jimnyc]

Obama and a Maine semen err I mean navy man

Remember that fucking idiot that used to post here, maineman? Historians agree that he was a dem supporting dipshit! :coffee:

[Gaffer]

Remember that fucking idiot that used to post here, maineman? Historians agree that he was a dem supporting dipshit! :coffee:

And he was going to mexico to live like a rich man. :laugh:

[MtnBiker]

And he was going to mexico to live like a rich man. :laugh:

Yeah, well pintos and manteca are cheap down there.

[red states rule]

actually... I think if you were to ask most democrats, they would say that Palin is their fantasy choice for the GOP nomination. They'd like nothing better than for the teabaggers to nominate Caribou Barbie.

I remember libs saying the same thing about Ronald Reagan

You know Virgil, today would be a great day for you to become a missing person

[fj1200]

Reagan spoke better and could give an interview.

[ConHog]

Reagan spoke better and could give an interview.

But didn't fill out a sweater near as nicely.