Sarah Palin, ignorant of her own country’s basic history

In order to welcome the failed airheaded politician-turned-nonsensical Facebook pundit into their midst, the crew at Fox Newz offered Sarah Palin several interviews, such as with Bill O’Reilly, who basically spent the entire time making sure her ass was well and truly anointed in his saliva.^[1]. She also sat with Glenn Beck, who took a perhaps all-too ceremonial approach to the affair (a scene deliciously mocked by The Daily Show, something I would certainly post if I, y’know, could).

When she was asked which of the U.S.’s Founding Fathers was her favorite, she once again revealed her incredible ineptitude and ignorance when she first tried to answer with “all of them”, reminding me of a student’s answer when asked which was his favorite character in a book he failed to read for class. Beck called her out on it, at which point she fudged some more by answering with George Washington, a man who, whilst honorable and effectively one of the Founding Fathers per se, had very little to do with the actual creation of the United States of America, which pretty much makes her answer bullshit.

My transcript (thank God it’s a short video):

BECK: ‘Who’s your favorite founder?’

PALIN: ‘Um … you know – well, all of them, because they came collectively together with so much –’

BECK: ‘Bullcrap.’

PALIN: ‘– diverse – so much diverse opinion and so much diversity in terms of belief, but collectively, they came together to form this union. And they were led by, of course, George Washington, so he’s got to rise to the top. Washington was the consummate statesman. He served, he turned power to the people. He didn’t wanna be a king. He turned power to the people, and he went back to Mount Vernon, he went back to his farm.’

Of course, anyone with half a functioning brainstem will notice how very obvious it is she’s simply grasping at straws and attempting to use all sorts of pretty words and turns of phrases, all to try and mask her profound ignorance on the matter. Now, seeing as I’m relatively historically ignorant (though honestly so!) and I rely on the explanations of those much more knowledgeable in such matters than I to be able to discern through truth and bullshit, I now refer to Veritas, who had this brief little history lesson to share on the matter:

American civics should teach us that George Washington was certainly a Founding Father, but he had little to do with the actual foundation of the USA from a political standpoint, being that he was somewhat busy actually fighting the war against the British. There's a reason Washington's name isn't on the Declaration of Independence - he had nothing to do with it. The Articles of Confederation? Washington was again in the field when they were written and had little to do with them (except for requesting that the Continental Congress insert provisions allowing for a strong control of the Continental Army). Washington was not an author of the Constitution nor of the Bill of Rights, though he was a delegate to the convention creating the former and President during the creation of the latter.

Indeed, he was chosen as the first President because his term as Commander of the Continental Army gave him significant recognition and respect throughout the United States, and there was a confidence in him from North and South that would not be held again by a single president for a long time. If you want to look at the people who actually held the true political power during the American Revolution (I *refuse* to call it a War of Independence), I suggest you examine men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Harrison, Benjamin Rush, and, Edward Rutledge, and above all others, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. These men were part of the internal struggle to create the United States, and their stories are rather more important than the story of George Washington, who served at the pleasure of the aforementioned politicians.

[…]

Indeed, as Palin said, Washington served but two terms as President of his own volition, returning to end his life at his Mount Vernon estate. However, it should be remembered that Washington never wanted to be President anyway, nor run for any public office. He didn't want salary. He didn't even want to run the Continental Army. Yes, he served best because he had to, not because he wanted to - there was no equal for Washington as General in 1775, just as there was no equal for him as President in 1789 - but Mrs. Palin does herself a great disservice by pretending to share the same characteristics. George Washington was a truely honourable man who would never be considered for office in today's political world. In order to gain elected post now, you must be aggressive, distrustful, deceitful, and possessed of an ego larger than life, of which Washington was none, making him an entirely better man than all who have served since.

And those who want to serve, need and crave to be in the public's eye, like the idiotic broken mess of a woman that is Sarah Palin.

I have an idea. Rather than the clueless bimbo that is Sarah Palin, who managed to become a politician (however badly failed she may be) without having a clue about the basic history of the very country she desires to be at the reins of, I nominate Veritas for President. (So what if he’s Canadian? He’d still be a thousand times better as a statesman than Palin could ever have been.)

(via Dispatches From the Culture Wars)

^[1] I will now kill myself to try and escape the mental image that phrasing conjures up.