2016: Underway

[Tiassa]

2016: Underway

It's official. Sort of. Sure, we're technically not into the actual 2014 midterm election season, yet, and this year's three big elections have yet to occur, but it's time for 2016.

​

Well, okay. Almost. Sort of. But, yeah, he's running. Jason Linkins offers the details for Huffington Post.

We're off!

(And, yes, I would dearly enjoy seeing Rep. Peter King try to run for president.)
____________________

Notes:

McElveen,Josh. "Rep. Peter King (R)-NY tells @WMUR9". Twitter. September 6, 2013. Twitter.com. September 6, 2013. https://twitter.com/JoshMcElveen/status/376014442452234240

Linkins, Jason. "Peter King Says 'Right Now I'm Running' In 2016, Mike Huckabee Hasn't 'Ruled It Out'". The Huffington Post. September 6, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. September 6, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/peter-king-2016_n_3881286.html

 

[joepistole]

Oh great, yet another pompous amoral lying idiotic inept Republican demagogue running for POTUS, that is just what we need. Just the site or sound of him makes me want to puke. Unfortunately it is just more of the same.

 

[Tiassa]

Notes on Plagiarizing Wikipedia

Rand Paul-agiarist

When deciding whether or not a particular issue is worth shoehorning into a post, one might consider various factors.

For instance, maybe one day your favorite infotainment host calls out a notorious opposition senator for plagiarism.

Especially when the plagiarism accusation appears true, what do you do? Jump on it? Wait? Tell yourself you'll see where this goes?

So imagine that on Monday, your favorite host calls out a notorious opposition senator for plagiarism, and makes a convincing case for this one example.

Well, you know, there are all sorts of things going on. To the one, plagiarism has destroyed presidential candidates; ask Vice President Biden about the '88 primary. And, of course, this is a widely-rumored presidential hopeful, but still ....

On Tuesday, then, another example emerges from other press sources. Interestingly, the politician is plagiarizing the same general source. And that's the thing; this isn't some obscure document a staffer forgot to cite in-text. That is to say, it would appear the politician is plagiarizing ... Wikipedia.

Come Wednesday, someone manages to get the notorious opposition senator to answer the issue. He lashes out after the infotainment host, essentially complains about pedantry, and then goes on to falsely assert that he credited all sources appropriately, leading people to wonder if the notorious opposition senator even knows what plagiarism is.

A staffer finally concedes that they will be more cautious in the future, which seems to be progress.

Of course, it then emerges that the senator plagiarized the AP.

And come week's end, the senator's staff is purging his website in order to make it just a little harder to find transcripts of the senator's speeches, and thus a little harder to find more examples of plagiarism.

The thing is, when it starts, just how obsessed does anyone want to be with just one story?

To wit, we all know I'm a fan of Maddow's show; and when she busted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) for plagiarizing Wikipedia—about Gattaca, for heaven's sake—it was certainly worth a chuckle, but how long did I expect the story to last? In truth, since Paul was a Republican, I figured all he would have to do is admit the error, blame a staffer, and then the typical New Republican Standard would kick in, and instead of destroying his credentials as a politician, the scandal would elevate him to a new valence of respectability.

Whatever. Say what you want about my politics; I didn't expect this story to last until the following weekend.

But think about it: Deny. Confuse. Erase. That second step is the weird one; do we really believe Sen. Rand Paul, a self-certified optometrist, doesn't know what plagiarism is? Is he obfuscating, or genuinely confused? And then the Soviet style purge? And, yes, I used that descriptor, "Soviet style", deliberately; this sort of behavior—deny, obfuscate, erase—is the sort of thing Americans famously denounced about the Soviet Union during the Cold War. One might note the irony of autocratic behavior in a politician who is also a member of the nation's authoritarian party, but when you stop to think about it for a second, it isn't exactly surprising.

Paul followed a template; we saw it in 2010, when responding to questions about his ABMS certification. First he downplayed it, asking what the idea that he was faking his credentials as an optometrist had to do with the election. He then issued a statement describing his lapsed ABMS certification as an asset, and attacked his accusers.

But in the end, a man fraudulently claiming board certification for his medical practice really turns out to be a good thing in the minds of Kentucky voters.

Who knows? Maybe this isn't just one of those sauce for the goose things; that is, maybe it isn't just one standard for Republicans and another standard for everyone else. Maybe this is a Kentucky thing. Maybe voters in the Chicken Bluegrass State count ignorance and dishonesty as assets.

One thing, though, is certain: This scandal should have been dead by midweek.

And yet, it presses on, in no small part thanks to Sen. Rand Paul himself.
____________________

Notes:

Yarvitz, Michael. "Senator Paul and the disappearing transcripts". MSNBC. November 2, 2013. MSNBC.com. November 2, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senator-paul-and-the-disappearing-transcripts

 

[madanthonywayne]

Glove slap, I don't take crap......

I found the transcript, but haven't been able to find the exact section Senator Paul took from Wikipedia. I did, however, find this statement from Senator Paul:

“I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters, and I’m just not going to put up with people casting aspersions on my character,” he fumed on ABC's "This Week” Sunday.

“I take it as an insult,” Paul continued. “And I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting, and if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know it’d be a duel challenge.”

So, Tiassa, you'd better watch your step or you may be the recipient of a..........

[video=youtube;DcVb1zC9YiE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcVb1zC9YiE[/video]​

PS With Christie to this left, and Cruz to his right, I'd say Paul has a pretty good chance at the Republican nomination. So long as he can learn the importance of footnotes.......

 

[Tiassa]

Thing Is, He's Guilty

I found the transcript, but haven't been able to find the exact section Senator Paul took from Wikipedia. I did, however, find this statement from Senator Paul ....

You have to look back at the edit history of those articles. Team Maddow even disclaimed themselves, the next day, as not being the ones who wrote the Rand Paul joke into the Wikipedia page for Gattaca.

The Christian Science Monitor:

“I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters, and I’m just not going to put up with people casting aspersions on my character,” he fumed on ABC's "This Week” Sunday.

“I take it as an insult,” Paul continued. “And I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting, and if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know it’d be a duel challenge.”

So what was all the ruckus about?

Turns out phrases and whole paragraphs in recent Paul speeches appear to have been lifted from that major source of undergraduate study: Wikipedia. The Associated Press too, and story lines from a couple of popular movies.

The revelations mainly came from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Politico.com, and BuzzFeed.com.

On Saturday, BuzzFeed also reported that “An entire section of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s 2013 book ‘Government Bullies’ was copied wholesale from a 2003 case study by the Heritage Foundation…. The copied section, 1,318 words, is by far the most significant instance reported so far of Paul borrowing language from other published material.”

Paul is particularly miffed at Maddow – likely the one he was thinking of with his “dueling” comment. She’s one of the strongest media voices on the left.

“You know, the person who is leading this attack, she’s been spreading hate on me for about three years now, and I don’t intend for it to go away, but I also don’t see her as an objective news source,” he told anchor Jorge Ramos of Fusion, a new cable channel from ABC News and Univision.

Not so, says Maddow.

“This is about you lifting other people’s words verbatim and pretending that they’re your own,” she said on her show. “This is about you lifting entire sections of a website, inserting them into your own speeches, and then passing them off as your own original thoughts. This is something that high school students know not to do ....”

The Paul camp is trying to dismiss the flap as inconsequential.​

And as to Rand Paul and his primitive machismo, it's pretty much all he's got left. The fact is that he got busted for plagiarism, didn't take the easy route through, and now has to appeal to the whole, "But it's okay this time, right?" attitude.

The only real question is whether or not he actually knows what plagiarism is. And, you know, as far as the GOP primary is concerned, he doesn't need to learn about footnotes. And whether or not it will hurt him in the general? He is, after all, a Republican. There is a good chance this will be filed under IOKIYAR ("It's OK if you're a Republican").
____________________

Notes:

Wikipedia. "Gattaca: Difference between revisions". Revised September 25, 2013. En.Wikipedia.org. November 4, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gattaca&diff=579557247&oldid=574415464

Knickerbocker, Brad. "Rand Paul and Wikipedia: Plagiarism or lazy staff?" The Christian Science Monitor. November 3, 2013. CSMonitor.com. November 4, 2013. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/1103/Rand-Paul-and-Wikipedia-Plagiarism-or-lazy-staff

 

[quinnsong]

Soiunds like Rand is playing the Republican card. In fact, from now on when a Repub says or does something dishonest and tries to blame the left for defaming their good name, the left should respond with, Oh so and so is just playing the Republican card.

 

[Tiassa]

When It's Not a Surprise Anymore

Oh so and so is just playing the Republican card.

Well, in truth, I got the acronym in my prior post—IOKIYAR-from Team Maddow, but, yeah, that's sort of the idea. It's almost like we need to spot Republicans points, or handicap their electoral runs like golf.

Speaking of Team Maddow, of course, the inimitable Steve Benen:

After Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was caught presenting others' work as his own by The Rachel Maddow Show, BuzzFeed, and Politico, the senator's office seemed to realize Paul had a problem on his hands. It reached the point late Friday that the senator's aides started making it more difficult to access Paul's speeches, perhaps fearful more evidence would come to light.

Unfortunately for the senator, it's too late to hide op-eds Paul has already written and published. Andrew Kaczynski reported last night:

Sections of an op-ed Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote on mandatory minimums in The Washington Times in September appear nearly identical to an article by Dan Stewart of The Week that ran a week earlier. The discovery comes amid reports from BuzzFeed that Paul plagiarized in his book and in several speeches.

Paul also delivered testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 16, 2013, that included the copied sections.​

As the controversy has grown over the last week, Paul has done his best to change the subject, complaining about those who've noticed him presenting others' work as his own, trying to redefine words like "plagiarism" and "footnotes," and complaining that he's being held to an unreasonable "standard."

The senator's pushback hasn't helped, in part because it's unpersuasive, and in part because it's unrelated to the issue at hand.​

And watch. Sometime down the road, conservatives will chuckle about the time Maddow accused Rand Paul of claiming he wrote Gattaca, which was never on the table, but was actually part of the senator's defense.

The whole point, as near as I can tell, is that it is simply unfair—a violation of their constitutional rights—to hold conservatives to an equal standard. In order for them to be truly equal, they must have a separate, more favorable, deliberately crafted standard to encourage their misbehavior.

Of course, this is Rand Paul, and compared to everything else he has going for him in a primary and against him in a general, it may be that serial plagiarism is the least of his electoral worries.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Rand Paul caught once again". MSNBC. November 5, 2013. MSNBC.com. November 5, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-caught-once-again

 

[Tiassa]

The Rand Paul Show

The Rand Paul Show

In the wake of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) declaring his desire to duel media figures such as Rachel Maddow, Andrew Kacszinsky, and various writers at Politico for offending him by reporting facts he does not find complimentary, we find another puzzling moment.

Maddow had previously joked that the only thing that could possibly make her doubt her reporting was Politi-Fact agreeing with her; the fact-checkers also winked back at Maddow, reminding Sen. Paul that they, too, have been on the receiving end of her wrath.

Attending the larger media sphere, however, Rand Paul has achieved the best possible posture he could: He has lost Jennifer Rubin—

For starters, he doesn't offer much to the pool of libertarians purportedly yearning to be Republicans. He voted against immigration reform. He voted against cloture on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Where is the appeal to those socially libertarian, tolerant young people? He will argue the specifics of those measures aren't to his liking. He might even argue, as he did but would like us to forget, that he doesn't think private property owners should be prohibited from discriminating. But in the end, an anti-immigration reform, anti-gay employment protection senator is no different than a host of other Republicans who turn off a segment of the electorate.

But then consider his series of bellyflops, suggesting he doesn't understand the beliefs and standards other politicians must grasp.

He has been accused of multiple instances of plagiarism — in speeches, in his book and in op-eds. He graduated from medical school and has lived in a world in which there have been scandals involving much lesser instances of plagiarism than his. If he were a journalist, any reputable publication would have fired him long ago. So does he have no sense of what is acceptable, doesn't think rules apply to him or has an incredibly sloppy staff that cuts and pastes material for him?

He hired the "Southern Avenger," who advocated bizarre pro-Confederate sentiments. No other lawmaker would, I am certain, knowingly hire such a character. But Paul got huffy when confronted with the hiring. Only reluctantly did the Southern Avenger depart. Again, does Paul have no sense of what is acceptable, doesn't think standards apply to him or does he have ineffective staff that can't spot trouble?​

—(again).

The joke here is that Rubin, WaPo's third attempt at providing journalistic balance by hiring a conservative blogger, is a complete wreck.

No, really, having Rubin against him might actually pay off for Rand Paul in the long run; after all, she works for the "liberal" Washington Post.

Sadly, in any political world where sanity held sway, Rubin has managed an analysis that isn't horribly awful. Unfortuntely, though, sane analysis is anathema among conservatives at present. She might just have earned herself a RINO badge.
____________________

Notes:

Rubin, Jennifer. "What's wrong with Rand Paul?" Right Turn. November 5, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. November 5, 2013. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/11/05/whats-wrong-with-rand-paul/

—————. "Don't bother: The pols who won't make it in 2016". Right Turn. August 11, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. November 5, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ont-bother-the-pols-who-wont-make-it-in-2016/

Alterman, Eric. "The Washington Post's Problem". The Nation. July 16-23, 2013. TheNation.com. http://www.thenation.com/article/16...fer-rubin-muddies-washington-posts-reputation

 

[joepistole]

Soiunds like Rand is playing the Republican card. In fact, from now on when a Repub says or does something dishonest and tries to blame the left for defaming their good name, the left should respond with, Oh so and so is just playing the Republican card.

I think you are on to something there!

 

[Tiassa]

Blaming Other People: The Obvious, Only Late

Wait, is it Too Late to Blame Other People?

Perhaps someone with a clue took Rand Paul aside and explained a few things to him; over a week into the scandal, the junior Kentucky senator's camp is ready to offer up its first substantive answer:

An adviser to Rand Paul finally has a defense to the growing pile of plagiarism accusations against the Kentucky senator: Blame his staffers.

In a statement to the press Tuesday morning, Paul’s senior adviser Doug Stafford admitted that not every fact or anecdote the top Republican has publicly used was properly cited. “In the thousands of speeches and op-eds Sen. Paul has produced, he has always presented his own ideas, opinions and conclusions,” Stafford said. “Sen. Paul also relies on a large number of staff and advisers to provide supporting facts and anecdotes–some of which were not clearly sourced or vetted properly.”

He added, “Going forward, footnotes will be available on request.”

(Lee)​

This is probably true; in a world where winning and losing is, contrary to what we tell children, far more important than how one plays the game, perhaps the idea of hiring writers who know the meaning of the word plagiarism is just one of those things that is bad for business because it costs more. But in the longer term, perhaps it would have been worth the effort and expense to find those people; especially if they're not Confederate revivalists running around in a lucha mask.

Even if it is fair to figuratively hang the nameless staffers, why did it take so long? What accounts for the difference between this approach and Paul's earlier attempts to argue he had not plagiarized at all?

That is to say, perhaps if Team Paul had blamed staffers a week ago instead of Soviet-style denial, obfuscation, and erasure, and, perhaps, without having fallen back to announcing the Senator's desire for a duel ... er ... um ... yeah. It's been a silly week over in Rand Paul's offices.

And while pretty much anyone can accept the bit about blaming the staffers, what was all that between then and now?

No, really, Senator, did you not understand what plagiarism was until someone explained it to you? Or did you just hold out until you realized you couldn't win?

Flip a coin between dangerous ignorance and dangerous dishonesty. No wonder some see a bright presidential future between Christie and Cruz.
____________________

Notes:

Lee, Traci G. "Plagiarism claims continue to pile on Rand Paul". MSNBC. November 5, 2013. MSNBC.com. November 5, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/martin-bashir/paul-continues-defend-plagiarism-gaffes

 

[joepistole]

Apparently it is not just speeches in which Rand has used plagiarized material but op-ed pieces and apparently even Paul's book contains significant portions of plagiarized material. As the volume of plagiarized material grows, it is much more difficult for Paul to explain away his plagiarism.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/rand-paul-plagiarism-accusations-99362.html?ml=po_r

"An entire section of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s 2013 book Government Bullies was copied wholesale from a 2003 case study by the Heritage Foundation, BuzzFeed has learned. The copied section, 1,318 words, is by far the most significant instance reported so far of Paul borrowing language from other published material." - BuzzFeed

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/entire-section-of-rand-pauls-book-copied-verbatim-from-case

How does Paul explain substantial portions of plagiarized material in his book, the book he supposedly wrote?

 

[Tiassa]

Um ... er ... ah ....

How does Paul explain substantial portions of plagiarized material in his book, the book he supposedly wrote?

I've lost track; is that the book ghosted by the Confederate in the lucha mask?

 

[Tiassa]

The 2016 Question

Just Leave Him the Hell Alone

Mario Trujillo for The Hill:

Sen. Rand Paul's readiness for a presidential run in 2016 is being put to the test by the plagiarism charges swirling around him.

In an attempt to quiet the controversy, the Kentucky Republican's office on Tuesday said the vetting process for his speeches would be changed so that "supporting facts and anecdotes" are clearly sourced.

But Paul's handling of the controversy has raised broader questions about whether he's ready for the intense media scrutiny that a run for the White House entails.

The senator maintains he is being unfairly targeted, and has made several terse remarks when asked about the charges. On Tuesday, Paul said his writings would now resemble academic papers "if it will make people leave me the hell alone."

Over the weekend, Paul suggested he'd like to challenge his accusers to a duel.

GOP strategists agree that plagiarism incident is nowhere near disqualifying for 2016, but cautioned it is just a preview of the pressure he'd face in 2016.

"He just got a taste of what the presidential primary campaign trail is like and the scrutiny that everything you do and say will be under," said GOP strategist Ford O'Connell. "So he is going to have to tighten up how he does things."

BuzzFeed and other media outlets have found numerous instances over the last week in which sections of Paul's speeches and book lifted text from other articles without credit.

Paul partly blamed the errors on his hectic schedule, saying sometimes he has to read and approve speeches and articles 20 minutes in advance.

"We write something every week for The Washington Times, and I literally am riding around in a car in between things trying to figure out if I can approve it," Paul told The New York Times.

Paul said he could not guarantee more instances of plagiarism are not out there.​

It should be noted that part of his problem has disappeared; while describing the act of blaming staffers for the errors as taking "personal responsibility for the oversights", The Washington Times has dropped Sen. Paul's column:

Mr. Paul took personal responsibility for the oversights, which he and aides said were caused by staff providing him background materials that were not properly footnoted. But the Kentucky Republican, a possible 2016 White House candidate, also said he was being held by the news media to a higher standard than other politicians.

"The standard I'm being held to is a little different than everybody else," Mr. Paul said on CNN's "The Situation Room." "They're now going back and reading every book from cover-to-cover and looking for places where we footnoted correctly and don't have quotation marks in the right places or we didn't indent correctly."

The Washington Times said Tuesday it had independently reviewed Mr. Paul's columns and op-eds and published a correction to one column on Sept. 20 in which the senator had failed to attribute a passage that first appeared in a magazine.

The newspaper and the senator's office mutually agreed to end his weekly column, which has appeared on each Friday in the newspaper since the summer.

"We expect our columnists to submit original work and to properly attribute material, and we appreciate that the senator and his staff have taken responsibility for an oversight in one column," Times Editor John Solomon said.​

While the paper says Paul's termination was a mutually agreed outcome, it is worth noting that the Senator apparently does not yet comprehend what plagiarism is.

And it is in that whining that GOP strategist Ford O'Connell's suggestion comes clear: "He just got a taste of what the presidential primary campaign trail is like and the scrutiny that everything you do and say will be under."

Sen. Rand Paul cannot cry his way through a Republican primary, complaining that every hit against him is unfair. Indeed, Paul explained, "We need to get stuff earlier, but it's hard".

Steve Benen of MSNBC reminds:

It's an odd defense. There are 99 other senators, all of whom give speeches and write op-eds, but none of whom find it “hard” to avoid plagiarism.

For that matter, let's also not forget that Paul has national ambitions – he sees himself as the next president of the United States. If he's taking on too much now, and is so busy he and his team feel the need to plagiarize, what does it tell voters about the senator's ability to effectively oversee an enormous professional operation?​

One can certainly accuse Benen of partisanship, but as Trujillo notes, even GOP strategists see the problem. "This goes not only to your credibility," explained O'Connell, "but how you might manage a larger operation."
____________________

Notes:

Trujillo, Mario. "Plagiarism charges test Paul's 2016 run". The Hill. November 5, 2013. TheHill.com. November 5, 2013. http://thehill.com/189366-plagiarism-charges-test-paul’s-readiness-for-2016

McElhatton, Jim. "Washington Times ends Sen. Rand Paul column amid plagiarism allegations". The Washington Times. November 5, 2013. WashingtonTimes.com. November 5, 2013. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/5/washington-times-ends-sen-rand-paul-column-amid-pl/

Benen, Steve. "Rand Paul finally admits he has a problem". MSNBC. November 5, 2013. MSNBC.com. November 5, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-finally-admits-he-has-problem

 

[Bells]

I found the transcript, but haven't been able to find the exact section Senator Paul took from Wikipedia. I did, however, find this statement from Senator Paul:

“I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters, and I’m just not going to put up with people casting aspersions on my character,” he fumed on ABC's "This Week” Sunday.

There is only so much he can blame others for, but when his plagiarism is so blatantly obvious on more than one occasion, then I don't think people pointing it out is casting aspersions on anything aside from his own dishonesty.

It took me about 2 seconds of reading through the Gattaca Wiki page to find the exact section. From the Wiki page that Paul pilfered from - 3rd paragraph in the plot section:

Due to frequent screening, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a "borrowed ladder", a person who impersonates a "valid" with a superior genetic profile.

Paul's speech:

From Paul's speech:

"Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way to achieve his dream of being an astronaut is he has to become what's called a "borrowed ladder."

Unfairly targeted? Really? The man's dishonesty knows no bounds and his response is frankly bizarre. While commenting that they are now going to try to put in footnotes and reference the people he has been stealing from, it has been proven that he goes beyond paraphrasing others, and instead, copies them word for word. The latest and the one that saw him dismissed from the Washington Times, where he was found to have copied Dan Stewart op-ed, word for word:

Stewart's words:

At least 20 states, both red and blue, have reformed their mandatory sentencing laws in some way, and Congress is considering a bipartisan bill that would do the same for federal crimes.

---

He will be 72 by the time he is released, and his three young children will have grown up without him. “Matt,” who turned out to have a long history of drug offenses, was more fortunate -- he received a reduced sentence of just 18 months after informing on Horner, and is now free.

Paul's pilfering:

At least 20 states, both red and blue, have reformed their mandatory-sentencing laws in some way, and Congress is considering a bipartisan bill that would do the same for federal crimes.

---

John will be 72 years old by the time he is released, and his three young children will have grown up without him. The informant, who had a long history of drug offenses, was more fortunate -- he received a reduced sentence of just 18 months, and is now free.

His response to the controversy is to say that had Kentucky still allowed duels, then this right here would warrant a duel. I guess silencing your opponents with a bullet when they point out your own faults - ie theft of the work of others without so much as linking it or mentioning where it is from - is how he hopes it could be done down in Kentucky.

In an appearance on ABC's "This Week," Paul dismissed the claims.

"Yes, there are times when [speeches] have been sloppy or not correct or we've made an error," Paul said. "But the difference is, I take it as an insult and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. I have never intentionally done so."

He continued, "And like I say, if, you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge. But I can't do that, because I can't hold office in Kentucky then."

Tell me, how does one copy and paste unintentionally and send it to print or stand there and say those words?

Complaining because he is being forced to cite his sources is hardly the best way to go about handling it. Then again, whining about people casting aspersions of his character when he has been caught stealing the work of others and hoping no one would notice is a whole new level of low.

Thankfully Paul is not college or university, where he would have been thrown out on his ear for plagiarism. He is just considering running for President instead.

 

[Tiassa]

Then again, Rand Paul is a moron

Then again, whining about people casting aspersions of his character when he has been caught stealing the work of others and hoping no one would notice is a whole new level of low.

I'm not certain he was hoping nobody would notice. Rather, his continued reiteration of the point is slowly convincing me that Sen. Paul still does not understand what he's done that actually constitutes plagiarism.

Remember, this guy hired the Southern Avenger. The idea that he hired a staff that can't tell plagiarism from a rimjob? In truth, it's not so hard.

 

[Randwolf]

I'm not certain he was hoping nobody would notice. Rather, his continued reiteration of the point is slowly convincing me that Sen. Paul still does not understand what he's done that actually constitutes plagiarism.

Remember, this guy hired the Southern Avenger. The idea that he hired a staff that can't tell plagiarism from a rimjob? In truth, it's not so hard.

Interesting comparison, but I would bet that Rand Paul has never received a rimjob.

Your observation that he "does not understand what he's done" is right on the money though. His constituents won't understand either...

 

[Tiassa]

Raising the Bar

Interesting comparison, but I would bet that Rand Paul has never received a rimjob.

To the other, it's not beyond belief that he would have given one. A man can rim a woman. And, you know, he is in the abductor Cult of the Aqua Buddha, anyway, so who knows what kind of perverse skeletons ... er ... right, I'm putting too much effort into the joke.

I guess it's a phenomenon that confounds me. As a brief juxtaposition, we're a football family, as my father once coached in high school and college. And every once in a while, he and I get into arguments about what's going on, and he always comes back with the idea that these guys have made it to the NFL; most recently it arose in the context of the Seahawks barely beating two teams that really suck. Of course, the worst team in the NFL is still a professional football team. You don't get to the premier league without being good at your job.

I raised a version of that in the context of Mitt Romney's team being so surprised by the election night outcome; how do you get to the premier league of American—perhaps world—politics and be so clueless?

Rand Paul went to college. He was at one time a board-certified opthalmologist, so, yeah, it's not like he just squeaked through college to get an obscure ad hoc degree. Now he's a U.S. Senator, and unlike the other ninety-nine senators, he can't figure this part of it out? And he has presidential ambitions? And media punditry is happy to recognize those ambitions?

How does one get to this level and not underdstand the rules of plagiarism?

I think the most astounding line was when he actually signified he had no idea what he was talking about, when he explained that he credited the screenwriters of Gattaca. (He didn't, and it would not have been appropriate to attribute the Wikipedia entry to Andrew Niccol, unless, of course, it emerges that the screenwriter also penned the Wikipedia entry.)

I'm starting to think the admission price to GOP debates for candidates should not be who the RNC decides is relevant, or who wins a certain baseline percentage in a primary. Rather, I think the prerequisite ought to be simple: Write a 1,000-3,000 word essay, according to the MLA style book, on the following topic ....

No, seriously, since the staffers are going to slap that together, any candidate who botches it or can't discuss the essay coherently can't be on the big stage.

That is something within the RNC's power. And after that last batch they ran in the primary, in consideration of Sen. Paul's special needs, they ought to consider whether or not they want him on the big stage.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Why Won't He Stop?

What is the adage? When you're in a hole, stop digging?

That's how it goes, right?

And then there's Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):

In an interview with National Review Online on Capitol Hill, Paul was furious, especially with the press coverage of the allegations. "It annoys the hell out of me," Paul said. "I feel like if I could just go to detention after school for a couple days, then everything would be okay. But do I have to be in detention for the rest of my career?"

Paul, a likely candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, also said he is sensitive about his character being questioned. "What makes me mad about the whole thing is that I believe there is a difference between errors of omission and errors of intention," he said. "We aren't perfect and we have made errors of omission, but we never intended to mislead anybody."

Moving forward, Paul said he would speak out more against media outlets that are covering him, especially if he feels unfairly targeted. His once warm relations with the Fourth Estate have chilled. "I'm being criticized for not having proper attribution, and yet they are able to write stuff that if I were their journalism teacher in college, I would fail them," he said.

(Costa)​

Meanwhile, this manner of moaning is starting to wear on his hometown newspaper, the Courier-Journal:

Mr. Paul's reaction so far has not been to plead guilty and beg forgiveness. That's not his style.

He has instead claimed to be victim of a "witch-hunt" by "hacks and haters."

His staff cleansed his U.S. Senate website of transcripts of his speeches that could be used against him, Buzzfeed reported. Tuesday, he acted as if it was just a minor dustup over proper footnoting techniques. An adviser announced footnotes will now be available upon request.

On ABC's "This Week" he said he said he would challenge those who have accused him of plagiarism to duels if it didn't violate Kentucky law.

And he said takes it as an "insult" that people would accuse him of being "dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. I have never intentionally done so."

The real insult here is that Mr. Paul would expect voters to believe his half-baked, nutty explanations. The real insult is that he would expect us to believe he's not at fault and this is the result of partisan opponents.

But the biggest insult is that he would use a writer's or researcher's words, claim them as his own and expect everyone to look away when he gets caught.​

Then again, I was wrong when I said the scandal should have been dead by midweek after it started. Somebody in his organization knows how bad this gets, and the biggest question of character in that context is whether that someone is Rand Paul himself.

Some part of him really seems to not get it. And what is really bizarre, at least to me, is that 2016 is supposed to be a bit of a chuckle right now; we need to get through 2014 in order to see how things shake out. But Rand Paul clearly has presidential ambitions, and every day this story drags on, those ambitions are eroded just a little bit more. Well, in reality, maybe. In Rand Paul's mind? It doesn't seem like it. Perhaps he is counting on riding a populist wave as the people's plagiarist, or something. I really would think, though, that history might serve well enough. Ask Gary Hart what happened when he dared the press. Ask the fallen politicians and celebrities of the last quarter-century what happens when you dare the press.

Of course, Rand Paul does see history differently than most. I just ... don't see how he expects to win this.

It's one thing to stand up to the press when you have ground to stand on. It's another to dare them once you're wounded.

The thing is that, well, I wish I could remember the article I was reading where someone pointed out, quite reasonably, that Joe Biden's sin was worse, and that's the thing. He was out of presidential contention for twenty years. It might be that the plagiarism scandal itself would end up blowing Paul's chance in 2016, but daring the press might well end up in burying him for twenty years.

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Why won't Rand Paul stop?
____________________

Notes:

Costa, Robert. "Rand Paul Fights the Press". The Corner. November 6, 2013. NationalReview.com. November 6, 2013. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/363246/rand-paul-fights-press-robert-costa

Editorial Board. "Sen. Rand Paul-agiarism". Courier-Journal. November 6, 2013. Courier-Journal.com. November 6, 2013. http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...1016/OPINION/Editorial-Sen-Rand-Paul-agiarism

 

[joepistole]

Paul is just taking a page from his daddy's playbook. When Big Daddy Paul's racist writings came to light, Big Daddy Paul blamed others and claimed ignorance too.

 

[Tiassa]

Worse Than Gattaca Itself

Paul is just taking a page for his daddy's playbook. When Big Daddy Paul's racist writings came to light, Big Daddy Paul blamed others and claimed ignorance too.

Well, that's the thing. How much of this work is Paul actually doing himself? Indeed, it is hardly an unusual question in politics about how much we see is the politician and how much the organization. In trying to pretend to have knowledge of everything, politicians often end up reciting lines like a news anchor.

Whatever his unique talents actually are, I would hope they're something more than self-certified professional competency, plagiarism, and being Ron Paul's son.

I mean, it's almost like Paul is just reading lines from a script even worse than Gattaca itself.