August 11, 2008
An unwarranted shot at McCain
CQ's "Political Insider" asks whether John McCain "plagiarized" his speech today on the crisis in Georgia. The better question is why CQ is peddling what appears to be a non-story.
The CQ post cites three instances of statements in McCain's speech that it thinks may be problematic in light of a Wikipedia article about Georgia. In two instances, McCain did use language similar to that which appears in Wikipedia. But the two instances are merely statements (1) that Georgia was one of the first countries to adopt Christianity as its official religion and (2) that Georgia had a brief period of independence after the Russian revolution that ended when Soviet troops invaded, and that Georgia didn't regain its independence until 1991 at which time the country experienced some instability. In the third instance, which deals with basic facts about the Rose revolution, McCain's language does not track Wikipedia's.
CQ's suggestion of wrongdoing by McCain strikes me as ridiculous. The information that the McCain campaign apparently obtained from Wikipedia is simple factual background material. Would it be improper for a candidate to say, based on research in an encyclopedia, that "XXXXX is a land of approximately __ million people and has been at peace with its neighbors since the YYYY war of 18__? That's essentially all McCain was doing here. The idea that he should have cited Wikipedia as his source for basic factual information about Georgia is absurd. In almost 50 years of listening to political candidates, I've never heard one cite a source for this sort of background information.
CQ's Taegan Goddard wonders "whether a presidential candidate should base policy speeches on material from Wikipedia." But McCain was not basing any policy prescription on the (apparently accurate) background information contained in Wikipedia -- e.g., the fact that Georgia adopted Christianity early on or that it gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Rather it is clear from the face of the speech that McCain has first hand knowledge of the current situation in Georgia, having met, he says, with President Saakashvili "many times, including during several trips to Georgia." CQ elects to omit this fact.
This story, then, looks like much ado about nothing, and I'm surprised that CQ decided to run it.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021221.php[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
This reminded me of something a few months ago
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
He Said, He Said: Did Obama Plagiarize Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick?
by Bonney Kapp
Barack Obama launched some new lines at his Milwaukee Founder’s Day Dinner Saturday when responding to Senator Clinton’s claims that he is all talk and cannot produce results with flowery prose.
Here’s what he told the Wisconsin Dems:
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self evident that all me are created equal.’ Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words. Just speeches. It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems, but what is also true is if we cannot inspire the country to believe again then it doesn’t matter how many policies and plans we have and that is why I am running for president of the United States of America and that is why we just won eight elections straight, because the American people want to believe in change again. Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”
The problem - as pointed out by the Clinton camp - this is not prose penned by Senator Obama.
Take a look here to see Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick say nearly the same thing back in October of 2006 when he was running for office. The two politicians are friends - Patrick has accompanied Obama on the campaign trail before and, according to news sources, Patrick has since gone on the record via statement, defending Obama.
“Sen. Obama and I are longtime friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him [for] responding in just the way he did.”
So, how does Senator Obama explain this? Earlier today in Niles, Ohio, the candidate held a press availability, where he was asked about the words. Because the questions are not on microphone, here is a guide:
1. Does this call into question one of your greatest assests as it’s been described, and that’s your words, if the words are yours and if they’re coming from somebody else?
2. Why didn’t you give Deval Patrick credit when you said this the other night?
3. Do you regret this?
4. Who is a better speaker, you or Deval Patrick?
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/18/he-said-he-said-did-obama-plagiarize-mass-gov-deval-patrick/
