Breaking News
Obama Pushes For Yes On Health Care Reform In House
John McCain’s “policy” on the current crisis in Georgia was apparently lifted from Wikipedia.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Three brief ‘quotes’ in a speech of decent length, only two of which would be suspect if they were a term paper, all of which have to do with history at least five years old, and the two suspect quotes having to do with history much older.
I’m not impressed by this.
I give McCain credit for comprehending that when the Russia and Georgian are at war, it doesn’t mean that the Russians are marching on Atlanta.
Because then he would have been pulling his policy points from Red Dawn.
Of the three quotes, which had to do with McCain’s policy?
Wikipedia is not a lobbying firm. Therefore, McCain didn’t get his policy from them. Try again.
I guess “McCain doesn’t know about the Internets” is yesterday’s talking points…
clearly the wikipedia entry includes the words: “is” (and we know how vague THAT can be, just another ‘dog whistle’ word), and “Tank”.
Yup, you nailed oliver (or perhaps we can call you “Woodward” or maybe “Bernstein”)!
Burn the witch McCain!
Wow the democrat party is getting really desperate if this is all they can come up with. Maybe Oliver will get some new, advanced marching orders off the Mojo Wire from the DNC soon.
Come on, Oliver, I think it’s pretty obvious that John McCain did not plagarize from Wikipedia. His speechwriters did. He doesn’t write his own speeches, and hell, can’t even use a computer. I think the point to make is, this speech is plagarized form wikipedia, so obviously John McCain doesn’t have anything to do with controlling the words that come out of his own mouth. If this were the democratic candidate, this would be big news, as is, no one will care.
SpiderJ, I’d like to hack McCain’s teleprompter just so I could get him to shout “Wolverines!!”. Although, given his speaking skills, he’d probably just mumble it out the side of his mouth, then give his crazy Mary Jo Buttafuco lemon tic tac grin.
Anyone know where the anti-war folks of humanity are on this one?
Oh….I forgot. It’s not “hip” to protest against Russia.
Idiots.
Crusty Dem, I wouldn’t start making tele-prompter jokes so fast knowing how horrible Obama is without prepared text before him. Why do you think he scrapped the idea of doing town hall styled debates with McCain?
And how exactly does one plagiarize historical facts?
j, I’m going to assume you’re just a spoof, since no one could possibly be as stupid as you sound.
Jay, I was criticizing McCain’s tele-prompter ability, which is horrid (don’t tell me you’ve forgotten the lime green jello w/marshmallow speech already), not pumping up Obama’s extemporaneous speaking skills. Although I do think Obama does fine w/o a prompter, he just gets a little bogged down with actually thinking about what is coming out of his mouth, rather than just repeating the same old garbage. Do you really think Obama (57 states?) is the only one making gaffes w/o a teleprompter? If so, is Iran training al queda in Iraq? Should we “bomb Iran, bomb, bomb Iran”? Czech? Why do you think the McCain campaign has eliminated talking with the press?
You can plagarize historical facts by repeating them from wikipedia word-for-word. Do you really think you’d give Obama a pass if he repeated something from wikipedia?
his crazy Mary Jo Buttafuco lemon tic tac grin.
*blinkblinkblinkblink*
Yeah, I’m going to have to agree with Crusty Dem about the way Obama speaks without a teleprompter. The man actually thinks before he speaks. I know that comes as a surprise after the last 8 years of GWB, but thinking before you speak is actually a very GOOD thing.
Crusty, I don’t think Obama is the only one making mistakes without a teleprompter, but it’s obvious that he’s not all that comfortable without prepared text in front of him (spare us the nonsense about his “thinking” getting in the way). Like I said, Obama is the one one who rejected town hall style debates because it would put him an uncomfortable position.
As to whether or not this is an example of “plagiarism”, that is really debatable. What is not in debate is the accusations of the linked entries and Oliver’s entry that McCain’s proposals are taken from Wikipedia and that’s just Bullshit with a capital B.
“Lemon jello tic tac grin?” Sounds like a reference to McCain’s teeth. Those would be the teeth broken off at the gums by the Viet Cong who tortured him for five years. Stay classy, Crusty. Next time, make fun of his inability to give high fives.
But speaking of plagiarism, kindly compare Obama’s first statements on the Georgia/Russia conflict with his “revised and extended” remarks, which rendered the first one “inoperative.” He basically lifted McCain’s position — moving away from “fighting’s bad, mmkay?” and tossing the whole situation to the UN to openly speaking of Russian aggression.
Kind of like Obama on offshore drilling. If he’s going to eventually adopt roughly the same policy as McCain, why not just elect the guy who will do it first and not flail around, trying to decide?
J.
Jay T, Obama’s extended remarks also go along with the Obama teams half-assed effort to link McCain’s position on Georgia to his chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann because he happened to do some lobbying work on Georgia’s behalf. Of course, McCain has been warning against Putin’s imperial ambitions for nearly a decade now.
One would think that after watching Sen. Obama participate in 22 debates the GOP wouldn’t keep pushing this idea that Obama is unable to communicate without a teleprompter. In 2000 Bush was able to beat expectations by not being a drooling idiot, and right now Obama is set to jump over the very low bar the right is setting for him.
Keep it up.
BTW, whose party had the leader who looked deep into Putin’s soul? NOT OBAMA’s.
One would think that after watching Sen. Obama participate in 22 debates the GOP wouldn’t keep pushing this idea that Obama is unable to communicate without a teleprompter.
Nobody said is “unable to communicate” Oliver, so stop putting it that way. People are saying that he’s not very comfortable in more intimate settings. It’s pretty easy to give big grand speeches when you have the words right there in front of you or if you know that ‘debate’ is going to be a structured format where the candidates pretty much know in advance what the questions are going to be.
Case in point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8
And stop using the distraction of President Bush because nobody is talking about him.
Funny, Oliver, I was just looking up that very quote earlier:
Putin has been very straightforward and trustworthy — he’s a Russian nationalist, he’ll say so, and you can trust him on that. He’s deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country — and to hell with everyone and anyone else.
Sounds like Bush was being quite diplomatic (considering Putin was standing right next to him) but, at the same time, speaking the truth about the guy.
Bush also has been speaking quite firmly — but offstage — to Russia about their invasion of Georgia. According to Australia’s PM, Kevin Rudd, Bush and Putin had quite a heated exchange during the Olympics’ opening ceremonies.
Sounds like Bush — and McCain — have a firmer grasp on the situation than Obama, who was saying that “both sides need to calm down” and calling for the UN to get involved. Considering that Russia has veto power in the Security Council, I sincerely doubt that will happen.
And I even more sincerely doubt that “hoping for change” will do the Georgians very much good.
J.
And stop using the distraction of President Bush because nobody is talking about him.
The current sitting president and his successor is off the table? Gimme a break. It’s not like magical fairies have been in control for the last 8 years.
Sounds like Bush was being quite diplomatic (considering Putin was standing right next to him) but, at the same time, speaking the truth about the guy.
Do you think Bush’s excrement smells like roses too? Bush gave a guy who almost everyone else thought was a shady actor the stamp of approval from the presidency and it has helped to give Putin a free hand to become a new age Soviet.
The current sitting president and his successor is off the table?
It’s not relevant to a discussion about Obama and McCain. Or do you want me to start throwing out some beauties from the failure known as Jimmy Carter?
Bush gave a guy who almost everyone else thought was a shady actor the stamp of approval from the presidency and it has helped to give Putin a free hand to become a new age Soviet.
But…but…McCain hasn’t. In fact, some of his most pointed criticism of Bush has been regarding Putin. Of course, that can’t be! All the left and Democrats keep telling us is that McCain and Bush are one and the same!
Nobody said is “unable to communicate” Oliver, so stop putting it that way. People are saying that he’s not very comfortable in more intimate settings.
The only people saying that are idiots like you. I’ve met the man, seen him speak in small settings, and have listened to him speak off the cuff. He’s always comfortable. You are either lying or are too stupid to understand human discourse. Actually, you’re likely both.
Nobody said is “unable to communicate” Oliver, so stop putting it that way. People are saying that he’s not very comfortable in more intimate settings.”
Bush spent the last eight years looking woefully uncomfortable speaking off the cuff AND speaking from prepared remarks. Does the phrase “tribal sovereignty” ring any bells? To save the poor president from this awkwardness, he spent much of his public speaking at carefully screened, carefully orchestrated faux-town hall meetings where he was a mix of softball fawning and planted questions.
Why is any of this relevant now, while talking about McCain and Obama? Because the right only now seems to have discovered that decent verbal communication skills are something we should value in a president. Can anyone point to a right-wing conservative who didn’t spin Bush’s malapropisms and rambling non-answers as some kind of folksy stew of American goodness, instead of the nonsensical drivel it really was? Anyone that bothered to point out Bush’s clear awkwardness with public speaking of any kind, was accused of being some kind of elitist afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Obama is by far a more eloquent and composed speaker than either Bush or McCain, off the teleprompter and on.
There are plenty of strategic reasons for Obama to reject McCain’s call for a series of townhall style debates, none of which have anything to do with Obama’s comfort level with the format.
You are either lying or are too stupid to understand human discourse. Actually, you’re likely both.
Hey Mike, ever going to show me where that ad exists that supposedly showed Max Cleland’s face morphing into Osama bin Laden’s? I am guessing not, so why don’t you go have a nice big filling of STFU?
Twit.
Because the right only now seems to have discovered that decent verbal communication skills are something we should value in a president.
Really? And can you show me where you’ve seen this? I’d be interesting in seeing where “the right only now seems to have discovered that decent verbal communication skills are something we should value in a president.” What is being said is that Obama is basically a studio produced candidate that does excellent with well rehearsed speeches but doesn’t do well the kind of format that McCain wants.
Any other strawman arguments you want to erect?
Obama is by far a more eloquent and composed speaker than either Bush or McCain, off the teleprompter and on.
That’s a matter of opinion and again, comparisons to Bush are irrelevant as he’s not running against Bush.
There are plenty of strategic reasons for Obama to reject McCain’s call for a series of townhall style debates, none of which have anything to do with Obama’s comfort level with the format.
Oh that’s a load of horseshit. Obama had initially agreed to the format (”I think that is a great idea” and “If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime….that is a conversation I am willing to have.”) until a string of gaffes when speaking off the cuff and policy position changes showed that Obama wasn’t ready for such a format.
So give me a break with the “strategic” nonsense because if McCain were truly the doddering old marble mouth fool Democratic operatives are making him out to be, then what better way to reveal that to the public than by showing him up in front of actual American citizens asking questions.
It’s not relevant to a discussion about Obama and McCain. Or do you want me to start throwing out some beauties from the failure known as Jimmy Carter?
Cleanup, please. False equivalency in aisle five.
McCain is running on a platform that promises to continue the policies of the past eight years. He is, in effect, campaigning to be Bush’s protege and unofficial steward of a third Bush term.
Obama is not running a campaign based on the thirty year-old administration of Jimmy Carter. If you were to start “throwing out some beauties from the Carter administration” as a way of connecting them to Obama, I’d be forced to counter with some beauties from the Harding and Hoover administrations.
Obama is basically a studio produced candidate that does excellent with well rehearsed speeches but doesn’t do well the kind of format that McCain wants.
If and when somebody is willing to present credible evidence for this, I’ll cheerfully entertain the notion. However the evidence presented is typically a handful of instances where Sen. Obama, like any human whose connection from brain to mouth is imperfect, loses his train of thought or flubs a comment. A handful of instances, by the way, out of probably thousands of hours spoken on the campaign trail.
Not good enough, those of you who believe this. The very definition of anecdotal. You cannot treat as gospel the combined sixty seconds of Obama sounding silly while ignoring, as OW helpfully pointed out, the 20 debates where he did just fine (some would say excelled) sans teleprompter.
Kind of like Obama on offshore drilling. If he’s going to eventually adopt roughly the same policy as McCain, why not just elect the guy who will do it first and not flail around, trying to decide?
For myself, I actually appreciate the idea of an executive willing to do the horse-trading necessary to make government’s wheels turn. If I recall correctly, I don’t think Obama was all of a sudden saying, ‘Drill here! Drill now!’ Rather, it was more like he was saying he’d grudgingly accept minimal new drilling as an acceptable compromise. If somebody knows otherwise, please, throw up a link.
Only a fool or a masochist would get this far down a massive stupid threadjacking like this one, so I won’t waste effort on details; but here’s what is really going on.
Here and in other blogs there’s a really impressive and successful effort to miss the point of the Wikipedia thing. It’s not whether McCain would get his term paper downgraded for plagiarism (assuming he wrote that thing, which of course he did not). It’s that a candidate for President is supposed to have foreign policy advisors who, like, know things. People who know things about international affairs do not have to rely on a hasty lookup in Wikipedia.
Not that I expect the trolls to have any concept whatever of this advanced stuff, but: Supposing something comes up in a really unexpected part of the world, and the advisers are caught off guard and need to study up on it, they look for information in real sources written by real authors. Wikipedia, though a remarkably useful source for getting a first look at something you’re curious about, doesn’t make it.
Whether you plagiarize it or manage to paraphrase successfully, using Wikipedia shows a complete lack of the expertise that you hope a candidate (himself pig-ignorant, of course) will bring with him to the White House.
The funny thing is that McCain’s main advisor is a retired paid lobbyist for Georgia, as everybody has heard by now. So who is the ignoramus on the staff who wrote this thing rather than let the expert ex-lobbyist write it? Wheels within wheels of incompetence.
Gee, Mike, then who was that guy who had no clue how to answer a seven-year-old girl who asked him why he wants to be president?
As anyone who has spent any time at all studying presidential elections, it was precisely that question from Roger Mudd that put the final nail in the coffin of Ted Kennedy’s presidential ambitions. It’s probably the most fundamental and simple questions, and Obama couldn’t handle it — from a child.
J.
OK, how long will it take Oliver to admit that he was wrong, incompetent, or lying?
“John McCain’s “policy” on the current crisis in Georgia was apparently lifted from Wikipedia.”
1) The actual complaint is that a couple of sentences of background on the situation were adapted from Wikipedia. Not the policy itself, but a smidgen of the context.
The sentences in question:
A couple of phrases, at most. “A series of reforms” becomes “a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms.”
Beyond weak. Beyond lame. This whole article is downright fraudulent.
J.
McCain is running on a platform that promises to continue the policies of the past eight years. He is, in effect, campaigning to be Bush’s protege and unofficial steward of a third Bush term.
No, Spider. That is the nothing more than a Democratic party talking point. And when one considers that McCain and Bush are polar opposites when it comes to their feelings about Vladimir Putin, then bringing up Bush’s name is nothing but a deflection.
Whether you plagiarize it or manage to paraphrase successfully, using Wikipedia shows a complete lack of the expertise that you hope a candidate (himself pig-ignorant, of course) will bring with him to the White House.
The funny thing is that McCain’s main advisor is a retired paid lobbyist for Georgia, as everybody has heard by now. So who is the ignoramus on the staff who wrote this thing rather than let the expert ex-lobbyist write it? Wheels within wheels of incompetence.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve read in a long time. First of all, the speech gave some basic historical background on Georgia. So what if the guy who prepared the remarks such text took some basic information about Georgia from Wikipedia?
McCain’s suggestions about what should be done were not taken from Wikipedia and chances are, McCain relied upon Randy Scheunemann in that regard. Scheunemann btw, is not a speech writer, so it is completely asinine to have him write the speech. Good grief.
In addition, the “plagiarism” accusation is just stupid. As I said, you cannot plagiarize historical facts, only the expression of said facts and a basic standard comment about Georgia and Christianity doesn’t cut it. Of course, the biggest blow to the entire plagiarism charge is the third example which people are holding up. It contains information that’s not even in the Wikipedia entry. Is the left going to complain that somebody did additional research next?
The real issue here of course has nothing to do with McCain but rather Barack Obama who issued a half-assed statement that was barely sizzle and definitely no steak. All of a sudden, the next day he’s playing “ME TOO!!” by basically revising his remarks so that they fall in line with what McCain had said.
If I recall correctly, I don’t think Obama was all of a sudden saying, ‘Drill here! Drill now!’ Rather, it was more like he was saying he’d grudgingly accept minimal new drilling as an acceptable compromise.
Difference is, he took a hard line stance against drilling and then changed his position. He then tried to bullshit his way out of it by saying he never actually changed his position, but there’s nothing anybody could find that showed he supported drilling in any way.
Here is quote as early as June talking about doing offshore drilling Florida:
“And when I am president,” Obama said in June in Chicago, “I will keep the moratorium in place and prevent oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts. That’s how we can protect our coasts and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good.”
Now if he had said that he was altering his position for the sake of compromise, that would be one thing. But he’s attempting to say this has always been his viewpoint and that’s just not the case.
he took a hard line stance against drilling and then changed his position.
What? A politician made a…whaddya call it…a compromise?!?
Somebody call Matt Drudge!
What? A politician made a…whaddya call it…a compromise?!?
Well, like I said, he’s claiming that he never changed his position. He has to maintain that viewpoint because any ‘compromise’ would just get the nutroots in an uproar.
No, Spider. That is the nothing more than a Democratic party talking point.
You mean, like “Barack Obama is a studio-produced celebrity, etcetera”?
I’ll drop mine if you guys drop yours.
It’s that a candidate for President is supposed to have foreign policy advisors who, like, know things. People who know things about international affairs do not have to rely on a hasty lookup in Wikipedia.
Porlock seems to suggest here that McCain ought to have already had an expert on Georgian history on staff, in anticipation of a Russian attack and necessary response from the American presidential candidates. I can’t say I’d call that an efficient use of his money. One wonders whether any candidate in history has had people on the staff that knew enough trivia about somewhat obscure (how many Americans could find Georgia on a map before this?) former Soviet Satellites to write its historical background into a speech. I’m gonna guess – no, probably not.
Not that I expect the trolls to have any concept whatever of this advanced stuff, but: Supposing something comes up in a really unexpected part of the world, and the advisers are caught off guard and need to study up on it, they look for information in real sources written by real authors. Wikipedia, though a remarkably useful source for getting a first look at something you’re curious about, doesn’t make it.
Ah, so research is acceptable, but we seem to be taking on faith that wikipedia was the source, and that the writers ‘plagiarized’ their material. Three brief quotes – superficial, frankly, to the current crisis – do not even come close to proving this, even if they are similar. But even if it was, there are any number of explanations. For instance they could have clicked through to the more reputable links at the bottom (the article cites the CIA world factbook, Georgia’s Constitution, etc.) but the original wording may have stuck in the writer’s head.
Further, though, if they used wikipedia to add a little background pretty irrelevant to actual policy, I can’t really bring myself to care. I notice we’re not debating the merits of Sen. McCain’s and Obama’s responses, but rather spending many paragraphs on an issue that is relatively cosmetic in nature.
And remember – if you disagree, you are a troll.
Wikipedia–
“In 2003, Shevardnadze (who won reelection in 2000) was deposed by the Rose Revolution, after Georgian opposition and international monitors asserted that the 2 November parliamentary elections were marred by fraud. The revolution was led by Mikheil Saakashvili, Zurab Zhvania and Nino Burjanadze, former members and leaders of Shavarnadze’s ruling party. Mikheil Saakashvili was elected as President of Georgia in 2004. Following the Rose Revolution, a series of reforms was launched to strengthen the country’s military and economic capabilities.”
McCain–
“Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms.”
CIA World Factbook–
“An attempt by the incumbent Georgian government to manipulate national legislative elections in November 2003 touched off widespread protests that led to the resignation of Eduard SHEVARDNADZE, president since 1995. New elections in early 2004 swept Mikheil SAAKASHVILI into power along with his National Movement party. Progress on market reforms and democratization has been made in the years since independence …”
Hmm. Near as I can tell the only point not hit in each of the three passages is that the CIA doesn’t mention the words ‘Rose Revolution.’ Other than that, essentially the same information, no?
Now if he had said that he was altering his position for the sake of compromise, that would be one thing. But he’s attempting to say this has always been his viewpoint and that’s just not the case.
I don’t Jay. Iffy. I’ve read three stories on it and I haven’t seen a quote where he says ‘Never, under any circumstances, will I allow more offshore drilling. Take it to the bank.’ He said ‘I intend,’ and ‘it won’t drop prices,’ but I can’t find categorical rejection.
Here’s the strongest quote I can find, from Jacksonville, also June–
“When I’m president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts.”
Now here’s another, from a different AP piece (apparently I’m this morning’s cut-n-paster…) –
“If, in order to get [a comprehensive energy policy] passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”
Leaving aside the notion that a certain degree of flexibility might be desirable, since he apparently never categorically rejected lifting the drilling ban, but only said he intended to keep it, he can get away with saying it’s not a new position, can he not? If I “intend” to go the gym, staying home isn’t really a new position, is it? In other words, “I intend” vs. “I will.”
**’I don’t Jay’ should read ‘I don’t know, Jay,’ if that wasn’t obvious.**
if McCain were truly the doddering old marble mouth fool Democratic operatives are making him out to be, then what better way to reveal that to the public than by showing him up in front of actual American citizens asking questions.
There are 4 nationally televised debates scheduled. Plenty of time for John to make a fool of himself.
Hey Jay,
The Yankees suck.