McCain Advisers Deny Lifting From Wikipedia
The McCain campaign is staying quiet on allegations that the candidate's statement yesterday on Georgia -- designed to bolster the candidate's appearance of expertise on foreign policy -- lifted sections on Georgia's history from Wikipedia.
Taegan Goddard first pointed out the similarities, noting that in some instances it looked like only a few words had been changed. If this is true, it would obviously contradict the idea that McCain knows everything he has to know about foreign policy and the intricacies of different regions.
We e-mailed the McCain campaign for comment yesterday, and they still have not replied.
Late Update: The campaign is denying the allegation, saying that there are only so many ways to state the historical facts and that any similarities between their statement and the Wikipedia entry are purely coincidental.















On the day after Russia invaded Georgia, Barack Obama urged even-handed “restraint” on both sides without mentioning Russia by name or rebuking its aggression. The Russians took the Obama Doctrine as another green light—not just for their attack but also for extending their power in the foreseeable future under a potential Obama administration. Having dealt with the pesky issue of war, Obama turned to the more pressing matter of his Hawaiian vacation. His statement about his day in paradise was more focused than his statement on the Russian invasion.
Here’s what was on Obama’s mind as the Russian army plunged deep into the heart of the Georgian democracy and bombed civilians: “I’m going to get a plate lunch. I might go to Zippy’s. I might go to Rainbow Drive-In. I haven’t decided yet. Get some Zip Min. I’m going to go get some shave ice. I’m going to go body surfing at an undisclosed location. I’m going to see my tutu — my grandma — and I’m going to watch my girls play on the beach, and once in a while I might go into the water. But mostly I’m going to watch them.”
What a Loser. I hope he gets indigestion, he certainly gave me some.
August 12, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
lulz
August 12, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are anti-plagiarism computer software programs that can determine whether someone committed plagiarism.
Why not run the McCain speech and the Wikipedia entry and see what happens?
Here is a list, including several free sites:
http://www.teach-nology.com/highered/plagiarism/detecting/software/
http://www.scanmyessay.com/scan.php
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Best/scan-plagiarism.html
August 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah right; the Russians are taking a green light from a presidential candidate while Putin himself is sitting with the current president. How many McCain bloggo points does post this get you?
August 12, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Troll, look! There's a thread opening up over there....Hurry!
August 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remind me again why Republicans are the party of foreign policy?
August 12, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How could I have plagiarized Wikipedia? I don't even know how to use the Google! Ha!" -- J.M.
:-|
August 12, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
plagiarizing wikipedia...what the hell, are they in fucking middle school or something?!
August 12, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"hot chicks love Obama"
Yes. Yes they are.
August 12, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh boy. Keep pushing for a denial, folks. They'll deny it eventually, and when they do, it floats back up into the newsstream for a second time.
August 12, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So ... can we put a "gate" on the end of this now? "Wikipediagate" or "Plagerismgate" ... or McKooKoo-Doesn't-Actually-Know-Sh**t-About-Anything-Gate" .. ?
August 12, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama's camp had done this you can bet your bottom dollar it would be on cable tv news and we'd all be talking about it. It would be on cable tv news because the McCain surrogates would bring it up at every opportunity. The traditional media won't bring something like this up without someone else doing so first. (Wouldn't be "fair" to do so...)
Dems don't seem to coordinate the message that surrogates use very well.
Get the message out and make Matthews, Wolf et al discuss things like this!
August 12, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word up.
August 12, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, another one of my repeats. BIG mistake for Obama to shut down the 527's, and he does an about face to help the campaign, without acknowledging it. McCain is getting away with a lot of sh*t, and 527's could really help with this.
August 12, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should read, I hope he does an about face.
August 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a story on Open Left that they have quietly done just that. We'll see. I hope so.
August 12, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 2004, the pro-Kerry 527s spent twice as much as the pro-Bush 527s and it didn't help. Why? Because the message was all over the place. The Swift Boat ads were searing and effective whereas much of the stuff put out on the democratic side was a waste of money.
The same is true in 2008. The moveon.com ads are so lame and weak, I stopped giving them money.
August 12, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politico says they have responded:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/McCain_camp_dismisses_plagiarism_rap.html?showall
August 12, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wikipedophile-gate is a non-issue, IMO.
When a candidate delivers a speech written by a speechwriter, we don't accuse the candidate of having plagiarized from the speechwriter, right? Bottom line is we don't expect a candidate to write most of his own stuff.
At least this shows the McFeeble crew knows a little bit about working the intertoobz.
August 12, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really the issue is that they had to CONSULT Wikipedia at all in any way whether they lifted direct words or not ... and this from the candidate who is supposed to have the best foreign policy experience. If McCain is elected, does this mean that our foreign policy will be based on Wikipedia?
August 12, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they will deny it.
August 12, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the moment the McCain camp is searching Wikipedia for a response.
August 12, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Friends;
Please by patient. My staff are busily scouring Wikipedia, to find a suitable reply to your questions, about my lifting of passages from Wikipedia.
War Monger easy, Wordsmithing hard.
Ye Olde Candidate,
John McCain
August 12, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It didn't look like copying to me. The excerpts of McCain's speech that I read seemed to be better written than the excerpts from the wikipedia page that somebody thinks might have been the source.
One sentence in one excerpt did look pretty similar, but the others seemed very different to me. It's a huge stretch, and I don't think there's anything here.
August 12, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make sure you copy and paste this into the McCain website so you can get full credit ... perhaps you'll get a pen!
August 12, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at my posting history. I'm a very strong Obama supporter. That doesn't mean I'm not going to turn a critical eye to every stupid thing that comes up.
August 12, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you think that if the shoe was on the other foot, the McCain camp and the Republicans would see this as a "stupid thing"?
August 12, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd still see it as stupid, and I'm reporting my opinion. I don't care what McCain thinks since his thoughts seem to be pretty muddled about a lot of things. I don't care what McCain's camp does or would do because I don't have very much respect for them.
3. Even if you're just in it to win it and you don't care how you get there, and you believe that you have to fight like a republican to beat a republican or however your thought processes play through this, this is still stupid because people who aren't blinded by partisanship will see very clearly that there is nothing to it and tune you out. Harping on this hurts your credibility and distracts from other avenues of attack that would be more fruitful.
August 12, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me ... I don't want to fight like a Republican to beat a Republican. I disagree, though, that there's "nothing to this". I've seen at least three passages that closely resemble Wikipedia (i.e., only a few words changed). This disturbs me as a citizen of this country, not as a supporter of Obama. I would be equally disturbed if the shoe was on the foot. (The reason I bring up the other foot is that such a scandal - based on reality or not - would feed into the McCain campaign's narrative of Obama being an empty celebrity. They would surely use it - but because it doesn't "fit" the narrative of McCain as foreign policy guru, that doesn't mean we should follow-up.)
McCain is running on his foreign policy "credentials" and casting Obama as a foreign policy novice. Yet, McCain's statement is eerily close to a Wikipedia entry. I don't buy your assertion that there is no resemblance or the idiotic assertion of the McCain camp that there are only a few ways to "say it". It is clear to me and a lot of other people that they consulted - if not plagiarized - Wikipedia to craft a foreign policy statement from the "foreign policy expert".
You may disagree that it is not a big deal or that there is any resemblance between the two, but I - like many others - am worried about the state of the country if someone who needs to consult Wikipedia to craft foreign policy gets elected. Add this to the Cindy recipes being plagiarized and all of the sudden you have a pattern. This pattern needs to be investigated.
There is something to see here and we should NOT move on.
August 12, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops ... that should have been:
August 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be clear, these are the passages we're talking about. I marked in bold the areas in which the phrasing seemed similar and aren't specific names are parties that you'd expect to find in anybody's writing on the topic.
I agree that the first one seems similar, but the second is a big stretch, and the third is completely different. If you see something more here, then that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I just don't agree.
one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)
vs.
one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)
After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)
vs.
After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)
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. (Wikipedia)
vs.
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. (McCain)
August 12, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
To smooth things over with voters, they should forward us another one of Cindy's secret cooking recipes.
August 12, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Presidents are expected to know too much these days. That's what they have a cabinet and staffers for.
August 12, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think Presidents are expected to know too much these days."
That's an odd statement, and while it might even be true, it brings forth the question of, "How much does McCain actually know?"
I mean, everyone seems to want to measure Obama's fitness for office, and force him to prove himself 5 times over on every topic under the political sun, but when something like this pops up on McCain that brings his competence into question, (and there's been a couple issues that qualify) people just want to shrug it off.
I'm not signalling you out specifically Jonze, but you're clearly doing it here. If some staffer looked up facts about the country of Georgia on the often maligned Wikipedia, and stuck those facts into a prepped McCain foreign policy statement, that's something that should be noted.
August 12, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain had his own history of Georgia all written up but one of his dogs ate it, so he had to grab something from the internets.
August 12, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was kind of a funny story.
August 12, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There are only so many ways to state the historical facts". Hmm. Listen, if this had been taken from, say, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and Doris Kearns Goodwin had used the same language in an article, then the E.B. would have been mighty annoyed. As would little Timmy's teacher if he'd used it in a paper.
From Wikipedia :) "Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." It's not copying word for word and the plagiarized version may indeed be better written, but this seems like a pretty open and shut case of it.
A speech writer was in a hurry and thought nobody would notice. Not a big deal, really, but own up to it!
And although it's not a huge deal really (if they hadn't denied it...), it's the kind of thing that Dems tend to be too nice about. We play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while they play for keeps... Now, I don't want to stoop to their level but when they make a mistake they should be made to pay the consequences.
August 12, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO Democratic surrogates should make jokes about this while on TV, don't make it a main thing but mention it as a joke.
August 12, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we to consider this as good for the Lawn Jockey in Chief who constantly and hugely plagiarized Duval Patrick?
I mean are you ObaBots so STUPID that you really want to remind people of that shameful episode?
There are only so many ways to state the history of Georgia; there are in fact vastly more differences than similiarities between the Wiki and McCain's staff paper.
As opposed to Hussein who lifted entire extensive and intact passages, presenting them as his own inspiration, until he got caught with his hand in the plagiarism jar.
What a fucking loser...
August 12, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
[blockquote]...Lawn Jockey in Chief...[/blockquote]
This racist drivel is becoming tiresome. Greg, we've gone over this in the past. I know JTHB has been trolling here for awhile, but if he can't keep this kind of language out of his rants, I have to ask for you to handle it. Most people have been good enough to ignore it so far, but it's offensive, and detracts from legitimate dialog in the threads.
August 12, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, that's the second time I've done that today.
August 12, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
seconded. let's draw the line at the neanderthal rear guard. this POS isn't adding anything to the discussion.
August 12, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed ... commenter could have made the same argument without "Lawn Jockey in Chief" and "Hussein" ... trolling at it's ugliest and does a disservice to civil disagreement.
August 12, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
seems like the press is just picking on the mccain family.
notice that in hershey's recipe, there is no talk of a medium sized bowl.
Probably the most glaring difference is that Hersheys would drop them in heaping teaspoons, while Cindy prudently drops them in tablespoons----2 inches apart. There are only so many ways to report the facts of how to combine butter, flour, sugar and butterscotch and get cookies from them.
Here are the two recipes for oatmeal-butterscotch cookies:
"Cindy McCain’s Oatmeal-Butterscotch Cookies" (as it appears on the Family Circle Web site)
Ingredients:
¾ cup (1-1/2 sticks) unsalted butter or margarine, softened
¾ cup granulated sugar
¾ cup packed brown sugar
2 eggs
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1-1/4 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
½ teaspoon ground cinnamon
½ teaspoon salt
3 cups rolled oats
1-2/3 cups butterscotch chips
Directions:
1. Heat oven to 375 degree F.
2. In a large bowl beat the butter or margarine, granulated sugar and brown sugar together. Add the eggs and vanilla, beating well.
3. In a medium-size bowl, stir together the flour, baking soda, cinnamon and salt. Gradually add flour mixture to butter mixture; stir until blended. Stir in oats and butterscotch chips. Drop by tablespoonfuls about 2 inches apart onto ungreased cookie sheets.
4. Bake at 375 degree F for 10 minutes, until the edges begin to brown. Transfer to a wire rack to cool.
Hershey's Oatmeal Butterscotch Cookies
Ingredients:
¾ cup (1-1/2 sticks) butter or margarine, softened
¾ cup granulated sugar
¾ cup packed brown sugar
2 eggs
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1-1/4 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
½ teaspoon ground cinnamon
½ teaspoon salt
3 cups quick cooking or regular rolled oats, uncooked
1-3/4 cups (11 oz. pkg.) HERSHEY’s Butterscotch Chips
Directions:
1. Heat oven to 375°F.
2. Beat butter, granulated sugar and brown sugar in large bowl until well blended. Add eggs and vanilla; beat well.
3. Combine flour, baking soda, cinnamon and salt; gradually add to butter mixture, beating until well blended. Stir in oats and butterscotch chips; mix well. Drop by heaping teaspoons onto ungreased cookie sheet.
4. Bake 8 to 10 minutes or until golden brown. Cool slightly; remove from cookie sheet to wire rack. Cool completely. About 4 dozen cookies.
August 12, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
JTHB (man, you're an angry guy. Maybe you should go and lie down...)
Experts consulted by Bloomberg News sided with Obama. They dismissed the uproar as political banter and mundane compared with questions over authenticity in past political cycles.
`From a legal view, the allegations of plagiarism were preposterous,'' said Charles Sims, a First Amendment and copyright attorney at Proskauer Rose LLP in New York. ``The amounts here are totally trivial and not a legal issue. There would be no claim whatsoever.''
To accuse Obama of stealing ``two lines by somebody who is a colleague of yours is almost like saying you're plagiarizing from your speechwriter,'' said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington who was a speechwriter for President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
August 12, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cookie Recipe II.
Joe Biden II.
Somebody get Neil Kinnock on the line for a comment!
August 12, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's camp is good at one thing, lieing.
August 12, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well at least someone in the McCain camp can use the computer....
August 12, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be noted that no matter how bellicose and urgent the language for conflict seems to be over Iran and now Russia, neither country really cares what the U.S. has to say. There is a decided lack of respect for the ol' superpower.
Perhaps this is because our own unilaterally ramped up nuclear ambitions and the Iraq war tragedy cum fiasco does not give the U.S. a leg to stand on anymore.
If there ever was an argument for the diplomatic shithole that Bush put us in and now McCain hopes to keep us in, then this is it:
The Iraq War has made EVERYONE less safe because we have changed the rules for unilateral and
nationalistic ambitions.
The cop is crooked folks and the game is wide open.
Please be careful to choose the right side.
August 12, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
When asked for comment, McCain responded, "Wikipedia? Is that on the interweb blogs?"
August 12, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the lack of attention paid to McCain's plagiarism mean Biden is now sanitized of his past plagiarism issues?
August 12, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really care about plagiarism per se ... I care that it is clear to me that there is the appearance that they used Wikipedia as a reference. I don't want the staff of the President of my country having to consult Wikipedia when it comes to ... well, when it comes to anything.
I'm a high school English teacher ... I know using something as a close reference when I see it. Granted the McCain camp was a little more inventive with the re-wording. It is clear to me, though, that when writing that statement they consulted Wikipedia. That's the problem.
August 13, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink