Andrew Kaczynski over at Buzzfeed provides yet another example in what's become a pattern of plagiarism from the junior senator from Kentucky. It's fortunate for Paul that the U.S. Senate doesn't operate like the real world, such as business or academia, as he'd be fired by now.
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.
Steve Benen at the Maddow blog is, like the rest of us, befuddled by all this.
I’m at a loss as to why this is proving to be so difficult for the senator. The issue shouldn’t have anything to do with his personal feelings towards those who uncovered his missteps. Whether or not he’d like to shoot – or shoot at – journalists who uncovered his wrongdoing shouldn’t matter, either.
As for Paul complaining about the “standard” he’s “going to be held to,” the sitting U.S. senator is facing the same scrutiny routinely applied to 14 year olds, who’ve been taught that copying and pasting text from Wikipedia without attribution is a big no-no.
What is it, specifically, that Rand Paul considers “unfair”?
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sunday vowed to be more careful citing sources but insisted that a "dueling" gunfight against "hacks and haters" like MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who uncovered his plagiarism of Wikipedia, would be the ultimate solution if it were legal. Read more...
Here's a little bit of entertainment for a slow news day when most of our politicians and pundits have taken the day, the week, or more off for the holiday. The Young Turks Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian had a bit of fun with this Buzzfeed article Read more...