Rand Paul’s Bizarre Response to Plagiarism Allegations


Now that Rand Paul has been caught plagiarizing other sources, including Wikipedia, in multiple speeches and even a long portion in one of his books, he is responding in one predictable way and one absolutely demented way. The predictable response is to attack his accusers:

Under fire this week for plagiarizing some of his speeches, Paul shrugged off the allegations and proclaimed that he’s being “unfairly targeted by hacks and haters.”

It’s like the old nostrum about attorneys: “”If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.” The facts are absolutely obvious, he’s been copying long portions of his speeches from Wikipedia, as Maddow has thoroughly documented. So he has to attack her because he has nothing to say on the substance. Which leads to the deranged response:

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.”

Seriously? Someone criticizes you and you want to pick up a gun and try to kill them? That should disqualify you from holding any public office of any kind.

Comments

  1. eric says

    That should disqualify you from holding any public office of any kind.

    Secondly, if you don’t know how to blame an underling and then fire them (while using your influence to get said sacrifical lamb a cushy job), you don’t have what it takes to be an elected official.

  2. says

    “Seriously? Someone criticizes you and you want to pick up a gun and try to kill them? That should disqualify you from holding any public office of any kind.”

    Rand/Kessler 2016!!

  3. scienceavenger says

    Some of his responses make it sound like he doesn’t understand what plagiarism is. He acts as though the only way he could be guilty of plagiarizing Gattica is if he took credit for the film’s contents. He doesn’t seem to get that copying someone else’s description of the film and presenting it as your own also qualifies.

    Either way, how Bush league!

  4. lorn says

    Ahhh … well … you see … the problem there isn’t plagiarism. It is that one does not actually listen to, or scrub, the rhetoric of the right. The words chosen are not important, and the method selected, cut-and-paste, almost meaningless.

    Their message is not about facts, and figures, and logic and reason. The words are just the kabuki dance necessary to project the shadows into right-wing minds. If you look at the dancing metaphors and word salad arguments you are missing the shadows.

    The purpose of the shadows is to increase fear, foster a deep sense of offense, and resentment. To gin this emotion to to near-apoplectic levels and then sooth the audience with reassurances that they are the chosen, they are right, they have history and God on their side, they are fighting the good fight, and following up with a soothing layering of conservative conservative and free-market dogma. Once the savage breast is soothed the key is to follow up by blaming and laughing at their own fear and doubt by alienating the feelings and blaming them on the liberals and hippies.

    This is mostly emotion.

    A friend down the block has been harping on the long standing assertion, dating back to the Clinton administration, that he government is coming for his guns. He can rattle on for hours claiming that. He gets red in the face and outraged at any who don’t agree. If faced with the evidence that nobody is moving in that direction, and haven’t for better than thirty years, he sidesteps and cites how important guns and freedom to have guns is. The fact that they are not coming for his guns doesn’t register.

    He sounds like an idiot but if you watch him you can see how it is an emotional thrill ride. He loves the hate and fear and actively grooms both his own response and his message to increase the thrill of the fear, anger and resentment. It is a tonic for him. If he is feeling down he finds a setting to ride his hobby horse, and he feels energized.

    I haven’t broached the issue but I know what he would say if I brought up Rand Paul plagiarizing Wikipedia, he would shake his head, laugh, and tell me that “you liberals just don’t get it”.

  5. Reginald Selkirk says

    In responses to charges of plagiarism in his speeches, Rand Paul replied, “I have not yet begun to fight. And I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”

  6. says

    lorn “Once the savage breast is soothed…”
    No comment. Except that bit. That bit was a comment.

    “He sounds like an idiot but if you watch him you can see how it is an emotional thrill ride. He loves the hate and fear and actively grooms both his own response and his message to increase the thrill of the fear, anger and resentment. It is a tonic for him. If he is feeling down he finds a setting to ride his hobby horse, and he feels energized.”
    It’s cocaine for assholes.

  7. mildlymagnificent says

    He sounds like an idiot but if you watch him you can see how it is an emotional thrill ride. He loves the hate and fear and actively grooms both his own response and his message to increase the thrill of the fear, anger and resentment. It is a tonic for him. If he is feeling down he finds a setting to ride his hobby horse, and he feels energized.

    That reminds me of an American bloke who used to correspond with my grandfather. They’d been POWs together in Germany. Grandpa would write to him in his rather stiff but long-winded fashion. Then the reply would come back. A paragraph or two updating stuff about his health, wife, kids, grandkids … then it would start. Communists! He owned a handful of radio stations somewhere in the US (I can’t remember where) and he would start out saying that communism was a bad thing and communists were bad people. And he would go on and on for pages and paaaages getting more and more worked up.

    Totally mystified me. I couldn’t imagine a place less likely to rise up in communist inspired revolution than America in the 60s. But this bloke could. not. let. it. go. I half expected to see the latter pages of his letters flecked with spittle. Just as well we didn’t have Skype back then, he would have given himself a heart attack winding himself up like this when speaking.

  8. mikehager says

    He is engaging in a weak attempt at humor. In Kentucky (my home state) their is an archaic section of the state constitution requiring all state officials and members of the bar to swear that they “have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it.”

  9. magistramarla says

    Here’s what I don’t get. I’ve seen several careers ruined because the person who did the plagiarizing was fired, including a few teachers, a college professor and even a well-liked TV meteorologist.
    Why isn’t Paul being punished or even reprimanded in Congress because of this?
    It seems that the voters in Kentucky are the only ones who can “fire” him for this, but I doubt whether many of them would even know the word plagiarism – sigh.

  10. raven says

    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.

    Rand Paul seems to have the emotional maturity of a 10 year old.

    He says he can pick up a gun. So what? Anyone can pick up a gun.

    If he was serious abut dueling, there would be the longest line in the USA. You could offer chances to duel with Rand Paul and raise tens of millions of dollars. Sorry, little boy, you don’t scare us, you make us laugh.

  11. iknklast says

    Why isn’t Paul being punished

    Oh, but he is being punished! Rachel Maddow said mean things about him, and he had to hear it. Isn’t that punishment enough for the poor man? What do you expect, eternal punishment by fire for a finite offense?

    (For those lacking a fully developed sense of sarcasm – well, for you folks, and just for you, I was serious)

  12. says

    I wonder if the Stand Your Ground laws cover duels.

    “Yes, your honor. He said he was going to take ten paces, turn, and then shoot me. So of course I had to shoot him first.”

    “Case dismissed!”

  13. abb3w says

    To point credit where it seems due, while Rachel Maddow was the first to report a case, the bulk of the legwork and reports to establish a pattern have been through Buzzfeed (which she has duly credited in her broadcasts).

  14. Ichthyic says

    He sounds like an idiot but if you watch him you can see how it is an emotional thrill ride. He loves the hate and fear and actively grooms both his own response and his message to increase the thrill of the fear, anger and resentment. It is a tonic for him. If he is feeling down he finds a setting to ride his hobby horse, and he feels energized.

    said like that, it’s something ANY of us probably should watch out for in ourselves.

  15. gerryl says

    I believe that the custom is if you challenge someone to a duel, the other party gets to choose the weapon. Maddow could choose her “rapier wit” and easily whittle him down to size.

Leave a Reply