Posted on 06/08/2009 10:25:09 AM PDT by lewisglad
“.these people are SICK”
They’ll contrive anything to hang this woman on it seems.
Offended that media sh*t-wits like this are FALSIFYING this story so badly.
Isn't that LIBEL when it's in print like this and actionable in Court?
Gingrich/Shirley: On the inevitability of the Soviet Union, Reagan responded with a then shocking vision for the Cold War -- "we win, they lose."
Does this analysis seem a bit overwrought? Two conservatives quoting the same man sound similar.
I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!
Newt must not have been flattered. Does this explain why she’s out and he’s in at the big GOP event?
Palin credited Newt. Twice. This is utter libtard nonsense.
For public figures, the standard for Libel is much higher. You have to prove malice.
Interestingly, Palin's lawyer has written the ADN a 'cease & desist' letter, citing the 5 times that Newt was attributed in this speech. This could get interesting.
Well then who did Newt plagurize, because I’ve heard those very words ever since Reagan left office.
True, Palin did mention Gingrich twice in the speech,
Two, five or how many times Ma Palin mentioned Gingrich or Shirley should be easy to count. I suspect there is a word for word copy somewhere that has been posted online as very few things Palin haven’t been posted. A quick word search would end the speculation.
And what's really ironic about this is that, by his own admission, Knowles has cribbed his entire article from another article proffering this laughably contrived "gotcha" on Palin written by another man, Geoffrey Dunn of the Huffington Post.
As someone upthread said, it's kinda hard for Dunn & Knowles to make the charge of plagiarism stick when the alleged perpetrator credits her source no less than five times as Palin did.
Yet Knowles only credited Dunn once for fabricating this trumped up charge against Palin in the first place, which he's now promoting in his own article!
So, using his own criteria, exactly who is the true plagiarizer Knowles has just unwittingly exposed in this piece?
(Better watch out while hoisting those pesky petards, Mr. Knowles!)
Personally, I’d like to see a ticket with two non-DC people in 2012. Romney/Palin would make sense. Newt can be an advisor on the campaign and chief of staff after the win...
The Left just wants the headline to continue the dogpile wherever & whenever Palin’s name comes up.
There are only so many ways one can report on the words of another, in this case Reagan. Palin was NOT stealing anything from Gingrich she was repeating what Reagan said and gave him full attribution. This is a desperation move because Palin has at this time dispatched each and every "ethics" complaint brought against her by the lefty loonies. The only thing she needs to do now is file a harassment suit against those who made the complaints and drag them through the courts until the are dead broke and crying for mercy. Then she needs to tell them she will only back off if they admit publicly the complaints were frivolous and were at the behest of the DNC.
Is this the best shot you can take at Sarah? Try again.
Someone needs to point out to this alleged “reporter” that when first Newt quotes Ronald Reagan and then Sarah does the same, it doesn’t mean that Sarah is plagiarizing Newt!
“Plagiarize” refers to word-for-word copying of original ideas, not when two people idependently form similar thoughts!
Wasn’t familiar with Knowles and took a few minutes to google, didn’t find much, His Politics Daily bio says he’s also a musician, might explain a little. :)
Romney, never in my book! Sorry.
All that matters in a Palin vs. Gingrich matchup is that she hasn’t plagiarized his morals, or lack thereof. Ginrich is the Bill Clinton of our party when it comes to married sex affairs with interns. He is a repulsive lech.
And Palin/Romney would make a lot more sense.
Finally:
Palin/AnyoneBut Romney would make the most sense of all.
Ever hear of "RomneyCare," or whatever that disastrous medical entitlement program is that he foisted off on the taxpayers of Massachusetts?
Here is the text of Van Flein's (Palin lawyer) letter to the ADN. This is courtesy of C4P. Methinks Gov. Palin is through playing around with these people.
I am writing on behalf of Sarah Palin relative to the Anchorage Daily News (ADN) continued publication and re-publication of the story by Mr. Dunn that appears to be defamatory, malicious and just goes too far. We ask that the story, and the ADN link to this story, immediately cease.Mr. Dunn has made the serious, and false, accusation that the Governor plagiarized text from Newt Gingrich. (Re-wording this in your story or Mr. Dunns story to the softer lifted is not a substantive difference, but it does reflect the fact that Mr. Dunn may now recognize that he was wrong in calling it plagiarism).
To evaluate this, we start with a definition of what plagiarism is and just as importantly, what it is not. Plagiarism is not reciting text originally authored by another. Rather, it is presenting somebody elses expression of ideas without attribution or acknowledgement. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarized (steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as ones own: using (anothers production without crediting the source).
I have a copy of the transcript of the speech given by Governor Palin. It is abundantly clear in context, and even in sub-context, that the overview of President Reagans legacy was attributed to Newt Gingrich. Before the text of paraphrased analysis was ever mentioned, the Governor clearly noted the source for her comments: Recently, Newt Gingrich had written a good article about Reagan. Thereafter, the Governor expressly referred to Newt Gingrich or the pronoun he or he said (all referring to Newt Gingrich). Thus, the commentary, paraphrase and analysis were acknowledged, attributed and sourced at the outset of the commentaryand at the end of the commentary. For example, the speech stated: He said, regarding your dad Michael, he said we need to learn from his example that courage and persistence are keys to historic achievement. Then, after the paraphrased comments, she again noted her source: What Newt had written in this article....
Far from lifting or plagiary, this is proper attribution in a political speech. The audience was made aware that Mr. Gingrich wrote about President Reagans legacy, and Governor Palin attributed her paraphrasing to Mr. Gingrich expressly and did so at the beginning and at the end of the paraphrasing. Labeling this type of commentary plagiarism is defamatory. It is also simply false. We ask that this article be withdrawn from your website and newspaper because of its errors.
Though there is considerable constitutional leeway for comment about public officials, statements made with malice are actionable. Actual malice is akin to deceit and misrepresentation. It is an intentional misrepresentation to assert, as fact, that Governor Palin failed to attribute her paraphrased commentary to Mr. Gingrich. It is also a statement made with reckless disregard for the truth. Either way, it is defamatory.
I am attaching a copy of the introduction. The paraphrased commentary was clearly attributed to Newt Gingrich, and no fair journalist should make the serious assertion that the Governor did not credit Mr. Gingrich with the comments he made about President Reagan. Please withdraw this article/commentary from your publication.
-OR- shes on the same wavelength.. little difference..
Since Newt is usually correct on all issues..
With Sarah shes damned if she does and damned if she doesnt.
WHich means shes usually also correct on most issues..
About time for republicans to be tooting out of the same trumpet..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.