Sarah Palin Plagiarizes Newt Gingrich? (attack of the RINO's)

Last week, when introducing Ronald Reagan's son, Michael, to a crowd in Anchorage, Alaska, Gov. Sarah Palin delivered a speech that made news for its stinging criticism of President Obama's economic stimulus package. Further analysis of the speech, however, suggests that Palin lifted many of its central ideas, and the way they were worded, from fellow conservative (and presumptive competitor in the 2012 race for president) Newt Gingrich.

It appears that much of Palin's text was inspired by an article that Gingrich and Craig Shirley published in 2005 in the Manchester Union Leader, titled "Republicans Need to Relearn Lessons of the Reagan Revolution." As dissected by the Huffington Post's Geoffrey Dunn, the similarities between the Gingrich/Shirley piece and Palin's remarks indicate that she relied heavily on the article when preparing her own remarks. (She even acknowledged, "Recently, Newt Gingrich, he had written a good article about Reagan.") Here, then, is a list of before and after (or after and before, to be more accurate) comparisons:

Palin: We have to remember that Ronald Reagan never won any arguments in Washington. He won the arguments by resonating with the American people.

Gingrich/Shirley: Reagan never won an argument in Washington. Reagan won his arguments in the country with the American people.

Gingrich/Shirley: On the inevitability of the Soviet Union, Reagan responded with a then shocking vision for the Cold War -- "we win, they lose."

Palin: First, I think what we're going to learn tonight via Michael [Reagan] is that Ronald Reagan's ideas were the right ideas and all we have to do is look back at his record, his economic record and his national security record to know that his ideas were right.

Gingrich/Shirley: What should Americans learn from this remarkable man and his remarkable Presidency?... The "right" ideas really matter (the left was wrong and Reagan was right about virtually every major public policy issue and the historic record is clear for those willing to look at it).

Gingrich/Shirley: Reagan replaced the entire vision of detente with two vivid words: "Evil Empire."

Dunn goes on to cite six more strikingly similar passages from Palin's speech to show that a whole lot of cutting and pasting went into its preparation. Accused of plagiarizing the Gingrich and Shirley article, Palin's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, responded: "It is abundantly clear in context, and even in subcontext, that the overview of President Reagan's legacy was attributed to Newt Gingrich."

True, Palin did mention Gingrich twice in the speech, but why was Palin so dependent on his (and Shirley's) analysis of "The Gipper" that she had to lift its wording so often? And why not highlight each and every passage in the speech that relied on Gingrich/Shirley with a clause like, "As Gingrich and Shirley wrote..."?

Plagiarism is a recurrent problem in politics. Joe Biden has done it. Barack Obama has been accused of the same (though on a much smaller scale). Perhaps this is a condition of our modern world, in which salient information is but a click away.

As yet, we have no comment form Gingrich on the borrowing of his old article. Should he be flattered, offended, or both?

This was written by a David Knowles, sounds like Sarah Palin isn’t one of his favorites.

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!)

"True, Palin did mention Gingrich twice in the speech, but why was Palin so dependent on his (and Shirley's) analysis of "The Gipper" that she had to lift its wording so often? And why not highlight each and every passage in the speech that relied on Gingrich/Shirley with a clause like, "As Gingrich and Shirley wrote..."?

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.

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.

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. Dunn’s 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 else’s 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 one’s own: using (another’s 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 Reagan’s 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 commentary—and 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 Reagan’s 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.

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.