I'm sure the liberal media will be right on it!

[crickets chirping]

Kevin, why would you post something this lame? Remember Mc fought in a war and is a war hero. You Obamaites better do better than this....

Check the update. Looks like the Admiral took it from one of McCain's speeches a year earlier. So he's only plagiarizing himself.

OT: Obama should say, "We won't judge you, Hillary, for not dumping your lying, cheating husband. Please don't judge us for not ditching the family pastor."

So Bob5540, it's obvious you graduated from the school of intelligent design.

"hey, as long as he didn't plagiarize that BBQ recipe, he's still our Maverick!", sayeth the Village...

When you steal from your own, earlier, work, it's not plagiarzing, it's cannibalizing. So McCain is not a plagiarist, he's a cannibal.

I detest these plagiarism pseudo-scandals. Anyone who has written for a while knows how easy it is for people to come up with similar ideas and formulations independently. Have you ever written a nice pun or turn of phrase? Google it. Chances are someone has come up with it before. Hint: it wasn't because you stole it.

So I guess we can all expect Hillary to come out and attack McCain publicly about this?

And if she doesn't go into attack mode on McCain over this, it will become all the more clear that she really doesn't care about plagiarism, but rather was simply scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons to attack and diminish Obama. Her failure to go after McCain on this will make it all the more clear that her game is to sink the Democrats chances to win the White House in 2008 for one of two reasons: one, to blackmail the party and Obama into giving her a place on the ticket; or set up a possible run in 2012 against McCain.

Kevin - Like elmey sayz, check the update. You may want to take this post down.

Thats it Augustus, blame Clinton, regardless of the facts!

Again, check the update. McCain was plagiarizing himself, since "the fellow naval officer" appears to have plagiarized McCain, not the other way around.

Of course, the fact that McCain is recycling speeches from 1995 and 2002 should be sufficient reason to sink his "credibility" on national security issues, but I fear our all-too-compliant media will give this a pass.

McCain's been using those lines since 1995? That's one Stale Talk Express.

New topic -- McCain gives the same speech in 1995, 2001 and 2007. Change you can count on!

Maybe when Clinton bows out McCain can pick up and edit her slogan: Highly Watered-Down Solutions for America.

Check the update. Looks like the Admiral took it from one of McCain's speeches a year earlier. So he's only plagiarizing himself.

That wouldn't stop the Republicans from repeating it if this had been Clinton or Obama.

So McCain had the same position on the awfulness of war 10 years ago, and he's recycling some of his lines. Is there supposed to be some sort of scandal here?

Copping a phrase, yes. But plagiarism, no. Not unless McCain lifted whole paragraphs, or at least several consecutive sentences, of someone else's words.

John Fogerty was once sued by his record company for plagiarizing himself.

John Fogerty was once sued by his record company for plagiarizing himself.

Nah, it appears these are McCain's words. Think Progress has issued a correction so you probably should too.

Offtopic: but check out Gene Lyons' (of Hunting of the President) column about Obama and Wright. Lyons wrote the Hunting of the President with Joe Conason. Without knowing how each of these authors aligns himself, and having read one column by Conason and this one by Lyons, I think Conason supports Obama and Lyon supports Clinton.

Wright’s anger is part of the problem -- Gene Lyons -- Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008

As recently as 2000, Democrats were outraged that, due to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush vs. Gore, not all of Florida’s presidential votes counted. In 2008, advanced thinkers supporting Sen. Barack Obama have persuaded themselves that fairness dictates that none of them should count. Nor Michigan’s, either. Better that the voters of two critical swing states comprising close to 10 percent of the electorate be disenfranchised than that Obama’s inevitable nomination be delayed. Nobody’s expected to notice the main reason that Team Obama faulted every suggested revote plan: He wouldn’t stand the proverbial snowball’s chance of winning either state’s primary. Rather than face that unpleasant truth, his supporters proposed various compromises with one common denominator: that Obama be awarded delegates he hasn’t won. That this strikes them as reasonable reflects the deep unreality into which roughly half the Democratic party has fallen. Once again, with feeling: The votes belong to the voter, not the candidates. Oddly, it’s Sen. Hillary Clinton, who grasps that elementary democratic principle, who critics say feels entitled to the presidency. Meanwhile, TV pundits like CNN’s Jack Cafferty warn us that should Obama’s supporters be disappointed in their hopes, “you wouldn’t want to live in this country.� A more concise way of turning the November contest into a racial referendum can’t be imagined. Who will win that one? Then what? ....

Kevin,
The fact that McCain gave this same speech in 1995 might make you rethink your "JOHN McCAIN, CHILD OF THE UNIVERSE" post. We can all agree that McCain's specifics, especially on Iraq, are in total dissonance with his overarching beliefs, but it appears that he has at least been claiming these same overarching beliefs for a long time.

shorty: Stale Talk Express.

Shortstop wins the thread!

tom veil: but it appears that he has at least been claiming these same overarching beliefs for a long time.
Whenever it seems expedient. Otherwise it's bomb, bomb, etc.

I thought it was a speech about the Iraq War? The Iraq War began in 1995??

McCain's short-term memory may not be much, but his long-term is apparently terrific!

tom veil: but it appears that he has at least been claiming these same overarching beliefs for a long time.
Whenever it seems expedient. Otherwise it's bomb, bomb, etc

Straight -- whichever way the wind is blowing -- that's McCain.

Kevin, you should post that update on the item that is stimulating the sluggish brains of your commenters. It's not a story.

Plagiarism... It's the Maverick thing to do.

thersites has been banned for plagiarizing himself.

I never stole a Chuck Berry riff in my life, no sir.

DonBoy,
Thersites is having brain connect to fingers issues today. He's not normally smart enough to plagiarize himself.
;-o

God Lives on Earth. His name? JOHN MCCAIN.

Suck it up, Liberals. You are dirt.

I wish I could say I was smart enough to post that twice on purpose. But I'm not. So I guess Weenie is right.

But the real scandal:
From whom did Kevin Drum steal this "Friday Cat Blogging" schtick?

I never stole a Chuck Berry riff in my life, no sir.

Faker! Keith Richard never said "sir" in his life!

optical weenie: Thats it Augustus, blame Clinton, regardless of the facts!

That's funny given that facts don't seem to be a consideration for Hillary Clinton. But what facts are there exactly that I'm missing? Has Hillary attacked McCain for this "plagiarism" the way she attacked Obama for his "plagiarism"? I'd owe her an apology if she has.

As for her blackmailing the party and/or setting up a run for 2012, no, there are no facts to support that conclusion. But that's pretty much where the logic leads. Clinton knows she has no realistic chance of winning, unless 1) she badly damages Obama; and 2) the superdelegates (and even some of Obama's regular pledged delegates, as her campaign suggested) subvert the popular will of the people and give her the nomination.

That's not going to happen and everybody knows it, including Hillary (if she doesn't know this, she's delusional and has no business in elected office). The inescapable and overwhelming probability from her staying in the race is that 1) Obama gets the nomination, not Hillary; and 2) Obama is damaged badly from the process (remember, her only plausible victory scenario requires she make Obama toxic). A badly damaged Obama would likely lose to McCain. Everybody knows this, including Hillary.

So why is she still in the race? It's not because she's stupid, naive, or incapable of facing simple realities (her lowest approval rating ever) and doing simple (electoral) math. So why?

The most logical conclusion is she's doing it to blackmail a place on the ticket (offer me the veep, or the Democrats lose the election and I'll run again in 2012 as the "see, I told you so" candidate).

Mike K: Kevin, you should post that update on the item that is stimulating the sluggish brains of your commenters.

Look who's talking, lard-veins. Seen the news on your belly fat being correlated with your dementia?

Luckily, my friends, our nation's policy on war has remained exactly the same as it was in 1995. That is why, my friends, I'm using the same words as I did back then.

Aw. McCain is like a TV-sitcom dad (a TV-sitcom dad who cheats on his wives, throws temper tantrums, calls somebody else's child who questions him at a public event a "little jerk," and loves war).

Fatuity, thy name is Kevin.

It is the liver.

Oops, latest update. Turns out both men plagiarized from Xerxes of Zernon in 329BC. Let's just forget this one.

But jeez, McCain has been using these lines since 1995? For a guy who thinks war is such a tragedy, he sure does support a lot of them.

The maverick positions are never supposed to actually result in action, inaction, or legislation. Keep your eyes on the hands.

McCain is bad because he kept the same views since 1995. Romney is bad because he changed his views. You can't win.

McCain is bad because he kept the same views since 1995.

ROFL.... Even for you, this was pathetic. McCain is "bad" because he's recycling his rhetoric even though the circumstances have changed rather dramatically. And because his rhetoric doesn't even come close match his actual voting record.

Now when you're actually prepared to deal with reality, we'll be right here. Until then, we'll just be laughing at your silliness.

McCain is a liberal.

How do I know?

Rush told me so.

McCain is a collaborator

How do I know?

Swift Boaters told me so.

McCain is bad because he kept the same views since 1995 ~Ex-Liberal

McFlip McFlop.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance� in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved� the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money� to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

re update:

Ah hah!

God Kevin, just discontinue your blog now. You're so desperate to have your little boy be president that your willing to shit on McCain at the slightest provocation. It's unseemly. You idiot liberals are gonna have to face it: the election was yours for the taking but you all had to get sucked in by the sweet talk of a charlatan and now neither Hillary nor Obama is electable. Four more years of the GOP - and serves you caterwauling douche bags right.

You're so desperate to have your little boy be president

Omigod! Drum has a secret black son!

caterwauling douche bags

It is way too early in the morning for that visual image. Tell us again at 3 p.m.

Has Hillary attacked McCain for this "plagiarism" the way she attacked Obama for his "plagiarism"? - Augustus

No she can't "attack" MaCain on this, he didn't plagiarize. So why are you calling on her to do this.

Augustus, prior to your advocating that a candidate take action on a certain issue, shouldn't you do research into the validity of the issue? That is the logical approach. Thus proving that your "logical" argument that Clinton cannot win the nomination and so should bow out now before your precious boy gets further damaged is based on nothing but adolescent puffery.