You used the term 'working overtime' in conjunction with the liberals. 50% of them don't work regular time and will not give up their drinking, needle jabbing, and pot smoking time for anyone. That puts a hell of a workload on the two liberals that have a regular job.

As you say I'm sure the loony left is going to try to kill themselves on this one but so far, 2 paraphrased sentences does not a plagiarist make.

All this does -so far- is bring her more attention.

It's hardly serious plagiarism, since it's a regurgitation of a news story factual backgrounder, not some theory or argument of another passed off as her own. And it's a few sentences, for crying out loud.

Not like she lifted whole exigesis from academic works a la Doris Kearns Goodwin, or Al Gore writing that he thought up the internet.

Weak.

That would mean two people read that issue of the Press Herald. Wohoo! Circulation is up.

Good, it keeps small minds occupied, Kevin

The 2nd example is nothing. The first example sure looks like it lifted from the Herald piece, but, Mitchell beat me to saying, it's just a brief presentation of simple facts, nothing else.

If I were to write on my blog: "As professional provocateurs, Franken and Coulter both are cagey enough to measure the level of shock, outrage, or hysteria, in direct proportion to the quantity (and quality) of cameras and microphones nearby," that would be plagerism. But if I wrote: "Water freezes at zero degrees Centigrade," I'd think not, even though it's been written before.

However, the exact words used -- and in the order their used -- may be problematic. She could have simply changed "massive" to "giant" or huge", and flipped some the phrases around and tweaked their language and there'd be no prob.

The History Chanel one is attributed to Jay Matthews, "In Harmony: Man's Machine," Washington Post, August 24, 1982. Notes for Chapter 1.

If you can't beat them on the issues, attach their credibility. Has anyone else read "How To Speak To A Liberal"? She's right on the money again ... as usual ...

I don't agree with the tone and attitude that Ann gets on this site ... I guess I need an occasional reminder that Wizbang! is -*not*- a conservative blog. I disagree that Ann is the opposite side of the coin that has Al Franken imprinted upon it ...

If Ann is one thing, it's well researched. Ann always does her research, and now they are trying to use that due diligence against her.

For me, it only confirms that she's spot-on, once again. I'm only on chapter 3 so far ... I'm really enjoying this one, and want to savor the flavor.

Ha Ha I think Shes great! really turns the screws...

What Ann says is very mean .........but very true.......

Well, plagiarism is generally concerned with the theft of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. This isn't a scholarly dissertation in which someone's intellectual property has been stolen. It is a clipping from a newspaper article where some unfortunate reporter got a boring assignment.

So this isn't really plagiarism in the generally accepted way. Sure, she should have attributed it, but who really cares? There is no injured party, and the lack of a winner or loser distinguishes her simple error from plagiarism.

She's been stealing Michael Savage's "liberalism is a mental disorder" catchphrase with one variant or another.

I think Ann speaks to the liberals in exactly the same manner as most liberals speak to others. It is shocking because she is a conservative but for liberals this is standard fare.

I don't know if it's much of a compliment to be told that your manner of argument is about as classy as the liberals, though.

Ahhh, the angry right in more moral problems. Her felony investigation should be a hoot. She already lawyered up.

With all the fraudulant political prosecutions in the last few years I dont blame Her.

And since when is it a moral problem to seek legal counsel?

Normally, it's not a problem, but this Republican hate-monger also committed a felony. Other than that, no big deal. CofC.

Picky, picky, picky.

Get a life. Read the book.Enjoy it.Then smoke a cigar and piss off a lib...

Man jp2, Id hate to get you on a jury of my peers.. unless of course I was Ted Bundy.

Now now jp 1/2 where have we seen where she has been charged with a felony?

Hmmmm.

A SINGLE SENTENCE??

Are you actually suggesting that because she wrote a descriptive sentence that matched an actual event that this is somehow proof of PLAGARISM?

You put 500 people in a room and ask them to write a single descriptive sentence about an actual event. How many will be exactly alike?

This is frankly beyond nonsense.

Are you actually suggesting that because she wrote a descriptive sentence that matched an actual event that this is somehow proof of PLAGARISM?

What part of "So is Coulter a plagiarist? At this point no..." do you not understand?

There is one sentence that cannot be explained by mere chance, but that once sentence does not consitute a pattern of plagarism. The point is that sentence is likely to lead to others looking at the text with a fine tooth comb. If it's an anomoly, then there won't be anything to find...

But if someone dredges through the book and finds 10, 20, 50, 100, etc. simalarly unlikely coincidences, at what point will that be enough?

With the "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life" by the Harvard freshman Kaavya Viswanathan, that was pulled by the publisher for plagarism that number was on the order of 10-15 selections.

Wow. I pity the poor fool, Ann Coulter. It's obvious that she has many, many problems. She is mentally deranged and is quite the psychopath. She knows not what she speaks and knows not what she plagiarizes.

I hear she also likes to drink a lot....maybe she has an alcohol problem.

Poor Ann....so many problems. The picture above shows two other things. She's skinnier than I thought, and perhaps she is anorexic.

Second, it is quite clear from the picture that she is a man.

We cannot criticize the poor thing....no wonder she is so hateful and spews forth such vitriol. With so many problems, she must feel so insecure that she has to speak out against her enemies with such hate.

The second sentence clearly isn't.

The first appears a virtually verbatim transcription, but the wording isn't so original as to constitute plagiarism on its own. One should read the surrounding sentences and compare them to the source.

A single lifted sentence could constitute plagiarism in the strictest sense, IF it were a clearly original one. Lifting that sentence, if that's what she did, would have been poor judgement, but it would never make a court case.

I suspect if these two passages are the best to be offered, it's a pile of hooey. I will be happy to revise that opinion if there are more, or if the surrounding passage in the second case above is also suspiciously similar to the source.

Oh please! Are they saying you can't use a sentence from someone's book without it being called plagiarism?! Give me a break! Geeze!

Yes. That's the common definition of plagiarism.

Wanna use someone else's sentence? You can, but you have to quote them. Otherwise you done wrong.

"Are they saying you can't use a sentence from someone's book without it being called plagiarism?!"

There are useful tools to avoid that kind of thing. They're called "quotation marks". I just used them for that purpose, see? And two more, for a different purpose entirely! They're such versatile things!

I think it's fair to say that Coulter is at very least a lazy writer. Kevin makes a good point that her schtick is somewhat similar to Franken's, although Franken does appear to have slightly more scholarly approach to such things. (One might call it pedantry, or just "having an unpaid research assistant".) His point in the Coulter chapter of Lies... was that Coulter's research -- 'my book has footnotes!' -- was shallow and frequently a bunch of ass: the stuff about Dale Earnhardt's death not making it to the NYT front page, fr'instance, was pretty easily refuted. Franken's assertion was that you could most easily come to Coulter's conclusions if you were really crap at searching with Lexis-Nexis.

The obvious solution for Coulter is not to bother. If you're going to be a pure bomb-throwing polemicist, and that's undoubtedly her talent, then don't let facts or the pursuit thereof get in the way. Her publisher could always hire a proper sub-editor, but that costs money, and most political books are produced on the cheap.

Those who call her books 'well-researched' are plain wrong, and they're buying into a sucker's debate by claiming so. That's because they generally aren't brazen enough to take the Coulter line of referring people to the footnotes, and then changing the subject when they point out the source material is either a) inaccurately cited; or b) lifted verbatim.

Needless to say, Ann Coulter has mastered in print the role of the Classic Internet Troll, with the genius to realise that, unlike on the internet, there's an audience who'll pay to read your trolling.

I love Ann, and agree with her on most things.

To compare her to Franken is like comparing apples to idiots...

That she ruffles the feathers of libtards is just an added bonus, and shows she always hits the bullseye.

...But OMG, she didn't credit a sentence! Prepare the gallows!

Ann Coulter is a very deranged person. Her supporters are on the fringe right such as Pat Buchanan, Terry Jeffrey of Human Events, Robert Novak, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh, Mary Matalin, Tucker Carlson, and Joe Scarborough. The Christian right endorses her hate speech and organizations like the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, and Human Events support her 100%. Coulter is not as dumb as people claim but she is a mouthpiece for the right even as they keep distance from her im public. But she is welcome in conservative circles and at all the right wing think tanls and organizations as a major player in their cause to maintain power and attack anyone who is a threat to the right wing cause or their beloved President Bush who is supposed to commence the armageddon the crazies want so badly.

Moses, your bold is nice, but you'd be more convincing if you wrote it in ALL CAPS WITH LOTS!!! OF!!! EXCLAMATION!!! POINTS!!!

Anyone ever notice that when someone's message is very lacking in substance they attempt to make up for it by posting entirely in bold or caps ?

Curious.

- MikeB

So is Coulter a plagiarist? At this point no, but there's a whole book to look through, which I suspect the legions of those who despise Coulter are organizing for right this very moment.

Clever of her to include that sentence from the Press Herald so that hundreds of her critics would suddenly find a reason to buy her book.

If the Left® really thought that Ann Coulter was a loon and a detriment to the Repblican Party, why in the world would they want to end her literary career with charges of plagarism? It would seem to me that you would want her out there shooting her mouth off. You could then take that brush and paint the entire Republican Party as being like her even if that comparison is not valid.

That's just what I see. Of course, what do I know. I'm just a dumb ole' conservative.

At least she isn't making up her own quotes and then using them again in another story as "proof", a la The Exalted Ward "Professor for Life" Churchill.

Checked out the Rude Pundit; some might describe him as a vulgar man. It strikes me that for all his hand-wringing about Ann Coulter's "crime", much of what he says would seem to be defamatory, unless Ms. Coulter happens to agree that "Why Ann Coulter Is a C*nt" has some basis in fact.

Perhaps she is in fact "a bl*w job queen", as he suggests.

Perhaps he's right that Ms. Coulter's book is "Extended projectile vomiting retched out by a pencil-legged harridan scratching semi-words in her own puke...".

And, gosh, he might be right that "...not only is Coulter a shitty writer and a bugf*ck crazed presence any time she is remotely challenged..."

And who can argue with the rapier-like literary brilliance of conclusions like this: "She looks like the crazed lingerer at a bar at 3 a.m., desperate for some fat f*ck to take her home, beat her, and f*ck her face. B*tch has been ridden hard and put away sp**ge covered, taken out the next day, stiff and sticky, and spit on to be cleaned up for her interviews before using her to wipe Republican asses. Goddamn, time does not treat the nutzoid well. The Rude Pundit wouldn't f*ck her if he was given Rush Limbaugh's tiny, diseased pr*ck to f*ck her with." Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark, I'll betcha!

Now, this is just one single story from June 8, so I certainly don't intend to demean the entire body of his gift to the literary world. I mean, who am I to suggest that the author might be, uh, somewhat exercised on the subject of Ann Coulter?

I'm sure we all agree that we should all take this man's carefully considered judgements very seriously. Gosh, who are we to judge such talent? I feel so...unworthy in the shadow of his towering intellect...

What an obnoxious maroon.

But if someone dredges through the book and finds 10, 20, 50, 100, etc. simalarly unlikely coincidences, at what point will that be enough?

I think to get there you would have to assume that she is unaware that the left would like nothing more. She has to absolutely know that every sentence she writes is going to be scrutinized, if for no other reason than to attempt to refute her points. For her to knowingly plagiarize would be to commit career hari-kari.

But she is welcome in conservative circles and at all the right wing think tanls and organizations as a major player...

Yeah, I remember her sitting right next to George the senior at the RNC convention.

Let's see if eveyone is forgiving to Ann as they were to Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Not likely.

As a conservative person, Ann Coulter doesn't speak for me or any conservative republican with any values. She is a hatemonger and it's putting so much dirt on conservatives by going from one TV channel to the other spreding her poison. She is like Randi Rhodes on the left. Two godless - money driven - selfish women full of hate.