Some Myths Regarding DovWeasel and DovBear's Plagiarism

Also posted at DovBear in slightly adulterated form

I plan for this to be my last post. The purpose of this post is to
respond to the various claims being made about the plagiarism I revealed here about a week ago. These claims are being made largely by DovBear's supporters and in some cases by DovBear himself.

1. DovWeasel Has a Political Vendetta. Some in the blogosphere have assumed that I am some political or religious right winger who aimed to "put a hit" on DovBear based on the substance of his views. One blogger even compared DovWeasel to the people who outed UOJ, a claim which displays the moral reasoning of a 5 year old. I didn't attempt to out DovBear or attempt to trick him in anyway. I didn't publish private email correspondence or do anything underhanded or nefarious. I simply used his own words to demonstrate undeniable instances of plagiarism. By the same token I get the sense that some on the right side of the blogworld are simply cheering about the black-eye inflicted on a political adversary rather than the vindication of values like honesty and professionalism.

In truth, I agree with DovBear as often as I disagree with him. I often find his posts insightful and entertaining, whether or not he wrote them (sorry, couldn't resist). That being said, I am not claiming that my sole motivation was the rooting out of plagiarism. I focused on DovBear because I find that he is too often the bad actor of the jblogosphere. Whether it's mistreatment of commenters or fellow bloggers, failure to properly hattip or just acting like an miscreant, DovBear has consistently failed to follow the rules of the blogworld. However, given the squishy nature of those kinds of claims, I chose to focus on a misdeed that is more objective.

2. DovBear's Plagiarism Was Minimal, Unintentional or Harmless. Many have tried to minimize DovBear's sins in a number of ways. Some have argued that DovBear's plagiarism was not the "bad kind" or that it was minimal when compared to his overall output. Others have taken issue with some of my examples. The only way to address these claims is to revisit each of the examples in my original posts. I used a rating scale for each post: 3 is for egregious plagiarism, including extensive cutting and pasting of text and other indications of premeditation. 2 is for run of the mill plagiarism, including cutting and pasting small amounts of text. 1 is for arguable cases of plagiarism, where a reasonable case could be made that the post is question is either not plagiarism or unintentional plagiarism.

"DovBear" on Bush: February 27, 2006

Pure unadulterated word thievery. This gets extra points for the fact that the lifted portions follow a quote from an attributed quote from TNR, suggesting that the lack of attribution of the balance was intentional.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on George Allen: August 30, 2006

Again. This piece was lifted word for word from a TNR piece. And again, extra points for the fact that DovBear added three hyperlinks in the piece to enhance the post, but forgot to add that pesky hyperlink that would show that the words weren't his.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on Republicans: September 04, 2006

Although DovBear clearly lifted text here, the amount of text was rather small.

Score: 2


"DovBear" on a New Senate Bill: September 27, 2006

This post was lifted in its entirety from another source. None of it came from DovBear.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on Mary Cheney: December 18, 2006

Although the amount of lifted text is relatively limited in the context of the entire piece, the manner in which the lifted portions were woven into the post to seek to conceal the plagiarism displays a level of pre-meditation that justifies a 3. Extra points for DovBear's initial response when confronted with the accusation: "Thank you for bringing this to my attention."

Score: 3


"DovBear" on Al Sharpton: March 09, 2005

The amount of lifted text is relatively small.

Score: 2


"DovBear" on Spying: March 20, 2006

While I originally identified a prior source (a TNR letter to the Editor) for only one paragraph of this post, it appears that the second paragraph of the post, beginning with the words: "If fisa is anachronistic…," comes from yet another TNR letter to the editor, this one from William E. Scheuerman. Thus, the entirety of the post comes from other sources, skillfully woven together. None from the mind of DovBear.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on the Sin of Sodom: November 14, 2006

The source of this post consists largely of a compilation of sources on the sin of Sodom. DovBear's post cites those same sources using different words. If all DovBear did was rely on the original essay for a list of sources and failed to attribute the original list as a resource, that may be improper, but might not rise to the level or plagiarism. However, the fact that DovBear copied the opening paragraph word for word pushes this post way up the plagiarism scale.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on Income Redistribution: November 09, 2006

Pure, unadulterated plagiarism. The changes in language seem more
designed to frustrate detection than anything else. In addition, the inclusion of hyperlinks and formatting of blockquotes also gives lie to the notion that the failure to attribute has anything to with laziness.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on Suckers: October 18, 2006

The amount of lifted text is relatively small.

Score: 2


"DovBear" on Etymology: October 17, 2006

One email correspondent argued that the source of the post derives from a well known text on etymology. However, I don't see how this makes the word for word copying any less culpable.

Score: 3


And now for the two instances of plagiarism that DovBear and his supporters have been insisting are really not plagiarism:

"DovBear" on Scott McClellan: Thursday, May 04, 2006

Although the the lifted text here would seem to be limited to the phrase "Scotty Squealer," which appeared in a Vanity Fair article by Michael Wolff that was making its rounds in the left wing blogosphere at the time, the phrase is the touchstone of the post. However, DovBear tells me that he regularly uses the adjective "Squealer" to describe various figures, and a search of Google shows that to be the case.

Score: 1


"DovBear" on Moral Values: April 13, 2005

This post is, in a strict sense, pure plagiarism. The post consists of words taken from a TNR piece in its entirety. DovBear and his supporters respond that the post had the word "Source" at the bottom. However, there was no link associated with that word. Accordingly, there was no attribution.

At best, one can argue that this is a case of unintentional plagiarism. That is if we are less willing to attribute "nefarious rationale" to DovBear than he (or TNR) was to the GOP in the post in question. But even if we give DovBear the benefit of the doubt, the problem remains. The word "Source" at the end of a post does not suggest to any reasonable reader that the "source" provided the entire text of the post word-for-word. That's what block indents and quotation marks are for.

At most, it suggests that the "source" provided some of the thoughts or facts in the piece. So even he supplied the link, one would have to click the link, obtain a subscription to TNR and compare the post to determine that the whole piece was lifted.

Score: 1


What this demonstrates is that DovBear has committed at least 10 acts of unquestionable plagiarism, at least 6 of which include indicia of premeditation which belie any argument that the acts were the result of laziness or inadvertence. As for the argument that the number of cases is minimal over the course of two years and 3000 plus posts, I ask you this: would you make the same argument about someone who shoplifted 10 times? Passed bad checks 10 times? Cheated on his taxes 10 times? You want to argue that those acts are more harmful than plagiarism? Fine. But that's a different argument. 10 misdeeds over a two year period is not a great record, any way you slice it. An interesting side note: Eight of the examples come within the last four months. I don't have an explanation for that, but maybe DovBear does.

A final point. I have no idea if I caught every last case of
plagiarisim. It may be hard to believe, but I devoted a sum total of two or so hours reviewing DovBear's posts. I didn't check every single one. There may be more out there that I don't know about.

3. DovBear Apologized. This is not quite a myth.
DovBear has apologized repeatedly on his blog and has corrected his posts. DovBear also is giving me the opportunity to guest post on his blog. Although I initially I took issue with some of the language in his apologies that suggested that his plagiarism was unintentional and that he was guilty of laziness, I think it's clear that he has shown true remorse. Of course, he only apologized once he was caught, at which point his sins were made abundantly clear to all those who could read. One could argue that he had no choice but to act exactly as he did or else lose his readership. We will never know the answer to that question. In fact, I am not sure if DovBear can answer that question either. People are complex.

The weasel will now crawl down his hole. So long.

Radio Silence

It has been several days since I launched this blog and so far no response from DovBear. The offending posts remain and not even an acknowledgment of wrongdoing from DovBear. Nor has anyone come forward with a defense of any substance. That is because there is none. Instead, in comments to the prior post, many in the "old bloggers club" have laughed off my blog with "big deal" or "he has too much time on his hands." Of course, these comments do not respond, explain or justify DovBear's plagiarism. I may have "too much time on my hands," but is that worse than passing off someone else's political commentary or Torah thoughts as one's own? And then turning around and criticizing others for being soft on plagiarism?

The only comment which attempted to make a substantive defense of DovBear, was this one left on a different blog:

About half of the alleged plagiarisms are not that at all. If you look at them, you’ll see they’re made up of a large quote from a common third source, a source that is not unique and whose unse is not unique. The text indroducing or following the quote has the same meaning in both cases, but the wording is different.

I frankly don't understand what this means. Of course, in some of the examples, parts of DovBear's plagiarized posts consist of citations to a common third source. But the remainder of those same posts are lifted word for word from DovBear's source as well. See this post for example. While both DovBear and his source, Robert Kaiser, cite common classical Jewish texts, such as an verse in Ezekiel and Gemara in Sanhedrin, DovBear also rips off the introductory language from Robert Kaiser's essay word for word (e.g., "Classical Jewish texts concur that God did *not* destroy Sodom and Gemorrah because their inhabitants were homosexual...."). This is plagiarism plain and simple.

DovBear's repeated cutting and pasting swaths of text from other websites can only be explained as an attempt to make readers believe that those texts originate from DovBear, rather than writers like Robert Kaiser, Jonathan Chait or Andrew Sullivan. The clear effect of these posts is to make readers believe, "man, that boy can write." And this impression has been procured fraudulently.

In researching DovBear's plagiarism, what struck me was the fact that every other blog that cited the articles cribbed by DovBear properly attributed the original author. Blogs like Orthomom and Godol Hador often paste articles collected on the Internet. But they attribute the source. So the notion that "it's just a blog" should offend the many bloggers that have chimed in in support of DovBear.

It may be that DovBear is smart, witty and articulate. But to the extent he gets this reputation from his blog it is a result of lying and stealing. It's that simple.

He lies and he steals

link.

Many moons ago, DovBear expressed his outrage about Ann Coulter's plagiarism. Or has DovBear put it "word theivery." In fact when a fellow blogger tried to minimize Ann's transgressions, DovBear would have none of it:

So thanks for the ethics lesson, Ezzie: stealing other people’s words and ideas is okay, as long as you limit it to many short summations or lists.

So how shocked was DovWeasel to discover that DovBear is a serial plagiarizer. And not merely "short summations or lists" but word for word lifting of text from other sources with no attribution. Enjoy.

"DovBear" on Etymology: October 17, 2006

DovBear:

As you've no doubt noticed, the meaning of words change with the passage of time.

An example is the word nice. Nice used to be an insult and meant foolish or stupid in the 13th century and it went through many changes right through to the 18th century with meanings like wanton, extravagant, elegant, strange, modest, thin, and shy or coy. Now it means a good, or pleasing or thoughtful, or kind.

EZine:

On the positive side that words change meaning over time, it has been noted that languages that stay alive, adapt and grow over time.

An example would be the word nice. Nice used to be an insult and meant foolish or stupid in the 13th century and it went through many changes right through to the 18th century with meanings like wanton, extravagant, elegant, strange, modest, thin, and shy or coy. Now it means a good & pleasing or thoughtful & kind.

DB:

Silly meant blessed or happy in the 11th century and went through pious, innocent, harmless, pitiable and feeble minded before ending up as foolish or stupid.

EZ:

Silly meant blessed or happy in the 11th century and went through pious, innocent, harmless, pitiable and feeble minded before ending up as foolish or stupid.

DB:

Pretty started as crafty this changed to clever or skillfully made, then to fine and ended up as beautiful.

EZ:

Pretty started as crafty this changed to clever or skillfully made, then to fine and ended up as beautiful.

Screenshot of original post here.

"DovBear" on Suckers: October 18, 2006

DovBear:

No president in American history played the "God card" any better than George W. Bush. Early in his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush convinced fundamentalist Christian leaders that he was "their" man. Those Christian leaders went on to promote and support Mr. Bush to the tune of two successful presidential election victories.

Pastor Chuck Baldwin:

No president in American history played the "God card" any better than George W. Bush. Early in his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush convinced fundamentalist/evangelical Christian leaders that he was "their" man. Those Christian leaders went on to promote and support Mr. Bush to the tune of two successful presidential election victories.

DB:

Now it appears, this (like Bush's politically expedient fondness for Israel) was all a sham: GOP strategists played evangelical believers for suckers. It's all in Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, a new book written by David Kuo, a disillusioned Bushie who previously served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Pastor Baldwin:

But was it all a sham? Did G.W. Bush and Karl Rove simply dupe the Religious Right? A Bush insider now says that is exactly what happened: GOP strategists played evangelical believers for suckers.
...In his column, Shooting from the Heart, Kuo wrote that receiving President Bush's invitation to become Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives "was a dream come true for me." ... Now Kuo believes that he (and the entire evangelical community) had been duped.

Screenshot of original post here.

"DovBear" on Income Redistribution: November 09, 2006

DovBear:

According to the AP, over the last 12 years the Republican congress not only shifted spending from Democratic congressional districts to Republican ones, but also, and more significantly, they shifted spending from low-income people to upper-income people:

Slate:

What the AP is describing, then, appears to represent not only a spending shift from Democratic congressional districts to Republican ones, but also, and more significant, a spending shift from low-income people to middle- and upper-income people.

DB:

In other words, while Democrats want to redistribute income downward, to the poor, Republicans want to redistribute it upward, to the rich. This impulse is particularly offensive when you consider that even before the Republicans recaptured the House in 1996, entitlement spending tended (improbable as it sounds) to favor the wealthy.

Slate:

The GOP, it seems, is every bit as bent as the Democrats on redistributing income; the only difference is that while Democrats want to redistribute income downward, to the poor, Republicans want to redistribute it upward, to the rich. This impulse is particularly offensive when you consider that even before the Republicans recaptured the House, entitlement spending tended (improbable as it sounds) to favor the wealthy.

DB:

Here is how Neil Howe and Phillip Longman put it in a 1992 article for the Atlantic Monthly (their source was the Congressional Budget Office):

Slate:

Here is how Neil Howe and Phillip Longman put it in a 1992 article for the Atlantic Monthly (their source was the Congressional Budget Office):

DB:

Here's William Jennings Bryan in 1896: 'Who is it most needs a navy?' Is it the farmer who plods along behind the plow upon his farm, or is it the man whose property is situated in some great seaport where it could be reached by an enemy's guns?'"

Slate:

Rep. William Jennings Bryan cited the greater benefit government bestowed on the wealthy as a reason to make the tax progressive. "Who is it most needs a navy?" Bryan said. "Is it the farmer who plods along behind the plow upon his farm, or is it the man whose property is situated in some great seaport where it could be reached by an enemy's guns?"

Screenshot of original post here.

"DovBear" on the Sin of Sodom: November 14, 2006

DovBear:

Classical Jewish texts concur that God did *not* destroy Sodom and Gemorrah because their inhabitants were homosexual. Not at all. Rather, the cities were destroyed because the inhabiants were uncompromisingly greedy. Classical Jewish writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were, terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders. Saying "God killed them because they were gay" is, to say the least, not the Jewish teaching on the subject.

Robert Kaiser (of the Interfaith Working Group):

Classical Jewish texts concur that God did *not* destroy Sodom and Gemorrah because their inhabitants were homosexual. Not at all. Rather, the cities were destroyed because the inhabitents were nasty, depraved, and uncompromisingly greedy. Classical Jewish writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were, among others, terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and to outsiders. Saying "God killed them because they were gay" is, to say the least, not the Jewish teaching on the subject.

DB:

For proof, consider the following texts:

RK:

Consider the following texts:

DB:

Ezekiel 16:46-50 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

RK:

Your elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. You not only followed their ways, and acted according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Ezekiel 16:46-50

DB:

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 109a If one wounded his neighbor they would say to the victim, Give him a fee for [performing the service] of bloodletting... If a poor man happened to come there, every resident gave him a coin upon which he wrote his name, but no bread was given [the store owners recognized the coins, and refused to accept them]. When he died, each came and took back his[coin]

RK:

The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them...They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land...
There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now if a man assaulted his neighbour's wife and bruised her, they would say to the husband, Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee. If one cut off the ear of his neighbour's ass, they would order, Give it to him until it grows again.
If one wounded his neighbour they would say to the victim, Give him a fee for bleeding thee [bloodletting was sometimes considered medically beneficial in those days; Here the Sodomite judge cruelly ruled that if one beats you until you bleed, you owe your attacker money for this "beneficial" medical service"...]
... they had beds upon which travellers slept. If the guest was too long they shortened him by lopping off his feet; if too short, they stretched him out...
If a poor man happened to come there, every resident gave him a denar [coin], upon which he wrote his name, but no bread was given [the store owners recognized such coins, and refused toa accept them]. When he died, each came and took back his (denar)...
A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, hiding it in a pitcher. On the matter becoming known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great (rabbah): whereupon Rab Judah commented in Rab's name: on account of the maiden (ribah).

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 109a

DB:

Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer: Rabbi Ze era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt... Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven... Rabbi Joshua... said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked... Rabbi Jehudah said: They made a proclamation in Sodom saying: Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor or the needy with a loaf of bread shall be burnt by fire

RK:

Rabbi Ze era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt... Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven... Rabbi Joshua... said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked...

Rabbi Jehudah said: They made a proclamation in Sodom saying: Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor or the needy with a loaf of bread shall be burnt by fire. Peletith, daughter of Lot, was wedded to one of the magnates of Sodom. She saw a certain very poor man in the street of the city, and her soul was grieved on his account... Every day when she went out to draw water she put in her bucket all sorts of provisions from her home, and she fed that poor man. The men of Sodom said: How does this poor man live? When they ascertained the facts, they brought her forth to be burnt by fire. She said: Sovereign of all the worlds! maintain my right and my cause (at the hands of) the men of Sodom. And her cry ascended before the Throne of Glory. In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, said: I will now descend and I will see whether the men of Sodom have done according to the cry of this young woman, I will turn her foundation upwards, and the surface thereof shall be turned downwards.

Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer

DB:

Ramban: ... [in] the opinion of our Rabbis, all evil practices were rampant among them. Yet their fate was sealed because they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy - since this sin represented their usual behavior more than any other. Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor, there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.

RK:

Nachmanides commenting on the verse "AND WE SHALL KNOW THEM".

Their intention was to stop people from coming among them, as our rabbis have said, for they thought that because of the excellence of their land... many will come there and they despised charity... they continued provoking and rebelling against Him with their ease and the oppression of the poor... In the opinion of our Rabbis, all evil practices were rampant among them. Yet their fate was sealed because of this sin - i.e. they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy - since this sin represented their usual behaviour more than any other. Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor, there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.

Nahmanides (Ramban) Commentary on Genesis, 13th century

Screenshot of original post here.

"DovBear" on Spying: March 20, 2006

DovBear:

Here is a question none of the president's loud-mouthed supporters seem quite able to answer:
Why is the president, four years after September 11, choosing to ignore a statute (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (fisa)) that he could so easily have asked the Republican-controlled Congress to change?

Desmond Prince in a letter to TNR:

With all due respect to Posner, his article downplays a salient point: Fisa is the law of the land. Why is the president, four years after September 11, choosing to ignore a statute that he could so easily have asked the Republican-controlled Congress to change?

"DovBear" on Moral Values: April 13, 2005

DovBear:

And indeed, Republicans like to claim that they are the defenders of "life," particularly the lives of those who are most vulnerable, such as the severely brain-damaged and the unborn.

TNR:

As is evident in the Terri Schiavo case, Republicans like to claim that they are the defenders of "life," particularly the lives of those who are most vulnerable, such as the severely brain-damaged and the unborn.

DB:

But how, then, do you explain the embarrassing fact that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the decline in the number of abortions under Bill Clinton has not continued since George W. Bush took office? And, more importantly, how do you explain the fact that, on March 17, Senate Republicans rejected an amendment Democrats Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid offered to the budget bill that put forward a comprehensive plan to reduce unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduce abortions?

TNR:

But how, then, do you explain the embarrassing fact that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the decline in the number of abortions under Bill Clinton has not continued since George W. Bush took office? And, more importantly, how do you explain the fact that, on March 17, Senate Republicans rejected an amendment Democrats Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid offered to the budget bill that put forward a comprehensive plan to reduce unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduce abortions?

DB:

If you take Republicans at their word--that they seek to protect the lives of fetuses--then it is inexplicable. If, on the other hand, you believe the thesis of Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas? --that Republicans cynically use moral issues like abortion to get working-class Christian voters to the polls while their real agenda is mostly about helping the wealthy--then it begins to make more sense. Why allow Democrats to reduce abortions when that might erode your ability to campaign against their supposed hostility to the lives of the unborn?

TNR:

If you take Republicans at their word--that they seek to protect the lives of fetuses--then it is inexplicable. If, on the other hand, you believe the thesis of Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas?--that Republicans cynically use moral issues like abortion to get working-class Christian voters to the polls while their real agenda is mostly about helping the wealthy--then it begins to make more sense. Why allow Democrats to reduce abortions when that might erode your ability to campaign against their supposed hostility to the lives of the unborn?

DB:

Or perhaps the Republicans' rationale is even more nefarious than electoral advantage. After all, opposing the distribution of condoms, the teaching of safer-sex methods, and the increased availability of birth control are ends unto themselves for cultural conservatives. What they really oppose is not so much the deaths of innocent fetuses but female reproductive freedom and premarital sex. And it seems they are perfectly willing to tolerate more abortions to achieve those goals.

TNR:

Or perhaps the Republicans' rationale is even more nefarious than electoral advantage. After all, opposing the distribution of condoms, the teaching of safer-sex methods, and the increased availability of birth control are ends unto themselves for cultural conservatives. What they really oppose is not so much the deaths of innocent fetuses but female reproductive freedom and premarital sex. And it seems they are perfectly willing to tolerate more abortions to achieve those goals.

Screenshot of original post here.

"DovBear" on Al Sharpton: March 09, 2005

DovBear:

In New York, Sharpton's home state, Kerry beat him among black voters by 30 points; in California, he beat him by 49 points; in Georgia, he beat him by 51 points; in Virginia, he beat him by 52 points; and, in Maryland, he beat him by 55 points. And Kerry doesn't even have a particularly strong connection to the black community.

TNR:

In New York, Sharpton's home state, Kerry beat him among black voters by 30 points; in California, he beat him by 49 points; in Georgia, he beat him by 51 points; in Virginia, he beat him by 52 points; and, in Maryland, he beat him by 55 points. And Kerry doesn't even have a particularly strong connection to the black community.

Screenshot of original post here.

"DovBear" on Mary Cheney: December 18, 2006

Please note: After the obvious plagiarism of Andrew Sullivan's piece was noted in the comments to DovWeasel's post, the original post was edited to attribute the source of the plagiarized material. However, a screenshot of the relevant section of the cached original page, without any of the edits that were later added, can be seen above (click image to enlarge).

DovBear:

The Republican Party platform seeks to ban all civil recognition of gay couples by amending the U.S. Constitution to prevent any state from even granting civil unions to such couples.

Andrew Sullivan:

In public, though, he's an idealogue, who like other Republican idealouges, wishes to ban all civil recognition of gay couples by amending the U.S. Constitution to prevent any state from even granting civil unions to such couples.

DB:

The Republican Party has sponsored and campaigned on legal and constitutional bans on civil marriage and civil unions for gay couples in dozens of states for the better part of a decade.

AS:

The Republican Party has sponsored and campaigned on legal and constitutional bans on civil marriage and civil unions for gay couples in dozens of states for the better part of a decade.

DB:

This has had a real impact on the lives of millions of gay Americans and their children.

AS:

This has had a real impact on the lives of millions of gay Americans and their children, and George W. Bush has been complicit in this.

DB:

Usually, the architects of ideology can distance themselves from reality deftly enough to avoid embarrassment.

AS:

Usually, the architects of ideology can distance themselves from reality deftly enough to avoid embarrassment.

"DovBear" on Scott McClellan: Thursday, May 04, 2006

DovBear:

Why do I call Scotty Sqealer? It's a referance to Animal Farm, the book by George Orwell, in which a pig named Squealer is described as a manipulator and persuader who could turn black into white. It's his job to justify everythng the tyrants do.

Michael Wolff

He's Piggy in Lord of the Flies: a living victim, whose reason for being is, apparently, to shoulder public ridicule and pain (or, come to think of it, he's Squealer from Animal Farm).

"DovBear" on a New Senate Bill: September 27, 2006

DovBear:

Somthing bad is about to happen

FMN:

SOMETHING BAD IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN

DB:

As we speak the Senate is debating:

* A bill permitting spying on Americans without a warrant.
* Another bill creating special tribunals and permitting torture.
* A proposal to combine these bills

FMN:

So here's what the Senate will face Tuesday . . .

* A bill permitting spying on Americans without a warrant.
* Another bill creating special tribunals and permitting torture.
* A proposal to combine these bills.

DB:

Do you want this President to have this power? Do you want future presidents to have it? Do you want to risk that these powers won't be applied to citizens as well, as soon as the politicians have the slightest excuse for doing so?

FMN:

Do you want this President to have this power? Do you want future presidents to have it? Do you want to risk that these powers won't be applied to citizens as well, as soon as the politicians have the slightest excuse for doing so?

Screenshot of original post here.

"DovBear" on Republicans: September 04, 2006

DovBear:

...Chris Mathews and Pat Buchanan, who had the following exchange on a recent edition of Hardline 11

Mathews: When are we going to notice that the neocons don't know what they're talking about? They're not looking at this country's long-term interests. They're bound up in regional and global ideology, and they have had no experience... I don't know why we keep falling for it--and the president, you say is he free of these guys yet or not?

Buchanan: I certainly hope the president is not listening to them, because I really question whether they've got America's national interest at heart.

TNR:

Yet Matthews appears ever more deeply wedded to his blame-the-nerds theory. In another recent broadcast, he asked Pat Buchanan:

When are we going to notice that the neocons don't know what they're talking about? They're not looking at this country's long-term interests. They're bound up in regional and global ideology, and they have had no experience--I'll say it again--in even a schoolyard fight. They don't know what physical fighting is all about. They went to school and were intellectuals, but they want our government to be their big brother. I don't get it. I don't know why we keep falling for it--and the president, you say is he free of these guys yet or not?

Buchanan replied, "I certainly hope the president is not listening to them, because I really question whether they've got America's national interest at heart."

DB:

A more suspicious mind might detect in this some ugly insinuations, but I prefer to take their words at face value.

TNR:

A more suspicious mind might detect in this some ugly insinuations, but I prefer to take Matthews's theory at face value.

Screenshot of original post here.

"DovBear" on George Allen: August 30, 2006

DovBear:

In 1984, he was one of 27 House members to vote against a state holiday commemorating Martin Luther King Jr. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported, "Allen said the state shouldn't honor a non-Virginian with his own holiday."

TNR:

In 1984, he was one of 27 House members to vote against a state holiday commemorating Martin Luther King Jr. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported, "Allen said the state shouldn't honor a non-Virginian with his own holiday."

DB:

That same year, he did feel the urge to honor one of Virginia's own. He co-sponsored a resolution expressing "regret and sorrow upon the loss" of William Munford Tuck, a politician who opposed every piece of civil rights legislation while in Congress during the 1950s and 1960s and promised "massive resistance" to the Supreme Court's 1954 decision banning segregation.

TNR:

That same year, he did feel the urge to honor one of Virginia's own. He co-sponsored a resolution expressing "regret and sorrow upon the loss" of William Munford Tuck, a politician who opposed every piece of civil rights legislation while in Congress during the 1950s and 1960s and promised "massive resistance" to the Supreme Court's 1954 decision banning segregation.

Screenshot of original post here.

"DovBear" on Bush: February 27, 2006

DovBear:

This is just another variation of Bush's "trust-me" argument, an argument he's made since day one.

David Corn:

...Bush has been running a trust-me presidency since day one.

DovBear:

Enacting tax cuts for the wealthy? Oh, don't worry about the fiscal implications (like the long-term, humongous national debt); everything will work out.

David Corn:

Enacting tax cuts for the wealthy? Oh, don't worry about the fiscal implications (like the long-term, humongous national debt); everything will work out.

DovBear:

Our energy plan? We don't have to tell you which energy industry executives we met with because we know we're doing what's best for the country. Can't you take our word?

David Corn:

Our energy plan? We don't have to tell you which energy industry executives we met with because we know we're doing what's best for the country. Can't you take our word?

DovBear:

The war in Iraq? Our classified intelligence—which we can't show you because it's, eh, classified—says Saddam Hussein has WMDs and is ready to use them? You'll just have to… well, you know.

David Corn:

The war in Iraq? Our classified intelligence—which we can't show you because it's, eh, classified—says Saddam Hussein is up to his evil keister in WMDs. You'll just have to….well, you know.

DovBear:

When oh when will this trust-me routine run out of gas?

David Corn:

Finally, Bush's trust-me routine has run out of gas.

Screenshot of original post here.