Like most pseudointellectuals, Rand Paul just doesn’t get it. Either that, or like most career politicians, he’s just smart enough to PRETEND that he doesn’t get it, because he doesn’t want YOU to get it.
Yesterday, we reported on Rand Paul’s predilections not only toward plagiarizing sources without attribution, but suspiciously avoiding attribution because he didn’t want to disclose those sources in the first place. His lack of original thought first came to mind when he gave a speech that was supposed to be on birth control (or something), but wound up being about his line-by-line reading of Wikipedia’s plot summary of the movie Gattaca. Which, ironically, probably got more people talking about Gattica in 2013 than when the movie came out in 1997. Good for you, Ethan Hawke.
That triggered some investigation of Rand’s latest book, which was not only an ideological recitation of the Cliff Notes for “Atlas Shrugged,” it contained three full pages reprinted from a Koch-funded Heritage Foundation report from 2003. Later sections contained snippets copy-and-pasted from the CATO institute — formerly known as the “Charles Koch Foundation.”
Since then, Rand Paul’s been playing dumb, seemingly baffled by the Libs’ obsession with his minor and completely understandable “footnote error.” According to Rand, that we should expect him to “footnote” everything in his “extemporaneous” speech is just bizarre; and it would be, if reality remotely reflected his claims. But Rand’s got even stronger feelings than claimed confusion.
Evidently, as Rachael Maddow is about to discover, ye dare not impune the honor of a Kentuckian, calling him a liar and accusing him of being deliberately misleading. Why? Cause that’s a duelin’ offense.
So, there it is, you ol’ short-haired deviant DEVIL….ain’t no WOMAN questions the honor of RAND PAUL! And, over WHAT? Because he didn’t footnote his speech. Just a couple of little, old footnotes. Just a harmless clerical error. Just a concession to time. Just a little, ridiculous old slip-up that means nothing compared to The Message…typical liberals, making mountains out of molehills. Over FOOTNOTES?
OK, listen, Rand…we’re not going to belabor the point here. You’re a liar, and you knew good and well what you were doing. It’s not about a simple clerical mistake, or a concession to good “extemporaneus” speaking. It’s not even about the subtle implications of a supposed “intellectual” doing something that would get a tenth-grader an “F“ on his history essay. It’s about the lies, and evidence of more. Let’s start with the first lie:
- “I quoted from a lot of movies in my speech.” No, Rand…you didn’t. “quoting from a movie” means “repeating a line from the movie verbatim.” You didn’t quote from a movie…you READ A PLOT SYNOPSIS DIRECTLY FROM WIKIPEDIA. You didn’t “use the plotline from Gattaca.” You READ A PLOT SYNOPSIS DIRECTLY FROM WIKIPEDIA.
- “I speak extemporaneously.” When you say that, we assume you mean “informally, in an unprepared way, in active creation, improvising on the spot.” Rand, reciting a passage from Wikipedia verbatim is about the furthest thing from “extemporaneous” that can be imagined. While possession of material goods is 9/10ths of the law, that rule doesn’t apply to THOUGHTD. The fact that you memorized the passage doesn’t make the thought any more “yours,” or any less contrived. It just means that you’re good at memorizing paragraphs and delivering them as though the words and thoughts were your own. Congratulations…you’re an “actor.“
- You READ A PLOT SYNOPSIS DIRECTLY FROM WIKIPEDIA. Verbatim. Nobody would be laughing at you if you’d recited the movie tagline from the studio, a direct quote from the movie, Gene Siskel’s synopsis. Hell, even IMDB’s summary. But you’re supposed to be the conservative party’s “great intellectual” a DOCTOR, no less. Nevermind having READ from Wikipedia (which we’re not even allowed to quote on AATTP), what is the Great Conservative Thinker even doing LOOKING at a resource not permitted as a reference in any middle school?
- You say in your interview that you can’t “stop and footnote everything” in the middle of a spoken address, but that these same points would have been “footnoted in a written work.” OK, fair enough. Then explain why you didn’t bother to attribute the pages of material you lifted from the Heritage Foundation, or the many lines borrowed from the CATO Institute in “Government Bullies.” That was written. Badly, albeit. But written. At no point in your book did you note a single quotation from any of your Koch-buddies, or attribute them as sources. What? You can’t afford an editor? He didn’t mention to you that this was kind of basic protocol? Our editors know that. Or maybe you and your editor DID know exactly that, and you simply chose to leave the attribution out so people weren’t reminded of your Daddy’s billionaire benefactors — the Koch Brothers.
- You READ A PLOT SYNOPSIS DIRECTLY FROM WIKIPEDIA.
So, there are the facts, Rand. You’re a liar, a Koch puppet, and hardly the “intellectual” you pretend to be. You’re an actor, reading someone else’s lines, delivering someone else’s ideas as though they were your own.
Then again, that probably IS what passes for an “intellectual conservative.” Somebody who’s better at recitation than cogitation. So, stop playing dumb, do what you’re good at, remember what you’ve just read, and shut your smarmy, psuedointellectual mouth. And if you’ve got a problem with my saying so, come on down to Florida, bring your insulted billionaire friends, and start that Kentucky “duel” crap in this neighborhood.
Rest assured…Rachael Maddow doesn’t live here.