Abe Lincoln, Plagiarist Nathan Newman's essential Labor Blog carries the most reliable account of how Ohio Senatorial candidate Sherrod Brown made a criticism of Mike DeWine's ready support for the nomination of Judge Alito to the the Supreme Court and how ultimately Brown came to suffer unfair accusations of plagiarism at the hands of the Plain Dealer, which was only too happy to regurgitate for its readers the DeWine campaign's talking points. Other blogs, including Brewed Fresh Daily and the scurrilous, in this case, Right Angle Blog have picked up on this story as well. But before Cleveland Uber Alles piles on with its own examination of how these accusations further sully the integrity of our sole city daily, please take a moment to consider these words from the final line of Gettysburg Address:

". . . that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

The speaker, of course, was the legendarily honest sixteenth president of the United States, and the speech itself was given at the cite of one of the Civil War's bloodiest battles, on November 19, 1863. The source of the language, however, was none other than Lajos Kossuth, the Hungarian revolutionary who arrived in America under the sponsorship of Congress in 1852 and whose struggle to usurp Hapsburg rule over Hungry became a cause celebre for patriotic Americans everywhere. Speaking to the Ohio State Legislature on February 6, 1852, Kossuth said:

"The spirit of our age is Democracy. All for the people and all by the people. Nothing about the people without the people. That is Democracy, and that is the ruling tendency of the spirit of our age."

Obviously, Lincoln either failed to acknowledge the source of this idea and the language he used to convey it, or he simply stole the idea and the language. It's worth noting, too, that he of the beard and hat also stole a line from the Bible's Matthew when he said "A house divided cannot stand." Well, where is history's outrage? Is Lincoln spared because he had the good sense to change a couple of words from the original? I doubt it. Sticklers of the sort the PD seem to be in the Sherrod Brown affair (caring not that the language Brown used was posted on a site that pre-authorized reuse, and not that Brown himself had readily acknowledged that the facts he cited about Judge Alito's career came from Newman's Blog), would no doubt hold Lincoln accountable, just as a college teacher might, since failing to acknowledge the source of a paraphrase, as Lincoln did with the Kossuth quote, is also considered plagiarism in academic circles. The "house divided" quote is easier to defend: it's the Bible and therefore in the public domain. But wasn't Newman's post, which Brown supposedly "pinched," also in the public doman? It doesn't matter to the PD, which editorializes thusly:

". . . blogger Newman is incensed that The Plain Dealer even cares where the language came from. "But we do -- and voters should, too. Here's why: We need to know who is speaking. Is it a responsible, elected public official, or an Internet dilettante? Or is theirs a seamless relationship that makes a vote for Brown a vote for nathannewman.org or the Daily Kos? In their minds, does it make a difference? "In ours, it does. "Brown, a bright, energetic liberal who has gone almost 15 years with this page's endorsements and without a serious challenge, has let his campaign skills get out of shape. This transgression shows a staff that's already intellectually gassed -- and the race has yet to begin. What will happen once the gun sounds?"

Ach! I don't even know where to start. First, Newman, a published author who holds a Ph.D. in Sociology and a JD from Yale, is hardly an internet dilettante, and were the Plain Dealer's editorial writers not so "intellectually gassed" themselves they'd do a little research and properly inform their readers of the credentials of their source. The PD doesn't want readers to know that Newman is a legal scholar of a rather fine caliber, since that would call into question their claim that Newman's dismissal of the plagiarism charge is light and insubstantial. Moreover, by reading Newman--who has a true lawyer's gift for putting complex positions into clear succinct language --Brown and his staffers are showing that in fact they are indeed sharp enough and studied enough to run a well-armed campaign against DeWine, who will, as this whole plagiarism affair reveals, play the all too usual role of ad hominem attacking Republican. What's sad, as Newman himself has said, is that the PD's readers aren't getting anything about the substance of what his post revealed about Alito's judicial record--rather what they get instead is the PD pinching a story of talking points that were no doubt supplied by the DeWine campaign itself. To plagiarize the old saying: it's the pot calling the kettle--well, no it's not, since in this case neither Brown nor Newman come off as dark and obfuscatory but the PD does.