State Senate candidate Owen Hill (Republican) and Libertarian candidate Doug Randall have the exact same passage on their respective websites that apparently holds that one is a plagiarist. Now CO has history with plagiarist politicians who found their career come to a sudden end as in former candidate for Governor McInnis who lost to Tea Party upstart Maes.
The CO Springs Gazette broke the story on Saturday and has a follow up today
The quote that is on both websites is:
"America is a land where you can have almost anything – but you can’t have everything."
They also say "The United States is unparalleled in the education available to those who take refuge in our borders. We do not restrict education to social classes, to ethnic groups, or to gender."
The Gazette characterizes the story a bit tongue in cheeky...
And while it’s clear that either the two candidates were separated at birth or somebody is lying, supporters of Randall and Hill say the words are the sole creation of their candidate.
"It is Owen’s original content," Hill spokesman Chris McIntire said. "If anything, they are trying to copy us and trying to get publicity.
"I can produce plenty of documents to prove that I wrote that stuff," said Randall, a carpenter who said he’s been honing some of the political phrases since 1979.
Randall said he has filed a complaint with state campaign regulators.
"I figure a federal crime has been committed," he said.
Today's follow up story:
The campaign websites for Hill and Randall each contain extended passages on various issues — jobs, education, fiscal policy — that are almost identical. Each candidate accuses the other of stealing the words.
On Sunday, Randall provided The Gazette with printouts that he said were e-mails between him and his sister and brother. The printouts contained passages that bear a strong resemblance to those on both candidates’ sites. They were drafts of his issue statements, he said, and he passed them along to his siblings for their feedback in May and July.
Well, then, case closed, said Chris McIntire, a spokesman for the Hill campaign. The same passages have been on Hill’s website since January.
As evidence, McIntire provided The Gazette with a printout that he said was from the administration area of Hill’s site. It shows a blog post made on Jan. 11. It also shows that the post contains the three contested passages.
"That proves our point," McIntire said. "Our content has been up for all to see."
Randall insists the contested material appeared on Hill’s website only in the past week.
"They can make up what they want to," Randall said. "I know I wrote it, and the people around me know I wrote it."
Because The Gazette does not have administrative access to either candidate’s computers or websites, the printouts supplied by Randall and McIntire could not be authenticated. It’s possible to fabricate e-mails, just as it’s possible to fabricate or change the publication date of blog posts.
Sorting out the competing claims is made more complex by the fact that the Hill campaign is running separate websites that have a nearly identical appearance. However, they have different URLs and do not display the same material under the "issues" category.
Coloradopols.com has another angle on the story:
But the 'evidence' submitted by both candidates to back up their claims has problems. Randall's forwarded emails are purportedly from May and July (later than Hill asserts his issues pages were published), while Hill's 'screenshot' doesn't even show the actual copy alleged to have been plagiarized. In both cases, the Springs paper correctly notes that this soft-copy 'evidence' is easily doctored and not sufficient to prove the claims of either side: in the absence of that proof, the only thing you can be certain of is the subject line of our post.
Either way, it doesn't seem to be a "nonissue" anymore...
And yes, it's the same G.K. Chesterton quote too. The copy does diverge with some McInnis-style "variations," substituting verbs and articles and so forth, but it's obviously the same material. In short, somebody is definitely plagiarizing somebody else here. Hill's spokesman claims it's his original writing, and says Hill's site has been "up forever;" but amazingly, then pronounces the whole affair a "nonissue" in true Sean Duffy style.
It's the nonchalant reaction by Hill's campaign that really sets off alarm bells. There is no question that significant plagiarism occurred--one of these candidates deliberately stole the verbatim words of the other. Randall says it wasn't him and seems genuinely angry about the alleged theft. Now, if Hill's campaign was certain they were in the clear, meaning they knew they had been victimized as opposed to having committed plagiarism...well, would you call it a "nonissue?" After watching the GOP gubernatorial frontrunner implode over plagiarism, would you be so casual about this?
Of course not. You'd be shouting from the rooftops that you had been defrauded by one of your own opponents. You'd be calling the newspapers and demanding an apology, and you'd be filing complaints with every oversight authority that remotely applies.
Meaning you'd be doing what Doug Randall is doing.
All this is positive for John Morse, the Dem incumbent State Senator.