Hey, look! A disreputable paper's even more disreputable celebrity news auxiliary lifted a particularly noxious section of idiocy almost verbatim from one of Mickey's worthless posts!
Does Mickey respond with a blend of pride and annoyance?
Awesome. Here's what Mickey wrote:
Did ACORN chicanery elect Al Franken? That's the import of this tactfully phrased Minneapolis Star Tribune column.** Franken won by 312 votes. ACORN claimed to have registered 48,000 new Minnesota voters. If just 1% were ineligible but cast ballots, or had ballots cast for them illegally, and survived the recount process ... that's 480 votes, almost certainly overwhelmingly cast for Franken.
What do you suppose it was about this vibrant prose that attracted the obviously discerning editors of this prestigious journal?
- The October 2008-style conspiracy theorizing about ACORN and stolen elections?
- Mickey's obvious inability or unwillingness to distinguish between falsified voter registrations and actual voter fraud?
- How he completely ignores the thorough review of ballots and subsequent court fights that lasted for 10 months after this election?
- The way he ridiculously pulled a statistic out of thin air ("just 1%"!) to aid in his "analysis"?
- How one of his sources is an obviously insane marginal figure who has naturally become a folk hero to the please-God-let-there-be-a-military-coup crowd?
- The way Mickey walks right up to saying that Al Franken was illegitimately elected and ... doesn't ... *quite* ... say it ... ?
In any event (and the answer, for the record, is "all of the above, and did you hear that Democrats are Marxists who want to kill your grandmother?"), here's Mickey on the NYP's plagiarism:
kf Tuesday, Page Six today (Doris Kearns Goodwin style!)
You see, Mickey won't come out and angrily accuse the Post of lifting his entire story without even bothering to change Mickey's patently stupid math -- that might offend the death panel enthusiasts and hyperbolic outrage factories that have hilariously become Mickey's peers -- so he makes his accusation in the form of an out-of-the-blue cheap shot at a known liberal. Ha ... ha?
Once upon a time, Mickey had much stronger opinions on the subject:
Plagiarism's supposed to be theft, right? If it is theft, how can it be merely "careless" to cut and paste somebody else's graf into your story?
Oh, but that's when it was the New York Times ... my mistake ...