Plumber's Helper

Barak Obama walked into a neighborhood and a plumber asked him a tough question about taxes and small businesses. The next thing we know, Joe, the plumber, is the object of greater scrutiny than the candidate.

We on the right have been complaining as though in a vacuum at the media's jealous protection of their messianic presidential candidate. This example shows the level to which the media will go to attack anyone who asks the forbidden questions. Let's take this exchange between Fox's Alan Colmes and Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics-

COLMES:...You've got the head of his local union saying he's not licensed, he didn't take training, and he shouldn't be calling himself a plumber. That's the head of his union there, not anybody in a political campaign.
( Funny, that the union of which Joe is a member would take up the Democrat line and say Joe's not a plumber...)
BEVAN: But Alan, that's not necessarily the issue. And the idea that the McCain campaign would have to vet a private citizen for asking questions is somewhat ridiculous.

And now you've got a situation where you've got John McCain out there defending this guy, who happens to be a working class guy from Ohio. He may not be a swing voter. He may be, you know, a conservative, but that's not the issue. The atmospherics of it are, that you've got McCain defending those kind of voters, and Obama's now kind of mocking them or making fun of them.

Have you always paid all your taxes when times were very tough or you had to deal with tragedy, illness, or divorce?
Are all your professional ducks in order so that Democrats will think you're worthy of a voice in American politics?
Does a lifetime of hard work count for anything or should a government certificate be your ticket to mattering in politics?
Are you a perfect person?
You're not!?!

Sounds to me like Democrats are saying to someone like you "Who the hell do you think you are?"

But what of Joe's question? Joe is expressing an anxiety I hear of a lot in small businesses. The burdens of regulation and taxation fall especially heavily on start-ups and businesses with fewer than 25 employees. One thing weighing especially heavily is the burden on hope represented by those increases Obama plans to place on upper incomes. This is one of the reasons polling of entreprenerus indicates that most, 56%, disapprove of Obama, with the largest percentage, 46%, thinking of him VERY unfavorably.

So, what could this mean? Most new jobs, 60-80% depending on the survey, are generated in small businesses. If these people feel hard work and success will be punished by laying the burdens of Obama's giving of other's money to make the world a fairer place on them, why should they take the tremendous risks that come of becoming an employer?

Democrat strategists constantly tell us that "Perception is reality". If the people who generate the jobs in America perceive that their risk places the burden of Obama's dreams on their shoulders they will wait for a better deal.

That will be bad for us all.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at October 21, 2008 10:54 AM
Comment #267700

That poll you cited also gave McCain a 52% unfavorable rating only 4 points lower than Obama. While it is true that his “very unfavorable” was 19 points higher than McCain’s, his “very favorable” was 17 points higher than McCain’s. The only real conclusions from this poll are that Obama is a more polarizing figure than McCain and that entrepreneurs don’t like either one.

While I agree that digging into Joe the Plumber’s life they way the media did was a little much and beside the point of the question. But so was John McCain’s use of him as a wedge. McCain fed into this check by propping this guy up as an example. Joe didn’t help himself either by inserting himself into the campaign and holding press conferences afterward. I haven’t seen anything from the Obama campaign discrediting this guy it has all come from the media as far as I know. Joe wanted his 15 minutes of fame and he got it along with his 15 minutes of scrutiny.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #267703


We live in an age of extended surrogacy (That word came to me this morning and I confess I couldn’t wait to use it…) where everyone, but especially Obama wants everything everyone, including “Gaffy” Biden, says of his campaign to be plausably deniable.

The media is a part of his campaign. Period.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2008 11:29 AM
Comment #267709

Obama did not ridicule Joe the Plumber…he ridiculed mccain for pretending to be concerned about Joe the Plumber…under Obama’s plan, Joe would actually pay less taxes, so the whole thing is moot.

The media is not the media, so your position that they swing left is as much of a joke as my position that they swing right. The media is a nonentity. News no longer exists.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 21, 2008 11:47 AM
Comment #267716

Lee - I do know that politicians put pressure on the media to investigate things and that the extended surrogacy (btw - love the term) is pretty powerful but I haven’t seen it in JTP’s case. It’s usually pretty obvious because the media starts using the language of the campaigns when discussing the issue. I think JTPs instance was that a guy from no where is suddenly being propped up by McCain as “everyman” so curiousity took over. It probably started here in the blogosphere but since some things surfaced about him the MSM jumped on the bandwagon.

If the media is part of Obama’s campaign, is Fox News part of McCain’s? When they say something racist about Obama is it, in part, McCain’s doing?

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 12:11 PM
Comment #267719

That’ll teach that no account plumber to ask the lefts fair haired boy hard questions. Just who does he think he is anyway?
Joe the Plumber only did what a lot of other folks would like to do. And for that the media and the rest of the left is ostracizing him for it. Bet they wouldn’t be all over him if he’d asked McCain those questions. Hell they’d be making him the poster child for the Obama campaign.
I just wish I could have the opportunity to ask Obama those questions. And for that matter I’d love to ask McCain the very same questions.
These are the kind of questions every candidate should have to answer. And if the media won’t ask them, then it’s up to the voters to ask them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 21, 2008 12:28 PM
Comment #267722

It is beyond ironic that the poster child for McCain’s plea to the middle class is a guy who would have a better chance of saving to buy a business (that is way out of his league)under Obama. McCain should trot out a poor hedge fund manager making a hundred million.

One more thing, are you defending his not paying his taxes? Did Obama put him in the spotlight? If it’s patriotic not to pay taxes how do we pay for body armor for soldiers?

Posted by: Schwamp at October 21, 2008 12:43 PM
Comment #267727

The questions were going to come down the line. Was Joe his real name? Was he a registered voter? If so, for what party? How much did he make? And, yes, was he really a plumber! These are reasonable questions for the media and bloggers to ask about a guy who was so repeatedly used by McCain to represent an everyday fellow trying to start a business.

McCain invited this invasion of privacy upon this man, made the question of his real character and political inclinations a public matter.

McCain was careless with this man’s life. He could have been mentioned anonymously, or just one time, alongside a cast of other working class folks. Instead, McCain made him a focus, even to the point of making his name a punchline.

Ideally, we could simply trust that McCain was being truthful, but after all these years of lying politicians, folks were going to be rather curious to see whether McCain was being honest, and so they went out and verified what they could of the story.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2008 12:59 PM
Comment #267731


I just sent in my taxes and currently have less than a thousand dollars in my bank account as a result. I’m not at all prone to accept your characterization of “patriotism”. Patriotism is Congress not spending our money to buy our votes, thank you.

Joe Wurzelbacher appears to have had problems which are common to divorced fathers (Divorce is the most common cause of bankruptcy.) and, as a result is currently paying back taxes. Life is hard for those who want to live above the social limits imposed by those who would have us be dependent.

But they are after him because he forgot his “place”, not because he has problems paying his taxes or getting certified.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2008 1:15 PM
Comment #267733

Is this really an issue here? McCain promises more payments to the war profiteers. Obama promises more money to the middle class. More people are in the middle class than are connected to the war machine. Other Govt. organizations will distribute the U.S’s money out to citizens who are struggling. This is the issue that really hits close to home for most of us. We don’t want the war to rage on until the profiteers say they have drained our accounts to their liking and we want to get money back at the end of the year. Who cares what entrepreneurs say they want? Entrepreneurs and their employees. Sure, great, McCain got the slight majority of a minority to say they back him. Is this news or is this subtle boasting? Union workers are losing their benefits, the middle class is becoming poorer, the wealthy are getting wealthier. There is a larger divide between the classes than ever before and what we worry about is the plumber? How is this anything more than propaganda? McCain’s plan is to maintain what Bush has started. Nobody wants more bush, except those die-hard republicans. He would not of been President if we had a proper “direct democracy”. The American people were cheated out of their choice two elections in a row. I can’t see how it could happen again. Give me a break, we have McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. At the end of the day we still have two candidates that don’t have any idea of how things are going to be once they have control of the ship. We are witnessing posturing by both candidates, on subjects which will need to be dealt with on a moment to moment basis. Their spending plans are plans, which are subject to change. I want to know how we can ensure we get a fair election. I want to know why we have to have a “winner takes all” electoral college and why the rest of the states can’t be like Maine and Nebraska. Why can’t we use auditable election devices run by an “impartial” third party. Don’t you think issues such as this are just as important? I mean if we have the person we voted for in charge then the majority would not be crying so loudly for a change. If you are wondering why, “We on the right have been complaining as though in a vacuum at the media’s jealous protection of their messianic presidential candidate.” Well the answer to that question is, because you are, and have been, the minority for the past 8 years. You are just like every other private interest minority group in America that get’s their way. No more, you will not fool the rest of America into thinking the Republicans are in this for anyone but warmongers. Cheney, that is all I have to say. What purpose does it serve the average person in America to vote for the Republicans? Tell me where the benefit comes in? Oh, they get to work for some private employer who pays them minimum wage with the promise of growth and poor health care, if any, along with a privatized retirement plan. Yeah, because the average product of our education system understands how to budget money and save for the future. The Plumber? He should strengthen the unions and vote Democrat. I don’t know what union gets stronger when the Republicans are in office. If you can think of one, anyone, please let me know. The issues are health care, and money in the pocket of the majority of Americans and soldiers coming home safe, not the views of 52% of the entrepreneurs polled on a particular topic. These Republicans think we are all dumb and will just follow whatever they say because that put things, “as a matter of fact”, they only have the facts that they have created, just like the left.

Posted by: chad at October 21, 2008 1:18 PM
Comment #267735

When I said, “The issues are health care, and money in the pocket of the majority of Americans and soldiers coming home safe, not the views of 52% of the entrepreneurs polled on a particular topic.”, I meant 56%.

Posted by: chad at October 21, 2008 1:26 PM
Comment #267738

The only “reasonable question” was the one posed by Joe and since “spread the wealth” was such a terrible foot in mouth response, the left did what they had to do to take the focus off the response, so they placed it on Joe.

Blaming this all on McCain instead of defending stealing from one and giving to another, shows you just how confident Dems are about this being the belief held by the majority of voters.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #267745

Joe “the plumber” will be mccain’s downfall.
Joe has said that he does not believe in the IRS and that the distribution of wealth is socialism.
I have news for Joe “the plumber”:
mccain is the biggest recipient of the IRS’s socialist distribution of wealth.
His campaign is being run exclusively with funding from taxpayers monies garnered through an income tax by the IRS.
$85,000,000 million dollars of a socialist welfare handout: to be exact.
mccain said that the “spreading of wealth”is a tenant of socialism.
That means that he is the biggest recipient of socialism in the U.S.
mccain has said that Obama would “convert the IRS into a giant welfare system that would benefit politicians.”
He seems to be conveniently overlooking the IRS’s giant welfare handout, $85,000,000 million dollars, of taxpayers’ monies to his campaign.
sarah palin said that:
“taking money from small businesses and hardworking families according to a politician’s priorities is socialism.”
If that’s true, then both her, mccain, mccain’s campaign directors and advisors: Rick Davis, Steve Schmith, Nancy Photenhaur, Carly Fiorina, and all his paid staff and surrogates, are recipients and participants in a socialist distribution of wealth program entitled campaign financing. Or, in simple terms, they are socialists.
Or, in other words, an $85,000,000, socialist giant welfare handout for mccain’s campaign.
Or, to put it bluntly, mccain is running a socialist campaign.
Obama refused to participate in that socialist giant “spreading of the wealth” and in doing so has saved small businesses and hardworking families $85,000,000 million dollars of their hard earned monies.
Think about it:
How many Joe”the plumber” small businesses could have been financed to produce much needed jobs with that $85,000,000 giant socialist welfare handout to mccain’s campaign.
How many families could have avoided foreclosure with that $85,000,000 giant socialist welfare handout to mccain’s campaign.
How many families could have been insured with a health care insurance with that $85,000,000 giant socialist welfare handout to mccain’s campaign.
Holding mccain, sarah palin, and all his campaign staff to their own definition of socialiam, makes them all socialists.

Posted by: Steve Johnson at October 21, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #267751

If the IRS comes after you for not paying taxes, give that retort a try: “Do you think you’re a perfect person?” I’m sure they’ll be very understanding.

GOP concern for job creaton among small businesses would be touching if it weren’t about eight years too late. I’ve been going on about job creation for years, and the disastrous consequences of the Republican agenda. Now we’re living with the consequences of a failure to create jobs.

McCain is running a confusing, uncoordinated campaign. It’s hard to make heads or tails of the campaign, because mostly it seems to consist of name calling and lunging in random directions, or putting a proxy in the public limelight without vetting. The whole ridiculous ‘Joe the Plumber’ is an example. McCain chose to put Joe- er, I mean, Sam- in the limelight. Joe- er, I mean, Sam- a registered Republican, chose to buttonhole Obama at a Democratic rally and claim he had a thorough understanding of Obama’s tax plan- which he did not- and that he would pay more in taxes under that plan- which may or may not have been true. Worse, the guy’s unlicensed, and owes back taxes. This is the guy McCain CHOOSES to bring up in the third and most important debate of his life.

Is it “Americanism” or just “stupidism”? It’s like the worst nightmare of the Founding Fathers coming true right before our eyes. Now McCain and Palin are tossing around an accusation of “socialism.” This in the immediate aftermath of the quasi-nationalization of the financial sector? Huh? Does anybody know what McCain and Palin are even talking about anymore?

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2008 2:22 PM
Comment #267756

Now, wait a minute. Democrats gave us this taxpayer financing system, and plugged it for years. What should disappoint them more, then, Obama’s PROMISE to fund his campaign with the system, or his repudiation of his own promise?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2008 2:36 PM
Comment #267762

What does any of this matter, we all know the the ‘Real America’ already knows the truth that a Palin/McCain administration is inherently good, while the Muslim/Scrantonian admin. is inherently evil. And we ALL know how REAL americans are going to vote, because they are real and jingoists.

I can’t wait to get back to the ‘my american flag pin is bigger than yours’ fight that the real americans always talk about.

I bet real americans capitalize america and americans, so I am now a terrorist and fake american.

Posted by: angrymob at October 21, 2008 2:45 PM
Comment #267763

I don’t think that the MSM or Obama’s campaign are after him because he forgot his place - they are after him because John McCain won’t stop talking about him. The Obama campaign didn’t say anything about JtP before McCain started bashing him with this guy. If any politician is to blame it is McCain for using him. Any time that happens the press is going to dig into it, that is what they do - or at least what they are supposed to do.

Other than that, JtP should have known what interjecting himself into the news was going to do. He was a McCain supporter out to confront Obama and he did and he made a good enough of an impression that McCain used him. In that sense JtP brought it on himself.

Obama didn’t use good word selection with the share the wealth comment and has been hit with the “socialist” label ever since. I don’t think anyone is buying it as McCain is still sinking in the polls. Gallup has Obama up 51-44 among likely voters - the same poll the MSM was citing a few days ago as a sign of the race tightening when it was 49-47. The Powell endorsement seems to be paying off and the negative attacks and robo-calls don’t seem to be cutting through.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #267764

If we’re going to get our economy moving again, we will need to put more money into the hands of the middle class. If they have no buying power, there will be no businesses to service them. Bush admits as much every time he sends a check in the mail (at a wasteful expense) to revitalize the economy.

We are out of balance, with too much money in the hands of the rich, and not enough in the hands of the middle class. Obama’s plan is about fairness and implementing common sense policies for restoring our economy, which is in everyone’s interests.

In all honesty though, neither candidate’s proposals include the kind of taxation necessary to restore our economy. This country is still living in a fiscal la la land. You have a new Works Progress Administration to look forward to, and you can thank Republicans. That’s the truth.

Posted by: Max at October 21, 2008 2:51 PM
Comment #267778

Lee Jamison-

Comment #267013
I feel sorry for Joe Wurzelbacher, because McCain turned him into a punch line.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2008 11:24 PM

That was what I said immediately after the debates, what I thought.

Joe didn’t do anything wrong to get into this situation. What happen was the inevitable mechanics of a prominent candidate for president making his thoughts, his status, his person a political issue.

Typical people don’t live their lives with that kind of circumspect attention to potential vetting problems.

McCain should have been more careful about putting Joe so prominently in the media spotlight. Candidates in general should take great care when they put people like that on the political stage.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2008 3:58 PM
Comment #267779

I just wanna dance like Sammy Davis, Jr.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 21, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #267784

Lee Jamison-
With that in mind, how is it that your side justifies this? It’s one thing for the media to examine the life of an grown adult mentioned in a debate that went out on national televsion, but I don’t know how your people justified the kind of hateful, malicious smear campaign going after a seventh grader.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2008 4:13 PM
Comment #267786

The sad fact is the insensitive McCain campaign is responsible for Mr. Plumber being in this humiliating and shameful position of exposed con man. Although Mr. Plumber may think twice next time before he decides to deceptively tell the Democratic presidential candidate that his proposed tax plan is causing Mr. Plumber to not be able to buy a business. Although the self serving Mr Plumber sensationalized his story to a national audience it would have been dropped that day had the hypocritical McCain not decided to take advantage of this guy in an attempt to save his collapsing campaign. Yet once McCain did decide to use this ideologically driven man to further his selfish schemes the journalist and media outlets did their job and vetted the guy’s manipulative story.

Nothing messianic about that. Perhaps because Obama had the wisdom to not belabor the man’s misconceptions in front of the media, made him to appear messianic in nature but that would be your viewpoint not the media’s viewpoint of Obama right? After all the media just needed some “news” to sell and Obama didn’t exactly help the media out like McCain did.

Much to the dismay of the McCain campaign as it turned out, the American people found McCains radical friend Mr. Plumber to be just another conservative blowing smoke in a failed and dishonest attempt to make the opposition look bad. If Mr. Plumber had been truthful and his assertions correct then his back taxes and whether he was licensed or not would not have been the issue. His overstated prospects of actually buying the business he claims to be buying is what makes the 2 issues relevant.

To blame the media for doing it’s job is such a republican thing to do. It is always somebody else with you guys when your tactics embarrass you, never your fault, why is that?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 21, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #267788


That is a very skillful, subtle twist on the issue. Quietly express a soft condescension for the subject of the media scrutiny as the natural result of his having been led, sheeplike, by John McCain, the Judas goat, to slaughter.

Joe has been taking this like a man, though, accepting the vicious attacks of the extended Obama surrogacy as he stayed before the country of his own accord. He is, you see, a former military man who knows people sometimes have to suffer to win a fight, even if they must go in to it knowing full well they have weaknesses.

He also knows what we know; his weaknesses are not McCain’s weaknesses. His weaknesses are not relevant at all to McCain’s candidacy. They are simply a magnifying glass for the evils that will be done ‘we the people’ more and more often if people of courage do not stand up and reveal the contempt with which the public is regarded by the power elite.

Stephen if we take this as you suggest we will lie down before those who would intimidate us into subservience. Hell no.

Joe Wurzelbacher is showing us how to resist tyrrany. Whatever mistakes he may have made, whatever weaknesses he may have, Joe the Plumber is every inch of him a MAN.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2008 4:31 PM
Comment #267794
Obama’s PROMISE to fund his campaign with the system, or his repudiation of his own promise?

You can quit with that bulls**t comment, too. It’s old, over-used and not the whole, true story.

Posted by: janedoe at October 21, 2008 4:56 PM
Comment #267799

Your MAN is not named ‘Joe.’ His name is Samuel. He misrepresented himself. Samuel was a low information voter and a liar and he got caught, but only because McCain and Palin directed so much attention his way, as a method of attacking Obama. Too bad. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving political party, though.

Is Palin ever going to be allowed to address the public without reading a script written by someone else, or restricting her interviews to answering the questions of a fawning, toadying syncophant like Sean Hannity? Just wondering. ‘Cause there are a lot tougher people than Katie Couric out there.

Obama has received a flood of endorsements. Sheesh, even Neocon Ken Adelman is endorsing Obama. There are three common threads to the overwhelming number of endorsements:
1) Obama is cool, calm and collected under pressure. He gives every indication of being able to succeed as president, and exceed expectations.
2) McCain has run an incompetent, dirty, campaign. He shows poor judgment, and he cannot run his own organization.
3) Palin is not ready to be president, and that choice reflects poorly on McCain.

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2008 5:17 PM
Comment #267800


This is what happens to people who stand up and try to make the high-investment powerful answer to their true employers. People who have a lot invested in those powerful people seek to make an example of them, humiliate them, PUT THEM IN THEIR PLACE. In short they do anything to deflect from the real issue.

Thank you for drawing out the illustration for us.

Posted by: LeeJamison at October 21, 2008 5:29 PM
Comment #267801

McCain is the person that injected “Joe the plumber” into the race. To say that the media dove too deeply into his background is ridiculous. Every person involved in this race has been scrutinized. I personally think Obama has been more scrutinized more than anyone else. He’s not scrutinized as much now because the media is always looking for the next juicy story and Obama’s news is old news. I find it rather interesting that when anyone from McCain’s camp is scrutinized, instead of defending the attacks with facts, the media is blamed for tattle-tailing.

Posted by: Janine at October 21, 2008 5:34 PM
Comment #267802

I know a number of people, phx8, who go by their middle names. My own brother is one of them. There are others who seem to fly from theirs, or who, for some reason take even the mention of it as a slur.

Do you know any of those people?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #267803

I understood his name to be Samuuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, and he goes by the name of “Joe”. Is it illegal to go by your middle name?

I don’t believe he will have to worry about making too much money or paying any taxes. As a result of asking BHO a simple question, the BHO KGB have taken care of Joe. The AFL-CIO went after “Joe” and shut him down. He cannot find work in Toledo. The KGB probably threatened his employer.

Joe said he did not have a plumbing license and I do not know about plumbers, but if you are an electrician, in Ohio, you do not have to have a license if your employer is licensed. And this includes union electricains.

BHO is not cool and calm; he is cold and calculating. He can look directly into the eyes of whoever he happens to be talking to, at the time, and lie. He would do or say anything to get elected.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 21, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment #267804

Good point Lee:)

Posted by: Oldguy at October 21, 2008 5:51 PM
Comment #267807

“McCain is the person that injected “Joe the plumber” into the race. To say that the media dove too deeply into his background is ridiculous. Every person involved in this race has been scrutinized. I personally think Obama has been more scrutinized more than anyone else. He’s not scrutinized as much now because the media is always looking for the next juicy story and Obama’s news is old news. I find it rather interesting that when anyone from McCain’s camp is scrutinized, instead of defending the attacks with facts, the media is blamed for tattle-tailing.

Posted by: Janine at October 21, 2008 05:34 PM”

Where to begin?

1. McCain wasn’t present when Joe asked BHO the question and I don’t believe it was a McCain reporter who happened to catch it on video.

2. No media except for Fox News and conservative radio, said anything about Biden’s latest gaff.

3. Therefore: if anyone was to know about BHO’s desire to “share the wealth” of all the “Joe’s” of the country, then it was up to McCain’s people to put it out.

So you think BHO has been more scrutinized than anyone else in this campaign. Perhaps you could link us to the NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC news reports that cover Ayers, Rev. Wright, Acorn, Chicago Politics, late term abortion votes, connection with Farrakhan, votes on raising taxes when he says he voted to lower taxes, and in fact show me a link that says anything against BHO.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 21, 2008 6:07 PM
Comment #267808

John McCain is the one who put the spotlight on “Joe the Plumber.” He used him as an example of type of person who would be disadvanged by Obama’s tax plan. So, why should it surprise anyone that the media would investigate Joe’s actual circumstances?

The media investigations revealed that Joe isn’t even a licensed plumber, is not in a position to purchase the plumbing business he works for, and even if he did, the business would not put him at a tax disadvantage under Obama’s plan. Those facts are not relevant? To me, it says a lot.

Posted by: Rich at October 21, 2008 6:26 PM
Comment #267809

Glad to provide illustrations. The “real issue” when it comes to job creation is creating a healthy economy. During the Clinton years, a higher tax rate was in place, yet a healthy economy created over 22 million jobs. During the Bush years, a lower tax rate was in place, yet an ailing economy created 5 million jobs (to date- the number is declining).

Joe- er, I mean, Sam the Plumber went to a Democratic rally and approached Obama. There’s nothing wrong with a citizen confronting politician. More often than not, it’s a good thing. (Crashing an opposition’s rally might not be the best time for a confrontation, but what the hey). Expressing a positive or negative emotion is fine. Asking an informed, pointed question is fine too. However, if a citizen wants to publicly pick a bone with a politician, they had better not lie, and pretend to be something which they are not, or pretend to be informed about a topic when they clearly know nothing.

The whole “Joe the Plumber” issue is typical of the McCain campaign. It’s a perfect example of concentrating on the wrong issue and the wrong people.

Hey, McCain wanted to privatize social security, and turn its management over to Wall Street, same as Bush. How’s that program coming along?

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2008 6:29 PM
Comment #267810


Crashed a “rally” you say? Seems to me this is something Alan Colmes would vet-

WURZELBACHER: No. I don’t think it’s really funny. I mean, you know, he just trying to take — trying — you know the fact that — well, the issues, I mean he just wants to, you know, take the attention off the issues and kind of play with me, and that way he doesn’t have to explain anything.
HANNITY: For the — for the record, you were playing football with your son. You didn’t go to an Obama rally. He walked down your street.
HANNITY: Take us from there. What happened?
WURZELBACHER: Just — yes, like you said. I was tossing the football with my son, he’s walking down the street — I’m sorry, he’s canvassing the neighborhood, going back and forth, and he’s getting closer and closer, and you know, it actually irritated me.
I didn’t really want to talk with him, you know? I wanted to toss football with my son.

Pretending something one is not- as in being informed?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2008 6:44 PM
Comment #267811

You’re not getting it. Trotting out the same character attacks that were launched and rebutted earlier this year, and demanding they be discussed yet again turns virtually everyone off. You’re even losing fellow Republicans like Colin Powell and Ken Adelman, fer cryin’ out loud.

Biden’s latest gaffe? You mean the suggestion that as a new president, Obama will be tested in the first six months with an incident manufactured by a foreign power, and that Obama will pass the test? Do you really want to see that covered by the MSM? (Shrug). Ok.

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #267818

Where to begin?

1. McCain wasn’t present when Joe asked BHO the question and I don’t believe it was a McCain reporter who happened to catch it on video.

2. No media except for Fox News and conservative radio, said anything about Biden’s latest gaff.

3. Therefore: if anyone was to know about BHO’s desire to “share the wealth” of all the “Joe’s” of the country, then it was up to McCain’s people to put it out.

So you think BHO has been more scrutinized than anyone else in this campaign. Perhaps you could link us to the NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC news reports that cover Ayers, Rev. Wright, Acorn, Chicago Politics, late term abortion votes, connection with Farrakhan, votes on raising taxes when he says he voted to lower taxes, and in fact show me a link that says anything against BHO.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 21, 2008 06:07 PM

McCain is the one who brought him up in the last debate. McCain would have to be stupid not to think that this man who he called by name would not be investigated.

All of the issues you brought up Ayers, Reverend Wright has been brought up by the media. Google it. Oh and Biden’s gaffe? I read about it on CNN.
And while you’re at it google McCain and his associations. Charles Keating, G Gordon Liddy. His voting record on veterans affairs.

Posted by: Janine at October 21, 2008 8:29 PM
Comment #267823


That Joe has been ravaged in this way is beside the point. He raised a legitimate issue the MSM and the Obama campaign have sought to obsure by impeaching him as a person.
In doing so they have raised a second issue entirely unrelated to Joe’s character, veracity, or even his right to earn a living in Ohio.

Joe is one of the legitimate owners of this country, a citizen authorized to vote in the state of Ohio, and his questions are, by no more authority than that, completely legitimate questions. What is being done to him is a form of terrorism on the part of people trying to get Barak Obama a JOB as one of Joe the Plumber’s employees.

I believe in standing up to terrorists, even when they report the news.

The Ayres issue is not about Ayers’s right to express his own opinions, which he has been free to do, quite loudly, in the years since he and his wife attempted to kill innocent people. On the other hand that is exactly what the press is trying to squelch in the case of Joe Wurzelbacher.

The issues about McCain are perfectly right to raise, and they are among the reasons I strongly opposed his candidacy in the primaries.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2008 9:03 PM
Comment #267828

Lee Jamison-
Mister, I was having trouble not laughing by his twentieth mention because “Joe the Plumber” is a silly sounding name when repeated incessantly. I used his full name as a sign of respect, because calling him Joe the Plumber just seemed cruel to me.

I don’t think McCain intended to do this to him, but accidentally backing over somebody doesn’t necessarily leave a person less injured than if you intended to leave the tireprints on their back.

His weaknesses as an example reflect on McCain’s weakness in either doing his research on the man, or being honest with voters.

McCain tried to portray him as being independent or at least undecided. The Man’s a Republican, and more than that, donated to McCain.

McCain tried to make him into an everyman. You’re even now trying to make him into a martyr. But the only reason his private affairs are being spread out for all to see, is that McCain maded a damn celebrity out of him.

He didn’t deserve this kind of attention, but that’s what you’re going to get when a Presidential candidate chooses to make you into the centerpiece of the debate, a household name. Go to a supermarket checkout line and see what happens to celebrities of any kind nowadays.

A BHO KGB? Personally, I would prefer to admit that my candidate didn’t research the background of his everyman all that well, rather than make myself look silly by imagining the other candidate sent around a bunch of Low Men in Yellow Coats.

As for coverage? Let me be plain with you: there is this site called google. They aren’t hiding this stuff in a vault somewhere. Don’t come to a debated half-informed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2008 9:33 PM
Comment #267831

You’re correct, Obama was canvassing a neighborhood (in the midst of a large group of supporters), not holding a rally.

Media terrorism? Oh puh-lease.

Seriously, does the GOP have anything positive to say? Anything positive to offer?


Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2008 9:46 PM
Comment #267840


“All of the issues you brought up Ayers, Reverend Wright has been brought up by the media. Google it. Oh and Biden’s gaffe? I read about it on CNN.”

I googled CNN and found nothing about Biden’s gaff. There were some older gaffs, but nothing about the test BHO will go through in 6 months if elected. Perhaps you can link me to it. I can attach a link from the Weekly Standard that says NBC is protecting BHO from Biden’s gaff:

It actually surprises me that Joe Scarborough would give more info than the NBC broadcast.


I am able to google information, but my point was, the media protects BHO by saying nothing.

The BHO KGB is the same group of 30+ lawyers sent to AK to find dirt on Palin.

Most people don’t feel the same way as the left about Joe the Plumber. Most working people identify with him and when he is attacked, they sympathize with him. The same as they do with Sarah Palin.

Do you have any thoughts about Joe not being able to work now, because he was shut down by the Plumber’s union.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 21, 2008 10:47 PM
Comment #267846

First, Joe was working under his boss license, and this is legal; he was planning take his boss’s business, i think that’s OK to ask Obama the question of Tax’s plan. Senator McCain use Joe to explore the lie of Obama tax plan from bottom to top: 40% of people don’t pay income tax at all, Obama’s tax plan sounds like Communism to me! Overall, Joe has no problem all bias medias smearing him, however, he said,”my question Obama still hasn’t answer yet!”
I am republican and i don’t care Colin Powell that much, he is a loser and liar in the Iraq War anyways. Therefore, Colin Powell just represent another 4 years of Bush from Obama’ Presidency. Obots alreayd forgot who was lying about the chemical weapon in front of UN: Colin Powell, who totally went for the Iraq war: Colin Powell. Wow, suddenly he is the hero for Obama?

Posted by: szesze at October 22, 2008 12:07 AM
Comment #267847

Is it ‘open shop’?

Why isn’t Joe in the union?

If that many folks have been taken in by this brouhaha put out there by mcain, inc., why is he still so far behind?

If Palin has hoodwinked so many people into sympathizing with her, why isn’t it showing up in her positive numbers?

Too many questions…not enough answers…

Frankly, I think mccain has proven to be such a poor organizer and dishonorable campaigner that they’d just like him to fade into the woodwork.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2008 12:09 AM
Comment #267848

John McCain is an embarrassment to thinking Americans.

Even if, by some fluke, he should win this election, before the end of his first term, he will have embarrassed America more.

Eventually he will have, like Cheney/Bush, become a permanent embarrassment to all Americans, including those on the right of right.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2008 12:16 AM
Comment #267851

Nothing wrong with using an individual to make a point. It’s done all the time on both sides of the fence. You lefties got it wrong and bad. But you’ll be defending your guy when he does it, won’t you (say, “YES.”)

I’ve been asking everyday people everywhere this question: “When your candidate becomes president what one thing will he do that no one else in his party would do in his position?” McCain voters know the answer. Obama voters get a blank expression and become speechless. Obama is a man
unknown by most everyday people I meet. Joe the plummer knows the answer!

Posted by: Don at October 22, 2008 12:41 AM
Comment #267853


I WATCHED and listened to the biden gaff on CNN, sorry there is no link to the television for me to give you.

here is something on Ayers:

which highlights the radical types of educational programs that Ayers was making that focus on the United Nations as a model and also African-American studies. To me, that stuff is ‘far-out’ but not radical.

Hey, since the Annenberg Foundation gave Ayers money, and they are also a major supporter of NPR, does that mean that NPR is a terrorist cell. A sleeper cell that puts teenagers to sleep. ScArY!

Posted by: angrymob at October 22, 2008 1:22 AM
Comment #267854

“Are all your professional ducks in order so that Democrats will think you’re worthy of a voice in American politics?”

This is such bull… I am a substance abuse counselor and I NEVER say that I am a psychologist. Do you know why??? Because I’m not licensed!

What’s today’s lesson, don’t claim an occupation if you are not trained or licensed for it. It is that easy to not be an unethical idiot.

Posted by: armyant at October 22, 2008 1:30 AM
Comment #267857

My brother is a State building inspector in Ohio….and Joe the plumber doesn’t need a license if he’s working for a licensed business.
Samuel Joseph made his own bed… he’s sleeping in it, but he shouldn’t be suffering from many nightmares.
He looks like a big, healthy man, and could very well have denied the reporters access…..he didn’t….so whose fault is it really?????? I think he was enjoying the attention for a while, anyway.
Dude, did you see today where Palin was answering quesions from school kids, and was asked what the job of Vice President is????
The woman STILL does not know…has not read, asked or learned anything about the position she seeks to hold. She really thinks that the VP works as an organizer with the Senate and helps them to bring issues to fruition and they just do all kinds of things that she can’t wait to start doing. Are there really people who think that this is okay???????

Posted by: janedoe at October 22, 2008 2:42 AM
Comment #267865

Just received this message in an e-mail…..

‘On television today a Democratic operative pointed out that when Obama
holds a rally 25,000-30,000 people show up, whereas when McCain holds
one he only draws 10,000-15,000. The Republican spokesman replied,
‘That’s because McCain’s supporters are at work.”

Posted by: Dawn at October 22, 2008 7:43 AM
Comment #267866

Biden’s gaffe was an example of inartful communication. Put plainly, he’s right: they will test the new president. Will the president simply react, then tack the other direction, or will that President keep his cool, keep his thoughts close to the vest, and approach things in novel ways?

But I guess you want somebody whose gaffes are truly stupid, not just politically unwise. I mean, I thought you guys were supposed to be strict constructionist, and here’s Sarah Palin adding responsibilities to the VP office that the constitution doesn’t give it! It doesn’t get better if you remember her advocacy of Cheney’s VP framework.

On the subject of Google:How about this? it’s from May 1st

Or This, from the middle of March.

or this, from the end of March

Just the tip of the iceberg. I remember when you couldn’t throw a rock at a bank of televisions without hitting a story critical of some part of Obama’s life. The reason the media isn’t that warm to following the stories too much is that it pretty much is old news, and was rehashed to death in the primaries. Ayers gets slightly more play than the other stories than that.

The trick is, you folks are just going negative. But your negatives are very strong at the moment. People aren’t mad at the Democrats, they’re mad at you, and you’re pointing at Democrats, trying to shove everything off on them. And the American people simply aren’t getting less mad at you.

As for this BHO KGB thing, I think that thirty lawyers thing was debunked. But you know, if you folks did your job with her, you wouldn’t have had much to worry about. There is a tactical reason that you vet a running mate, so that you both avoid the worse choices, and know about any unavoidable problems immediately, and can start formulating defenses.

Joe, I don’t know whether he’s unable to work. If what the others say is true, then he’s still able to work. I think you’re just jumping to a conveniently horrible conclusion on the basis of your thought that we Democrats are just evil villains. But if a license was required, this was a faultline ready to slip, the moment attention was paid. If that’s the case, then it could have been a problematic job that drew the attention. But if he can work under somebody else without that license, it’s immaterial.

McCain used Joe to try and appeal to working class folks, but Obama was able to use Joe to lay out the real details of his plan, so it didn’t do much good.

Obama’s tax plan sets taxes at Ronald Reagan’s levels. So is Ronnie a commie? That’s the silliness of this attack. You can talk about media bias, but what about your bias getting in the way?

If Colin Powell was made into a liar by the Iraq War, it was only because he felt that it was duty to do what his President wanted him to do. He was one of the few people who opposed the war within the administration, one of the few people who really considered what was going on, and one of the few people to admit how badly things got screwed up.

But I guess admitting the truth doesn’t make you a hero in the Republican party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2008 8:11 AM
Comment #267868


If Obama wins what I have said here will be part of the authority I can cite in the campaign in future elctions to take advantage of his failures. What you call negatives are statements of principled positions and how they compare with the actions of the Obama campaign and their media partners.

Obama will shrink the economic pie, will threaten American businesses, will seek to blame Republicans even when we have no power to influence policy, and will weaken us in every field of endevor.

He will be our best spokesman in 2012.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 22, 2008 8:54 AM
Comment #267871

I don’t see Obama starting off As being Hard line, Clinton Did somewhat and it helped bring the republicans back in the house, I Believe To start he will take a more centrist approach, Just from observation and from the get go I’ve seen him ally himself with a cast of people that worked with Clinton and other Top Professionals That the folks feel comfortable with , Unlike McCain who started off with Phil Gramm and other very conservative folks, Clearly Obama Has out Witted McCain from the very beginning and continues too.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 22, 2008 10:26 AM
Comment #267874


I read the links you posted and although much is said about what Wright has said, BHO tried to separate himself from Wright and he was never pressed for answers.

In the 1st post, BHO spokesman said:
“As Mr. Obama told close friends after watching the replay, he felt dumbfounded, even betrayed, particularly by Mr. Wright’s implication that Mr. Obama was being hypocritical. He could not tolerate that.
The next afternoon, Mr. Obama held a news conference and denounced his former pastor’s views as “divisive and destructive,” giving “comfort to those who prey on hate.” And so, with those remarks, a tightly knit relationship finally came apart “

We are expected to believe he was a member of this church for 20 years, listened to hundreds of sermons, walked past bookstands of literature and past sermons, called Wright his mentor and spiritual leader, and yet knew nothing of Wright’s racists remarks and anti-American rhetoric. The best he can do is make a statement against it.

The link to mid-March, BHO’s answer was much of the same:
“In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” He said Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with,” telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.”
“Sen. Obama declined to comment on Rev. Wright’s denunciations of the United States, but a campaign religious adviser, Shaun Casey, appearing on “Good Morning America” Thursday, said Obama “had repudiated” those comments.
In a statement to, Obama’s press spokesman Bill Burton said, “Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn’t detract from Sen. Obama’s affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done.”

As before BHO”s spokesman made a statement, but he answered no questions, in fact no questions were asked.

The link to the end of March, BHO answer was:
“Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church,” the senator said.”

Then he said, “”I think he’s saddened by what’s happened, and I told him I feel badly that he has been characterized just in this one way and people haven’t seen the broader aspect of him,” Obama said.

There are some basic problems:

1.Information was provided about Wright’s inflammatory statements and BHO provided statements of his own, either through a spokesman or by written statement, and yet BHO never provided himself to answer questions about his relationship with Wright.

I would like to know if BHO and his wife were standing up and cheering with the rest of the congregation, when Wright was preaching his anti-American sermons.

2.How could he be a member for 20 years and not know Wright’s beliefs? This question goes to the heart of the problem, is BHO a liar who will do anything, say anything, and throw anyone under the bus to win an election?

2.Why would BHO say he would have left the church if Wright had not retired, when the church is made up of membership that believe the same as their pastor. It seems to me that if BHO was against these things he would have left the church whether Wright left or not.

You said:

“I remember when you couldn’t throw a rock at a bank of televisions without hitting a story critical of some part of Obama’s life.”

You don’t get it, the stories are there, but the media has never held BHO to account. They never asked the questions; in fact they answered the questions for BHO. Example, when BHO said, “my Muslim faith” and he was corrected by the interviewer, “you mean Christian faith”.

“The trick is, you folks are just going negative. But your negatives are very strong at the moment.”

Are you making this statement with a straight face or should we look at DKOS and see the history of negative statements.

IF BHO lied about Wright, and it appears he is covering up, what about his relationship with Ayers. News pending about that, more tapes coming out.

Concerning Joe, I will tell you what others have conveniently told me: just google and see if “Joe” is working, and if not-why, and if a license is needed.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 22, 2008 10:42 AM
Comment #267875


“I don’t see Obama starting off As being Hard line, “…”I Believe To start he will take a more centrist approach,”

There is nothing “centrist” about BHO. He will start off with the most left wing of the democratic party. He will put his full support behind anythin NP and HR want to do. B. Frank has advocated higher taxes and that is what the American people will get. They are socialists with a the socialist agenda of distributing wealth. We will see our nations sovereignty compromised, as we become a clone of European countries. We will continue to be held hostage by the oil producing middle-east countries because of our lack of drilling and using our own resources. Military threats will come against Israel and us and we will have cowards in office who will depend on diplomacy, which will do nothing.

We will suffer another attack on our own soil, because the enemy will know our leadership has no will to fight.

Our freedom of speech will be taken away by the imposing of the “Fairness Doctrine”. The left will bypass the 2nd amendment and try to disarm the american citizens.

“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”

Posted by: Oldguy at October 22, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #267876

Oldguy , I’ll respond a little later ..

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 22, 2008 11:13 AM
Comment #267877
You don’t get it, the stories are there, but the media has never held BHO to account. They never asked the questions; in fact they answered the questions for BHO. Example, when BHO said, “my Muslim faith” and he was corrected by the interviewer, “you mean Christian faith”.

In one breath he is in sync with Rev Wright for 20 years and in the next an alleged fruedian slip (is there a link for that - I doubt it) reveals him to be a closet muslim.

What is he not addressing? - he discussed the Ayers issue in the debate for everyone to hear and he made an entire speech about the Wright fallout. He has addressed every attack and it drives his opponents crazy so they invent secret cover-ups.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 22, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #267883

Yes, he did mention Ayers in the debate, but McCain did not pursue with the hard questions. McCain didn’t want to pursue because he believes it would tag him as negative. But, it doesn’t matter what McCain says or does, he will still be atacked as negative.

“In one breath he is in sync with Rev Wright for 20 years and in the next an alleged fruedian slip (is there a link for that - I doubt it) reveals him to be a closet muslim. “

Posted by: Oldguy at October 22, 2008 12:03 PM
Comment #267893

Oldguy, First right off the bat i don’t adhere to fear tactics , and second I don’t believe that Obama is a socialist , Yes he is a Liberal so was John Kennedy And FDR And Carter OK Carter did Fail overall, And Reagan seized the Day and Like it or not he has a no 7-8 Ranking from the Historians, I am a optimist And a Realist , Bush has Ruined our Economy and created vasts amounts of wealth to the top ,And Put us in a war that was not warranted we live in a like it or not global community we can’t live in a vacuum or be hermetically sealed, As far as Knowledge goes yes it’s very important but in reflection Carter and Nixon had the highest IQ’s wisdom is in my opinion trumps overall for President, Eisenhower was wise Don’t be a book Burner and a child that hungers in the night and no to Vietnam he did a very good Job overall with job creating and keeping inflation low and balancing the budget and keeping the pledge to social security and civil rights and as i recall tax rates were quite a bit higher then, I don’t see the new rates wreaking our economy and they will be implemented when time requires them.I see Obama as our Best hope and chance overall.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 22, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #267897

Lee Jamison-
Your problem is one one of fighting the present and past tense with the future. What happens now, and has been happening for the last eight years weighs more heavily in people’s minds than what a bunch of partisans who think he’s wrong anyways are saying about what he will do. Opinions based on facts do better than opinions based on opinions.

Your predictions might come true, but your alternatives have a bad track record, and not just recently. We’ve been trying your policies out for the last three or four decades. Our situation has ended up worse for your party’s leadership, on nearly every level.

Your party will continue to be its own worst spokesman for some time to come.

The real question is where are the substantive knocks on his policy? It’s always this “X is evil and will bring disaster upon us”, with no further authority brought to support the assertion. Why should we take the GOP’s word for much of anything?

I see you’re now off the notion that the media didn’t cover those stories

Now you’re back on how horrible Wright was as a Pastor, and why didn’t he leave.

Good, familiar territory. Has it occurred to you that:

a) Wright wasn’t constantly like he was in the ten seconds of video? I’m sure this would have broken a lot faster if he had been saying things this offensive on a regular basis. Wright, as I recall, certainly was never politically correct, and never completely free of some of the racial resentments, but if he had been as radical as you say, he’d be competing with Farrakhan for press attention.

But, if you read what Obama wrote about Farrakhan in Dreams From my Father you’d understand he had little respect for him, even before he had a real political career. Obama wryly comments on the failure of Farrakhan’s venture into the toiletries business by observing that however much black men in the community were listening to his preaching, they were still using Crest to brush their teeth. He then fed that back into a critique about how ultimately useless Farrakhan’s Black Nationalism was for actually getting things done to improve things in the community.

Obama has to be careful about what he says and how he says it. But that’s a fact of life for most politicians, because their words often get blown up beyond what they’d mean coming from any one of us. Obama satisfied the press by essentially giving an extraordinary speech about race to explain the differences between him and his pastor, and why Obama wasn’t cutting all ties, and then, when Wright came back on the scene and bombastically re-iterated some of his controversial positions, and called Obama a hypocrite, Obama cut him off in equally eloquent fashion.

I think people understood. You give somebody a chance, go forth and sin no more, and they throw it back in your face. Oh well, nice knowing you.

On the question of accountability, though, accountability for what? For views he admits to and/or explains? For the people around him who are supposed to be, as adults, accountable for their own actions, not he for theirs?

Every time I look into charges like yours, it seems like there’s another side of the story you’re not telling. That’s what makes me and others deeply skeptical of your charges.

You folks are always saying there’s more to come out, and then you go back to harping about the same old BS, the same stories. Ayers, Wright, Rezko were covered to death during the primaries. But for all that, nobody’s come up with evidence that Obama shared Rezko’s corruption, Ayer’s radicalism and terrorist past, or that he shares Wright’s cynicism about race relations.

On the subject of centrism, I think you’re having a Inigo Montoya moment: I do not think the word means what you think it does. With you it probably means agreeing with Republicans all the time. That’s hardly where the center of the country is, especially given the Republican’s problems in this current and previous election.

All you have left is insults and second-guessing. All you have is sour-grapes predictions of collapse and decline. But you have deeply underestimate how much, and for how many, your party’s policies have become associated with that decline. These crisises only serve to remind people of how terrible these policies are.

As for the end of the world? Christ himself said that even he doesn’t know the hour. If you’re hinting that you know yourself, at this time, aren’t you presuming to know more than Christ himself about the onset of the end of days?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2008 1:35 PM
Comment #267911


MSNBC ran a story on Biden’s gaffe last night. It was on Hardball.

Posted by: Janine at October 22, 2008 3:04 PM
Comment #267917

If guilt by association is a valid argument, I would like McCain to be held to his questionable associations also - G Gordon Liddy, Charles Keating, Oregon Citizens Alliance, US Council for World Freedom, and YPM. I question why the conservative biased media doesn’t hold McCain to the same standards as they hold Obama.

Posted by: Janine at October 22, 2008 3:45 PM
Comment #267925

Janine….you answered your own question. Conservative biased media.

Posted by: janedoe at October 22, 2008 4:48 PM
Comment #267928


“I see you’re now off the notion that the media didn’t cover those stories”

Not really, the media will bring up things, but fail to go into any depth. NBC played the latest gaff of Biden, but the only part they played was the part about BHO steel spine. They failed to play the rest until today. There were so many questions were brought up to NBC, they were forced to play the rest of the segment.

“Wright wasn’t constantly like he was in the ten seconds of video?”

“A leopard cannot change his spots, nor an Ethiopian his color”. Wright is what he is; a racist and bigot. You cannot honestly believe these sound bites are the only time he spoke against America and whites?

“You folks are always saying there’s more to come out, and then you go back to harping about the same old BS, the same stories.”

When there is an attempt to stifle information, I simply say, as time goes by, the truth will come out. No matter how much the media wants BHO elected, they are still elitist enough to believe the world depends on them for the news. And in time, they will actually investigate in order to provide a story.

You might find this link interesting. This article was written by Orson Scott Card, a very liberal democrat reporter and please don’t make a decision based upon the name of the site. His article can be googled all over the net.

I am listening to Kristin Powers as I write this. She is a democrat supporter of BHO and she is saying the mainstream media has buried the true story of Biden’s gaff. She also said that Dan Rather had said the same thing. The reason this latest gaff is so important is because it absolutly takes BHO off message. BHO wants to stay on the economy, but Biden has placed it back on security, where McCain is more trusted by Americans. The media understands this and is trying to keep the focus on the economy.

Are you challenging me to provide quotes from the bible, let’s quote the whole verse:
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no [ man ], no , not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

Posted by: Oldguy at October 22, 2008 5:03 PM
Comment #267930

Janine….you answered your own question. Conservative biased media.

Posted by: janedoe at October 22, 2008 04:48 PM

I know. I was just taking a stab at people crying about the Liberal biased media for not beating to death the issue of Ayers.

Posted by: Janine at October 22, 2008 5:09 PM
Comment #267933

Oldguy and Jim M,

Y’all are fighting a good fight, but don’t let the liberals lead you too far astray of the topic, which is 1, the voters’ right to question authority and oppose elitism and, 2, concerns over the viability of small business in an Obama/Democrat administration.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 22, 2008 5:30 PM
Comment #267961

This whole Joe the Plumber thing is ridiculous and an embarrassment. I understand why McCain was trying to use him as an example in the debate but the way it was delivered was a disaster. I can not believe how much media attention this has gotten..and then I think.WAIT, I am taking time to comment on it???!

Posted by: yourdailyslice at October 22, 2008 9:31 PM
Comment #267970

I just think a plumber only has to know one thing…. it has to do with gravity and sewage.

He certainly doesn’t know much about Obama’s dancing skills…verbal or physical. Ellen showed us he’s no Sammy Davis, Jr.

I just thought it was nice that Joe took the time to turn such a clever phrase. I’m certain this points to Joe being a far better skinhead than Telly Savalas.

I always get my National Leader advice from such men.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 22, 2008 10:09 PM
Comment #267995

Sorry I spoke so soon. Trust me, they went through those stories with a fine-tooth comb. They don’t want to do it all over again for the benefit of a party that craps on them anytime the coverage isn’t positive.

As for Wright supposedly being a racist and a bigot? It’s funny how your people play around with political correctness. I think its clear he’s said some pretty un-PC things. But I think he’s no more the racist and bigot than the Pennsylvania folks you’d be so quick to defend against being called racist. I’ve been around people who, aside from some cringeworthy moments, are decent human beings. But Republicans nowadays, especially in the midst of an election, are quick to judge, and on small amounts of information at that.

As far as Orson Scott Card goes, I’ve read a great deal of his material. Most people know him not by his work as a “reporter” (I think columnist would be more accurate), but rather by his work as a leading science fiction and fantasy author. He’s the author of the modern classic Ender’s Game, its sequels, and the Alvin Maker series, among others.

In recent years, he’s been something of a Bush supporter. Hopefully that will pass in time, since I kind of like him as an author, and I find politics has a tendency to ruin the stuff authors put out. Nothing like trying to prove a political point in a world you can construct to your own convenience to bring out the worst habits of a writer.

I’m not challenging you to throw quotes at me from the bible. Instead, I’m hinting at something else: Conservatives don’t have a lock on Christianity, much less religion in general. It might be a better idea to treat people like brothers, rather enemies or children when it comes to religion. Most people here are adults who find it a bit patronizing to have others quoting at them, as if to teach them a lesson. Politics can sometimes encourage a sort of “Jane, you ignorant slut,” kind of argumentation, where one gets to enjoy one’s superiority, but if your aim is to persuade, it might be better to turn down the tone.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2008 12:53 AM
Comment #268051


So we again resort to attacking the messenger if you don’t like the message. Card is a anti-gun liberal. The point he is making is “there is no honor in the media anymore”. Don’t you find his points disturbing? I do.

I don’t think quoting the bible is any different than quoting any other source to prove a point. You guys on the left are so transparent, you wear your feelings on your shoulders. Whenever a conservative mentions the bible, you guys go into panic mode, claiming we are calling you anti-christian.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 23, 2008 12:10 PM
Comment #268113

I Just wanna dance like Sammy Davis,Jr. said Goog, I do too and James Brown.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 23, 2008 6:15 PM
Comment #268172

Look, in terms of argumentation, it doesn’t matter whether you find a point disturbing yourself. Can you lead me to find it disturbing?

I’m not attacking him. I’m pointing out that he is not a reporter by trade, which takes some of the authority away from his analysis. Columnists can speculate and suggest and opinionate much more than a reporter can. The Reporter has to stick much closer to the facts and what they can prove. OSC doesn’t have to work within a reporter’s constraints, so what does he know about the quality of the judgments that the reporters are making?

Additionally, his objectivity about the coverage is also being misrpresented. Yes, on many issues he’s a liberal. But he is a Bush-supporting hawk, in no fashion a typical Democrat. Rather than being a Democrat who is crossing party lines to protest inconsistent treatment, he seems to be a Partisan who’s long been taking antagonistic positions to his party. His right, but it argues against the notion of him being somebody who was suddenly pushed to make a stand on the issue.

So why should I be disturbed? He might be a good man, but he doesn’t necessarily know what he’s talking about, and he’s not politically neutral or allied with my side, as you folks might argue in order to bolster the notion that bias is overwhelming non-partisan considerations.

As for quoting the bible, you might consider it an authoritative source, but is that true of the people you’re trying to convince of your point? We can all indulge our own ideas about the world in our pesuasive efforts, but that will tend to work only to talk to people who already buy a particular notion of things. In this case, you certainly believe in a liberal media bias overwhelming an objective sense of the facts. So when somebody, like Card, makes that argument, you’re overjoyed. Yay! He’s a Democrat! Yay, he’s writing for a newspaper.

But if you’re facing skeptics, you need to uparmor the humvee, and not just with fancy rhetoric or spin. You need basic facts and first principle common sense. Otherwise, you don’t need to be sending that vehicle out into the warzone.

The media bias argument is a hairsplitting one at best. It’s always subjective, and rarely has any real anchor with which to make it objectively clear to those outside the party.

The question is, can you reduce your argument to one which will translate beyond your ideological sphere? Can you take it apart and rebuild it as something that will either inspire agreement or force desperate spin and stubborn error from the other side.?

The Republicans have focused too much on opinion and emotional appeals. As long as people had some sympathy, they worked, but now that things have gotten less friendly for them, they’re falling on deaf ears.

It’s time to recognize that agreement will have to be earned.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2008 11:57 AM
Comment #268188

A research source that has been put together by people knowledgeable on the subject, who have studied it, theorized and proven up on the theory, is easy to reference…the facts are there, the facts are backed up by studies and proofs, in referencing it a writer furthers the dialogue.

The bible is a book of philosophy and witchcraft. It has been studied to death but never has it been proven up on, and proofs are impossible to come by. Your faith can carry some weight, but if you use that book as reference material, you can only present dialogue to like-minded people…that is why your use of it in a discussion on politics, policies, economics, the Constitution and the rest, is just hot-air blowing by ears that cannot hear. And that is especially true when you inject it into a discussion that has to do with a government program such as education, judicial or governance. Interjecting bible into anything not related to religion is a waste of time and space.

That’s me talkin’ in PANIC mode…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 24, 2008 1:12 PM
Comment #268224

It’s ethics where the bible really counts, and should count. I’m pretty much convinced that there is is legitimate practical merit to its philosophy of responsibility, moderation and forgiveness.

My point to those who use it as an all around guide to things, though, I think, misunderstand the true purpose of the bible: to be a beginning of our relationship with God, and our consideration of God, not its end.

It was the beginning of science as a strong influence in people’s lives and the rise of rationalism that led people to try and conceive religion in equally rationalized terms, either retconning it into the scientific evidence, or denying the evidence in favor of a biblically based approach.

But when I went to college, I found there was a third way to consider the messages in there: what was it that the writers intended to communicate, and who were they communicating to?

It occured to me when I was in this survey class discussing the splitting of the red sea and the possible translations of the word, that these people were not describing history, but legend; the factuality of the event really wasn’t relevant to its meaning when it was written down.

These stories developed by word of mouth in a time where literacy was a rare skill, where there was no scholarly or scientific system for checking facts or working out something close to objective truth. People related stories for all kinds of reasons, to explain tradition, to explain origins, to teach lessons. Objective truths were desired, of course, but in those times, you took what you could get. People knew in some sense that there was a limit to the reality one would get from stories.

We have to look at the stories in the bible as stories. This of course makes for a range of variation in interpretation, but let me let you in on a dirty little secret: the same holds true among those who claim a literal interpretation. The key is considering these interpretations with some relaxed sense of fallibility on the interpreter’s part.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2008 6:02 PM
Comment #268245

SD and Marysdude

Card is only one of many who have seen an absence of honor among reporters. Even Dan Rather and Kristine Powers have said the same thing and they are BHO supporting Democrats.

“As for quoting the bible, you might consider it an authoritative source, but is that true of the people you’re trying to convince of your point?”

I don’t believe there is a snowballs chance in Hades, of anyone changing anyone’s mind on this site. I do unapologetically consider the bible an authoritative source.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 24, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #268247

> I do unapologetically consider the bible an authoritative source.
Posted by: Oldguy at October 24, 2008 08:40 PM


Fair enough…I do unapologetically consider the bible NOT acceptable as an authoritative source…and, that is why it is such a poor reference to site…only those of like mind will accept it. Those of like mind think like you do anyway, and don’t need your reference…kind of a ‘catch 22’…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 24, 2008 9:02 PM
Comment #268248

Oh, and by the way I just referenced Joseph Heller…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 24, 2008 9:03 PM
Comment #268253

Only those of like mind will accept any reference. If I used Fox News as a reference instead of the bible, would it make any difference?

Posted by: Oldguy at October 24, 2008 10:32 PM
Comment #268319

>Only those of like mind will accept any reference. If I used Fox News as a reference instead of the bible, would it make any difference?
Posted by: Oldguy at October 24, 2008 10:32 PM


They are of about the same validity…I’d choose Faux, if it boiled down to just those two choices.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2008 2:38 PM
Post a comment