Blue Crab Boulevard

Let Slip The Dogs Of War Smear

Wow. The campaign to crush Joe the Plumber, personally and professionally, is hitting full stride. The media, the left and Obama himself (triple redundant) are pulling out all the stops to destroy this man who dared to ask Obama a question.

Gives you that warm, fuzzy, hopey-changey feeling, doesn’t it?

Ask The One a question and you will be destroyed by any means at the media’s disposal. They will hunt through your garbage, comb the records and generally ignore everything else going on in the world until you are put out of work or jailed. They will unleash barrels of ink and terabytes of pixels on you and will smear you relentlessly.

Is this the change you wanted? Is this what you hoped for?

Is this going to happen to you if Obama approaches you and you dare to ask him a question?

Probably.

But there are signs that this is going to be a huge -biblically huge – mistake.

Politics | Gaius October 17, 2008

By Straight8, October 17, 2008 @ 6:06 am

To paraphrase “Spock”; The needs of THE ONE outweigh the needs of the many.
By Mwalimu Daudi, October 17, 2008 @ 6:22 am

But there are signs that this is going to be a huge -biblically huge – mistake.

Sorry Gaius, but it will not happen. At least not this year. Terrorist William Ayers, Rev. Wright, “embittered G*d-and-guns-clingers”, “typical white person”, ACORN, “the troop surge in Iraq is a failure” – any of these would have destroyed a candidate, even the Chosen One. But not this year. As car salesmen would say, the American public has a serious case of “buy fever” – a frantic, irrational desire to purchase what the MSM is selling.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Presidents there is no “lemon law”.
By Rich Horton, October 17, 2008 @ 6:46 am

Mwalimu, Obama’s margin for error is smaller than we are being led to believe. It will be interesting to see what the polls look like early next week. The rules of politics are not suddenly going to suspend themselves because Obama and his other millenialist minions want it to.

The biggest trouble McCain was going to have was to find a way to motivate his base. Obama has been kind enough to do that for him.
By feeblemind, October 17, 2008 @ 7:42 am

What is interesting here is that Joe the Plumber isn’t being destroyed for his question. He is being destroyed because The One gave the wrong answer. Will it be the pivotal point in the campaign? Maybe. If enough of the public sees it and identifies with Joe. I am still pessimistic, but if McCain can stay within 5 points of BHO, I think he has a chance, but we can’t deny the fact that he has polled behind Obama for nearly the entire race. Put in historical perspective, that does not bode well for McCain.
By yuri, October 17, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

I guess I’m just dense. I have no idea why Obama is being blamed for what’s happening to Joe. Correct me if I’m wrong:

- Joe’s name was brought up by McCain
- in all Obama’s answers it was pretty obvious that he believed that Joe was legitimate plumber and made more then $250K a year
- for Obama’s arguments he actually NEEDED Joe to be legit, to emphasize his policy: Joe would have needed the tax break (that Obama promises) five years ago, BEFORE he made more then $250K.

And why what happening with Joe is “destruction”?
He spoke in public and made statements that media checked. Why is this wrong? Why is it a fault of any of the candidates?

Now the “spread the wealth” is a policy question that SHOULD be debated. Analysts can argue whether it was a mistake to bring it up, but Joe is pretty much irrelevant in this debate. To me this is just a way to make up for horrible performance of McCain in the debate.
By Rich Horton, October 17, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

Thats right Yuri, because no other individuals in the country is or hopes to be in that particular tax bracket.

Hell…your argument is so bad it would take 100 pounds of concrete to make it into a strawman.
By yuri, October 17, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

Rich, you scare me. What does it even mean?
Tax brackets?? I didn’t make ANY arguments, just asked questions.

And they were was not about what you think about “spreading the wealth”, it was about why what happens to Joe is described as “destruction”, and why politicians, and Obama in particular, are responsible for it?
By Gaius, October 17, 2008 @ 8:13 pm

What does it mean, Yuri?

Be careful what you wish for.

Never question, never step out of line. You, Yuri, will be fine.

But what about those who do not quite agree with you or your chosen one?

And – most importantly – what happens if you ever deviate from the party line?

You’ll be fine, Yuri – for now.

Think hard, Yuri. What if you had asked John McCain a question and the media had come down on you with both feet? If the unions were coming after you full bore? If the HuffnPuff crew were gleefully eviscerating you and your private life? If McCain was personally ridiculing you?

Would you be howling right now?

If you’re anything other than a flak – an operative, paid or otherwise for your chosen one – you know you would. You know it.

You know it, Yuri.
By yuri, October 17, 2008 @ 8:40 pm

Look, has everyone really lost their mind?
I ask a simple question and get a nudge and a wink, say no more.

so down with questions, here’s what I think:

Joe was and is quite irrelevant in the issue discussion on whether or not to spread the wealth.
(BTW, this is the issue that I actually support Obama in. And I actually think that $250,000 is too high, I think it should be around $100,000. I will be paying more then, and would do it gladly. We as a nation have not been paying our share for the wars that we so hastily started)

And there is absolutely no gain for Obama campaign in doing anything with Joe, let alone ridiculing him. He was dragged into this by McCain, who, apparently, is as bad at vetting his poster children, as he is inept at vetting his running mates.

I’m sorry Joe got himself into this, but really it’s insane to blame Obama for the fact that media checks out the facts. And I’m really quite amazed at the attempts to make this into an issue. I guess you guys are pretty desperate if this is the best shot at Obama you can come up with…
By Mwalimu Daudi, October 17, 2008 @ 11:09 pm

Remember Gaius – academia is chock full of “smart people” like yuri who think that the Chosen One is beyond the reach the unwashed heathen and their silly morality. It’s not like Joe the Plumber is a Holy Prophet like Joe the Wilson.
By yuri, October 17, 2008 @ 11:47 pm

Daudi, right, calling me silly is a definite proof that Obama is unfairly attacking poor Joe… I’ve yet to see any meaningful reply, I’m disappointed. You guys used to do more then just erratic bile spraying.
By Ropelight, October 18, 2008 @ 7:21 am

feeblemind got it right. Joe’s destruction has a twofold purpose. One is to distract attention from Obama’s admission he seeks a Socialist redistribution of wealth (from each according to his ability to be taxed, to each according to his perceived loyalty to Leftist dogma). And secondly, to demonstrate what sort of ugly things can happen to anyone who participates in exposing Obama’s semi-secret collectivist agenda.

Before the election exposure that is, after the voters have anointed The One, then the door will be open wide and pundits can cover themselves in infamy competing to praise Obama’s Stalinist policies. Then it will be Joe the happy plumber singing joyful songs as he marches into Obama’s worker’s paradise, and for which he gets little or no pay.
By Plumb Bob, October 18, 2008 @ 9:14 am

He spoke in public and made statements that media checked. Why is this wrong?

A) Because he’s just a private citizen, and he was merely asking a question. This does not merit investigation, nor should it expose him to any degree of media scrutiny. The details the media is checking have nothing to do with either the question or the embarrassing answer.

B) Because Obama has made hundreds of statements in public that, if questioned properly, would be a great deal more embarrassing to him than Joe’s situation is to him… but has systematically refused to ask the questions. And unlike Joe, he has placed himself in consideration for public office, for which reason he should expect to receive such scrutiny.

As with every other instance I’ve seen a of liberal attempting to turn black into white in order to defend the most immoral behavior imaginable, yuri requires us to explain why 2 + 2 = 4, and will not accept any explanation. This says all that needs to be said about the true character of the Obama mob.
By Rich Horton, October 18, 2008 @ 10:14 am

Yuri, give us a break. Your “questions” imply that Joe didnt have the “right” to ask the questions he asked because they didnt apply to his exact situation at that exact moment. Thats BS. WHen has that ever been the standard employed? Since when have example, hypothetical or otherwise, been off limits? The same question works for ANYONE who either is or aspires to be in the situation Joe described.

Do you even know the meaning of the term ad hominem? I’m assuming that you do, but you are acting like you dont. The status of Joe’s job or his taxes or his family are irrelevant to the question he asked. Those types of things are only brought up to tarnish the individual and have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the question he asked.

Really, this isn’t difficult to understand. All of my freshman philosophy students can get this…why are you havin such difficulty? (See how its done?)
By martian, October 18, 2008 @ 12:52 pm

1. Joe never claimed to be a plumber. What he said was that he was about to buy a plumbing business. In most states one is not required to be a licensed plumber in order to own a plumbing business – as long as one employs licensed plumbers to do the work. Any plumbing business that takes in as much money as he indicated is not a one man business, thus he would be safe as long as his employees are licensed. Therefore the media coming up with the fact that he’s not a licensed plumber is a null factor. Further, he could have been refering to a business that sells plumbing supplies – this would not require a plumber’s license, either.

2. The fact that Joe may have had some tax problems at one point in his life are no big deal either. Many very honest upright citizens have had tax problems at some point in their lives just from not understanding the extremely convoluted and complex tax codes. The fact that Joe is not in jail and doesn’t have any current leins shows that he setteled the problem satisfactorilly. Again, not a very big problem nor a current one.

The MSM, however, reported these facts out of Joe’s life like he belongs on the FBI 10 Most Wanted list. Why? Because he dared to ask their obamessiah a question that the One was forced, through lack of prior preparation like he has before speeches and debates, to give an honest answer – an answer that might not sit all that well with the voting public. HOW DARE HE???????

3. I would like to check into the backgrounds of all of those MSM folks and see just how many of them have had tax leins or other tax problems in the past?
By yuri, October 18, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

Rich,

“Yuri, give us a break”

I’m trying to find common ground, and it’s getting curiousier and curiosier… We seem to agree on almost everything:

“The status of Joe’s job or his taxes or his family are irrelevant to the question he asked. Those types of things are only brought up to tarnish the individual and have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the question he asked.”

I agree 100%. Joe himself is irrelevant for the debate on whether or not to “spread the wealth”, like I clearly wrote above.

” Your “questions” imply that Joe didnt have the “right” to ask the questions he asked because they didnt apply to his exact situation at that exact moment. ”

No, not at all!! Joe could ask whatever he wanted.
You guys are treating Obama’s answers about “spreading the wealth” as a slip, a mistake. May be it was not a mistake. There’s enough people in this country (me included, like I wrote above) who believe that it is patriotic to pay taxes, and this is a very important piece of policy to discuss. I am glad Obama brought it up.

“The same question works for ANYONE who either is or aspires to be in the situation Joe described.”

Exactly. So we agree on this too.

So I guess the only thing we disagree on is the interpretation of why Joe is in the lime light.
I think he is in the lime light because he was made (by McCain, by the way!) to personify the argument for or against taxation policies.

But give ME a break – exposing dirty details is what the media does. Not for ideological reasons, but because dirty details sell. Do I think it is wrong? You betcha. I don’t watch broadcast TV and do not have cable for exactly this reason: TV is BS.
By Rich Horton, October 18, 2008 @ 2:53 pm

Please give me an example of the media printing personal details about voters who asked questions of McCain at town hall meetings? Every once in awhile there have been instances of people being quoted in the newspapers as being “life long Democrats” or “life long Republicans” now voting (supposedly) for “the other side” who get exposed as NOT being “life long” whatever they claimed to be. But, in those cases, the misrepresentation goes to the heart of the reason they were presented to the public in the first place. Exposing them, thus, doesnt represent an ad hominem attack. EVERYTHING thrown at Joe has been in the nature of ad hominems (you agree right?) How are we NOT supposed to get the messgae that questioning Obama will leave your entire life to being exposed by the MSM? How is that NOT an attempt to intimidate and squelch opposition?

The ONE thing the attacks on Joe are not is a defense of Obama’s statements. You seem to think they are easily defended, but obviously Obama, his campaign, and the media think otherwise. Why else would they form this mob out to “get” this ordinary citizen instead of offering your easy defense?
By yuri, October 18, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

Rich,

I can’t give you an example, but then again can you give me an example of someone not running for anything playing such a great role in the presidential debate?
This is unprecedented, created a lot of drama in the debate (media’s happy!), and of course they want to keep riding that wave, so they make Joe a subject of the study.

We both agree that these studies are absolutely useless for the discussion between the parties. So what is the motivation then for Obama to “destroy” Joe?

I think that Joe just was hit by the bus, which is media. And you can even say, thrown under it by McCain.

May be we can agree on this: if McCain hadn’t brought him up in the debate Joe would have remained unknown?
By Mockingbird, October 18, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

I paid $26,000 in Fed income tax-2007. For 2008-approx. $15,000. For 2009- Approx. $00,790.
I’m doing like the rich liberals do. Muni and state bonds, and an account in the Dominican Republic.
I know the Clintons and others do this, so if you can’t beat ‘em… After two years of all Dems all of the time, most Americans will be so fed up that they will want to change back. The economy will be picking up a little by then, too.
So, Obama will bring change, $790. of mine, he can have.
By Quilly Mammoth, October 18, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

Wow, Yuri…you sure got ‘em hooked. I give you style points for the long replies. Most don’t bother to spend that much time.
By Boy Named Sous, October 18, 2008 @ 5:58 pm

Yuri,

I’m still unsure if your insistence that McCain is somehow responsible for all of this is disingenuous or simply obtuse. In mentioning him at the Debates, McCain didn’t simply drag him out of obscurity and throw him in Obama’s face. Wurzelbacher attended an Obama rally, at which OBAMA approached HIM, and it was at that point in time that Joe asked his question — which Obama proceeded to answer (probably, in hindsight, more candidly than he wishes he had). This was all caught on camera, and was on television AND the internet well before McCain made mention of him in the debates. So let’s not speak of Joe being thrown under the bus by McCain — I assure you it was already aimed at him before McCain said a thing.

As for your claim that the media is simply “Fact checking” Joe’s question, as they would ANY claim made by ANYONE, you’re obviously ignorant of (or perhaps intentionally ignoring) the nature of the reporting being done on Joe — it’s ALL about his personal life, business dealings, etc., and NOT about the content of the question he asked. Last time I checked, that was the classic definition of an ad hominem attack. Given your connection to academia, I would hope you’d recognize that even more readily than we benighted commoners.

So what, you asked, is the motivation then for Obama to “destroy” Joe? I would suggest to you that the answer is because by destroying Joe himself, they are diverting attention away from Joe’s QUESTION, and more importantly, Obama’s answer to it. While YOU may agree with Obama, a good many Americans are NOT for higher taxes, and are ESPECIALLY not for a “Spread the wealth” comment that reeks of socialism. And those that DO agree with Obama on this issue are, almost entirely, already in his camp. The undecideds, and the people only marginally in one camp or the other, are far less likely to support him, IF they figure out what he REALLY thinks on these issues. That’s why Obama can’t have them hearing Joe’s question and his response — hence the ad hominem.
By yuri, October 18, 2008 @ 8:44 pm

Sous,

Obama said similar things on other occasions, and you have Michelle’s quote in your blog. If you think about it, increasing taxes on the rich and cutting taxes on the poor is by definition “spreading the wealth around”.

So I really believe that if Joe hadn’t figured in the debate everyone would have forgotten about him. What captured media attention was his prominence in the debate. And “if it bleeds it leads”. The talking heads need something to talk about, so they do.

Now in my view, Obama has nothing to gain from attacking Joe – like I said, “spreading the wealth” was his tax message all along.

So (again, in my view) the purpose of crying “foul” over media attention to Joe is to alienate from Obama the demographics that Obama has most trouble with: white males. If you make them identify with Joe, and say that Obama is attacking Joe, this may actually serve some purpose. Of course, the louder you cry, the more Joe becomes a fair game for the media (who, again, just thrives on attention/ratings).

Ergo, you’re actually making it worse for Joe.

Now rebutt this
By yuri, October 18, 2008 @ 9:10 pm

oh, oh, and focusing attention on “destruction” of Joe serves another purpose: it diverts attention from the fact that Joe’s actually going to be better off with Obama’s tax plan, since he doesn’t yet make $250K a year!
Brilliant plan – and may actually work for some of those white males.