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

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.

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?

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?

“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.

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?

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?)

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.

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.

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…