Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Close Enough To Honest Previous entry: Friday Genius Ten “Hope For No Obstacles On The Home Stretch” Edition

10/15 Changed Everything

imageMichelle Malkin is excoriating “liberals” for attempting to destroy Joe the Plumber.  It isn’t just the pot calling the kettle black, it’s the pot wandering into the pot store and declaring all other pots black-tinged traitors to our great nation, then offering to run the pot reeducation camp to bring them in line with acceptable and decent container values.

The inherent problem with the Joe the Plumber schtick isn’t anything related to scandal.  I got a little gleeful yesterday about the immediate and crushing blows to Joe’s credibility, which, as I thought about it, really wasn’t the issue.  It turns Joe into another (far less egregious) version of Graeme Frost (albeit one who is getting judged on his own characteristics rather than his parents). 

Where Plumber Joe became problematic was sometime between when John McCain decided that he was a perfect example of what was wrong with Barack Obama’s tax policies and when McCain decided that he was perfect for everything.  It’s easier for us to put ourselves in the shoes of Everyman when Everyman is a series of vague and readily applicable qualities - struggling to pay bills, dissatisfied with our health insurance, worried about the state of the world - than it is when Everyman becomes a real person, because the numerous differences between our lives and everyone else’s become far more apparent.
Look at the example of Everywoman, Sarah Palin.  The McCain campaign tried to sell her as YOU in the White House, a woman who understood the struggles that each and every woman in this country goes through.  Unfortunately, most women lack the governorships of sparsely populated states as a feature of their current employment.  They don’t have five kids, husbands who are champions at obscure sports, a penchant for moose hunting, backgrounds as sportscasters or any of a number of other biographical elements inherent to Palin’s life that most women simply don’t share.  It’s the uncanny valley of populism - the closer you get to making someone seem like an average person, the more apparent it becomes that their circumstances differ from yours. 

The first look we got at Joe the Plumber already made him somewhat alien to many of us - he’s a tradesman, and as much as the media loves to fetishize people who work with their hands as real Americans, those are the very jobs leaving our country in droves and/or experiencing massive slowdowns in the economy.  A man whose primary concern is how his quarter-million dollars in future profits from the business he wants to buy will be taxes isn’t like most of the rest of us.  The more McCain continued to hammer home Joe the Plumber’s concerns the more it became clear that McCain’s concerns about capital gains taxes and small businesses were tailored towards the particular quirks and demands of Joseph T. Plumber’s life.  The risk is run whenever a person is plucked out of obscurity to become an example of how I Understand The Problems of People Like You - with McCainesque levels of demagoguery, is becomes the dictation of how These Are Your Problems.  And chances are, a plumbing company employee with designs on purchasing the business and earning five and a half times Ohio’s median household income isn’t quite the situation most of us find ourselves in.

None of this, however, quite lets the right off the hook for deciding that the left has become the new Reich, based in no small part on the fact that Politico won’t publish a vaguely intimated story about something involving Barack Obama that has some airtight anonymous sources and some other…you know…stuff.

The source was considering dropping his demand for anonymity. Thus likely moving the story forward. (He wasn’t considering going forward with the Politico, by the way: but with the other, more important organization.)

And now, today? After witnessing Politico, among others, savage Joe Wurtzelbacher?

Cold feet.

The Politico has this story. They’ve had it for a while. They don’t want to run it with the guy’s anonymity kept intact.

Gee, I wonder why he wanted to keep that?

They’re willing to endlessly vet anyone who even asks Barack Obama a question, but not Barack Obama himself.

Actually, Obama’s probably the most vetted candidate in history.  But when you put your credibility on the line making a bombshell charge against someone, can you have a serious expectation that your credibility isn’t going to be assessed?  I mean, if not, then I’ve got a great story about the depraved underage sex orgies John McCain had in his Senate office, and I’ll even give the National Review first crack at it.

Putting someone out on the public stage inevitably opens them up to questions about their credibility and honesty.  It just does.  The difference being, of course, whether or not we assess them based on what they tell us and what’s relevant to the claims they make…or if we start giving out home addresses and their respective countertop materials.  Godspeed,

Joe

Sam the (Not) Plumber.  Godspeed. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 10:08 AM • (49) Comments

It turns Joe into another (far less egregious) version of Graeme Frost (albeit one who is getting judged on his own characteristics rather than his parents).

Huh.  I guessed I missed the part where the Frosts were tax cheats who, in addition to the business they admitted owning, were the owners of a couple of other businesses.  And the part where they were found to be be closely related to powerful and, more importantly for their situation, extremely rich Democrats.  IOW, the Frosts, their situation and what happened to them has nothing to do with Wurzelbacher and they way he’s been treated.  He’s been a McCain campaign plant from the moment he tried to ambush Obama.  Malkin and Ace’s problem is that assholes are all they have left, so they really shouldn’t be surprised when people recognize them as such.

Comment #1: Stephen Suh  on  10/17  at  10:43 AM

I mostly agree with Stephen. The Frosts were in fact eligible for the program that helped them, and weren’t wealthy in the way that their detractors claimed.

On the other hand, Wurzelbacher—at least from the subsequent interviews—does seem pretty much like a dupe. He doesn’t apparently know squat either about running a business or about the implications of the question he was primed to ask.

Comment #2: paul  on  10/17  at  10:56 AM

Ah Michelle Malkin - the dribbling spooge-mouth of the GOP talking points squad.  One wonders how she looks in the mirror each morning and likes what she sees.

Comment #3: dejah thoris  on  10/17  at  10:57 AM

So were Joe’s countertops granite or marble?

Seriously though, the dogs descending upon Joe had me shaking my head just as bad as the Kerning Brigade leapt upon the Frosts.  Bad form.

Comment #4: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  10/17  at  10:59 AM

That’s some weird equivalency when exposing the truth about someone is considered the same as telling lies about someone.  Or that launching false attacks against a child is the same as, again, merely telling the truth about an adult.

I guess we need to never, ever dig into any supposed “regular Americans” that pop up supporting Republicans, because Michelle Malkin was once mean to a kid.  Now that the Republican Party’s serial adulterers, tax cheats, and assorted campaign operatives are able to say whatever they want with no consequence, it’ll sure make it easier for them to run successful campaigns.

Can’t give Michelle Malkin any reason to say that Democrats are meanies, though.  That would be terrible, so I welcome the new era in uncritically accepting whatever bullshit the right wing wants to peddle.

Comment #5: Stephen Suh  on  10/17  at  11:22 AM

I have to give Joe credit.  It was a cute question to ask, assuming people aren’t able to differentiate between “business income” and “personal income”.  I can easily see a plumbing company making a quarter million in gross receipts in a year.  And if Joe owned the business as a sole proprietorship and, on his taxes, chose to completely forgo filling out a Schedule C deductions form, I could see how his business would be heavily burdened by a combination of an increased tax burden and Joe’s complete inability to run a small business.

That said, if Joe T. Plumber picks up $250k in net profits… he’s making a shit load of money.  The notion that he is going to be “burdened” by additional taxes on his six figure income should strike anyone in the lowly $70, $80, or $100k income range as completely absurd.  The fact that he makes the money as a plumber and not an investment banker or a car dealer or a C-level manager at a large company somehow magically grants him “status” as Everyman.

Of course, if Joe really wanted a tax break, he could just take his company public and pay himself in stock shares of his own company.  Then he can declare his income as capital gains and pay a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than I do.  Going from a 30% tax bracket to a 15% tax bracket is a pretty sweet deal like that.  Poor Joe.  Learn from your GOoPer cohorts.  Taxes - YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG!

Comment #6: Zifnab25  on  10/17  at  11:28 AM

Where Plumber Joe became problematic was sometime between when John McCain decided that he was a perfect example of what was wrong with Barack Obama’s tax policies and when McCain decided that he was perfect for everything.

This “Plumber” Joe business also demonstrates how McCain’s media strategy has consistently been one step behind his opponents’—always a dangerous place to be in politics. While the top-down McCain campaign staffers were no doubt patting themselves on the back for using gee-whiz digital media technology to get a Joe the Plumber television ad (typically simplistic and deceptive) on the air within a day of the debate, grassroots supporters Obama were already in the process of exposing and analysing “Plumber” Joe’s many problems in detail on the Internet. The “gee-whiz” TV ad became a liability the moment it was released.

And I have no problem with a political plant like Joe the Plant being subject to this kind of scrutiny, even if he was duped into the role. You play the game at that level, you take the consequences.

Comment #7: Gracchus  on  10/17  at  11:28 AM

I am going to defend Joe the Plumber. All indications I’ve seen is that he was not a campaign plant. He was someone whose question tapped into a line of attack McCain has been pressing and it was captured on tape, allowing Obama’s answer to be played over and over again. This question was a totally valid question, even if it doesn’t yet apply to his life. “If I buy this business and the business’s profits are X, how will your tax plan affect me?” is a perfectly valid question. And Obama gave a fair and honest answer. I really think how you react to “spread the wealth around” might be the perfect litmus test of your political views. If you think “well yeah, that’s how progressive taxation works,” you’re a liberal. If you think, “he wants to take my money and give it to people who don’t work as hard,” you’re a conservative. But that doesn’t make it an unfair question. And I do think the level of digging into his personal life is uncalled for, just as it was uncalled for in the case of the Frosts.  You shouldn’t have to be 100 percent perfect and magically typical of the exact median income “average” American just to ask a question or raise a point.

Comment #8: chingona  on  10/17  at  11:43 AM

You play the game at that level, you take the consequences.

My take as well.

Comment #9: atheist  on  10/17  at  11:53 AM

And I have no problem with a political plant like Joe the Plant being subject to this kind of scrutiny, even if he was duped into the role. You play the game at that level, you take the consequences.

When I looked at the actual exchange, as opposed to McCain’s characterization of the exchange, I heard it as a hypothetical from Joe loosely (very, as it turned out) based in reality, in order to highlight what BO has been saying with the increase in marginal income tax increases.  BO took the question on its own terms and did a great job answering it.  Hey man, if you’re going to be taking down net income of $280,000 you can afford paying a little more taxes (3% of 30,000, but maybe less with the other tax breaks your business might get) so that guys like your employees won’t have to pay as much taxes.

If he was plant, OK, you get the proctoscope treatment.  If he was just trying to come up with a question on it, damn too bad the Repbubs shine a huge spotlight on him so the media dogs can shred him.  All for the sake of pulling a little sound byte out, “spreading the wealth around.”

Comment #10: MiddleageLiberal  on  10/17  at  11:54 AM

And I do think the level of digging into his personal life is uncalled for,

If “digging into his personal life” meant going through his trash, publishing his divorce records or interviewing his son, I’d agree with you. Looking to see whether “Joe” (actually “Sam”) is who he claims to be? That’s called “fact checking.”

Comment #11: mythago  on  10/17  at  12:00 PM

“So were Joe’s countertops granite or marble?”

I’m guessing Malkin won’t check him out (i.e. hang out in her minivan parked near his house waiting for him to leave so she can snoop), so we never know the answer to this pivotal question…

”...the closer you get to making someone seem like an average person, the more apparent it becomes that their circumstances differ from yours. “

I’d go even further and suggest that this dichotomy between the ideal and reality is the fatal flaw in any idealistic political/moral/social philosophy.  It’s what ruins libertarianism, communism, fascism (or maybe it’s supposed to work that way), democracy, etc., etc.

People don’t act and think the way many want them to — and they never will.  You can educate them, re-educated them, punish them, reward them, etc., but people will still figure out ways to do what they want.

Any philosophy that fails to acknowledge and handle this reality is doomed to failure…

Comment #12: MikeEss  on  10/17  at  12:03 PM

Actually, Obama’s probably the most vetted candidate in history.

When people say “Obama hasn’t been vetted” what they mean is, “After all this vetting of Obama, the public likes what it sees.” When it comes to Democrats, having a public “vetting” result in a positive impression of the candidate is considered, somehow, to be a “violation of the rules.”

Comment #13: Tyro  on  10/17  at  12:11 PM

And the part where they were found to be be closely related to powerful and, more importantly for their situation, extremely rich Democrats.

Actually, the Frosts were, IIRC.  Or at least they were about as closely related as Joe the Plumber seems to be to Charles Keating (ie not very, if at all).  So that part of the story is pretty shaky.

I’m not sure if Joe was a plant by the local Republican party (which seems much more likely than the McCain campaign doing it) or just a freelance Republican, but the McCain campaign presenting him as an undecided voter was pretty dumb since it was so easily disproven.

Comment #14: Mnemosyne  on  10/17  at  12:16 PM

@ Mnem. They did publish his divorce records.  And Ohio law does not require plumbers to be licensed. It’s optional. And there is nothing nefarious about going by your middle name. My brother has been known by his middle name since he was born. My parents always intended it to be his given name.

I’m not saying any sort of fact-checking is out of line. But this sort of breathless “And his name isn’t even Joe!!!!111!!1” stuff is crap.

Comment #15: chingona  on  10/17  at  12:16 PM

::raises hand:: I’m another person who’s called by his middle name, FWIW.  So that bit is just bs.

Comment #16: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/17  at  12:22 PM

This question was a totally valid question, even if it doesn’t yet apply to his life. “If I buy this business and the business’s profits are X, how will your tax plan affect me?” is a perfectly valid question.

Next question for Senator Obama: “If I win the lottery and the proceeds are X, how will your tax plan affect me?” By all accounts, Joe wasn’t going to see those kind of profits even if the owner of the company sold to him, and even if he could somehow secure financing to buy a $2.5mm per annum business (based on Joe’s projection of potential profits).  Given the facts (there’s that word again) of Joe’s situation, Obama’s proposed tax plan is the least of the obstacles to his dreams.

Checking the real facts of Joe’s financial and political story changes the bogus “under Obama, this blue-collar tradesmen has to give handouts to welfare queens” narrative to something very different.

If McCain wants to have serious small business owners (including plumbers) to question the implications of Obama’s tax programme, that’s fine. However, “Joe the Plumber” is, by all evidence, not a serious business owner—as I now understand it, he’s an unlicensed operator in the construction trade with a political agenda (and canned catchphrases to match) who hopes to buy a small business for some unclear amount with an overly-optimistic assessment of profits (all the while demonstrating a profound ignorance of basic finance).

McCain erred big-time in choosing to spotlight Joe, and Joe erred big-time in not ducking out of it or bloody begging McCain not to use him as a political prop. Now both are paying the price.

Comment #17: Gracchus  on  10/17  at  12:25 PM

Hey, my middle kid goes by “Sasha” b/c her middle name is “Alessandra”.

It does too make sense!* 

Let Joe be Joe!

But let’s stop equivocating lies and facts.  M’kay?  Obama has two autobiographies.  His name is on the Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative, which is a big deal accomplishment and bipartisan to boot. 

He does not eat babies nor leave them to die in storage closets.

If Joe makes $250,000 in receivables, he probably won’t pay more in taxes under Obama’s plan.  That’s different from netting $250,000 in profits, in which case he’ll probably pay a little more, but then again, he can afford it seeing how he has a quarter million in profit.

Can the new millennium finally start?


*“Sasha” is a Russian/Slovak nickname for “Alexander”.  She’s a quarter Slovak, although the Slovak grandmother hates the name “Sasha” and thinks it’s a “black” name.  Obama’s daughter being named “Sasha” has firmly convinced her that the Caucasus Mountains origin can’t possibly true.

Comment #18: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/17  at  12:30 PM

They did publish his divorce records.  And Ohio law does not require plumbers to be licensed.

Divorce (and tax) records go to financial situation—unfortunate for Joe, but they’re valid when we’re discussing business issues. And while Ohio law doesn’t require plumbers to be licensed, you can bet that a plumbing company bringing in $2.5mm a year will need at least one licensed plumber in a C-level position; the other C-levels are white-collar managers in support and sales roles, and can’t really be called “x the Plumber.”

Comment #19: Gracchus  on  10/17  at  12:32 PM

I suspect that Joe the almost-Plumber got suckered into this by his uncle, who is active in Cincinnati’s surrounding counties’ Republican apparatus and is a big donor. Someone from the campaign called uncle and after transacting the main business of the call said, “hey, do you know a small businessman in our next campaign stop city that could appear at a rally, be asked a question, and let his story be told by the campaign? Your volunteer will get to meet McCain.”

Comment #20: NancyP  on  10/17  at  12:42 PM

Slightly OT but thanks so much for the “uncanny valley” reference. I finally have an explanation for my longstanding serious dislike of Chia pets and almost nauseous reaction to those bald head thingies that grow real grass where they should have hair.

As far as Joe, did the McCain campaign get permission to mention him by name during the debate?

Comment #21: PeggySu  on  10/17  at  12:50 PM

Gracchus, I was talking to Mnemosyne, who said “if they published his divorce records” that would be an example of going over the line. There is no “if” there. They did it.


Look, my husband works in local government. That means his employer doesn’t get a tax break for its share of his premiums because they don’t pay taxes to begin with. My husband intends to vote for Obama. If he went up to McCain and asked him a question about his plan to remove the tax benefit for businesses’ share of employees’ premiums - and let’s say he didn’t use exactly the right terminology because he’s a lay person but both he and McCain understood what the question was about and McCain said something about decoupling employment and health benefits that we here on the left jumped all over - and then Obama used my husband as an example of the kind of person who would be hurt by McCain’s health care plan ... everyone following me here? ... would that justify the press descending upon us and writing about how my husband wasn’t who he claimed he was, how he really works for the public sector, isn’t really like most Americans because he’s college educated and has a valid passport, how we have nothing to worry about with health care because he has employer-based health care now that wouldn’t be affected one way or the other by McCain’s plan, how he mischaracterized McCain’s plan, how he’s actually a registered Democrat, how he once was arrested for disorderly conduct and spent the night in the drunk tank and how he went to three colleges and it took him six years to get his degree?

Comment #22: chingona  on  10/17  at  12:55 PM

And Ohio law does not require plumbers to be licensed.

The city of Toledo, however, does, which is why Joe’s boss is licensed.

Obama displayed his keen political instincts by answering Joe not with something that may have made Joe happy, but by giving an answer that undecided voters would respond well to.

Comment #23: Tyro  on  10/17  at  12:56 PM

If Joe makes $250,000 in receivables, he probably won’t pay more in taxes under Obama’s plan.  That’s different from netting $250,000 in profits, in which case he’ll probably pay a little more, but then again, he can afford it seeing how he has a quarter million in profit.

And this is a perfectly valid ... and in my opinion, the only relevant ... critique of the whole thing. His question involved a far more likely scenario than winning the lottery. The Democratic position is that those doing very well can afford to pay more taxes. Make the necessary distinctions, explain the policy proposals, and move on.

Comment #24: chingona  on  10/17  at  01:00 PM

They did publish his divorce records.  And Ohio law does not require plumbers to be licensed. It’s optional. And there is nothing nefarious about going by your middle name.

They did not “publish his divorce records,” even though those are public records (noting he is divorced is hardly digging). As Tyro already noted, Lucas County requires plumbers to be licensed. And “Joe the Plumber” is what McCain and Palin are calling Mr. Wurzelbacher; it’s not nefarious to note that his first name is Samuel and to question whether he really goes by “Joe” (no biggie) or whether “Joe the Plumber” was simply thought to be a better soundbite than “Sam the Plumber”.

When we start seeing interviews with Mr. Wurzelbacher’s ex-wife or news stories on his kid, I’ll agree with you. But the guy decided to try and gotcha Obama, painting himself as an ordinary, blue-collar “Joe” whose dream of running his own business was thwarted by those darn taxin’ Democrats. What’s so horribly about seeing if he really is who he claims to be?

Comment #25: mythago  on  10/17  at  01:04 PM

Just for the record, my plumber’s name is Mike.

Comment #26: kajey  on  10/17  at  01:15 PM

If all they did was note that he was divorced, I wouldn’t know that his wife accused him of abuse when she filed for divorce. My husband’s arrest record is public information, too. Would it be a relevant issue if he asked McCain a question?

I’m not saying Joe is a good guy that I would want to pal around with, that I agree with his politics, that he has a keen understanding of the tax code, that he would pay more in taxes under Obama, that he couldn’t afford to pay more if he really did take home more than $250,000 a year in income, that I have a problem with Obama’s answer or that Michelle Malkin has any business scolding anyone on any of those things. I’m not making a single one of those arguments.

But I think the level of scrutiny and the breathlessness with which the most insignificant facts are repeated as further evidence of his perfidy are out of line. And I think if the shoe were on the other foot, all of us here would be outraged.

Comment #27: chingona  on  10/17  at  01:15 PM

Sorry, this guy is getting the vetting he deserves.  If you want to play activist and go and ask a ‘loaded’ question of a high profile candidate you oppose, then you need to be ready to pay the costs to your privacy.  The question was so loaded and the attempt to cast him as ‘undecided’ so odd as to suggest he was more than just freelancing, which means even more vetting is necessary.  If he was a plant, then the campaign that planted him better be ready to pay the consequences.

Comment #28: Ricky  on  10/17  at  01:29 PM

“Just for the record, my plumber’s name is Mike.”

...I’m sorry.  I’ve learned through painful experience that you just can’t trust guys named “Mike”.  Something wrong in the wiring or something…

Comment #29: MikeEss  on  10/17  at  01:30 PM

Chingona,

Ethical fact-checking addresses the substance of the question and the person asking it. If the person isn’t who he claims to be in one way or another (e.g. a serious business owner or potential owner; a politically-neutral random bystander; etc.), then it’s fair game. A large part of the problem with the MSM over the last 8 years is that they haven’t questioned the bona fides of guys like Joe the Plumber.

I got my start in my first career journalism as a fact-checker for a serious magazine, and due to heavy potential legal consequences for errors (as well as basic ethics) learned where to draw the line. Some of the stuff about Joe has been silly or just plain unverified. But in this case, questions regarding the Joe’s job status (including licensing), business acumen, and financial status—even those touching on his divorce—are allowable given his role in the situation. The same goes for questions about his involvement in partisan politics. Joe did nothing to stop himself being made an iconic public figure in a Presidential campaign, so I have no sympathy for him when people use publically available verified facts to call BS on the image or story being presented.

Comment #30: Gracchus  on  10/17  at  01:44 PM

Ricky - “Sorry, this guy is getting the vetting he deserves.  If you want to play activist and go and ask a ‘loaded’ question of a high profile candidate you oppose, then you need to be ready to pay the costs to your privacy “

Really?.....Setting aside the fact that the question was hardly loaded, are you seriously suggesting that a citizens privacy should be “vetted” to the whole world for asking a question to a politician? Not the America I want to live in.

Comment #31: Campionrules  on  10/17  at  01:45 PM

If all they did was note that he was divorced, I wouldn’t know that his wife accused him of abuse when she filed for divorce.

Who was “they”? I haven’t seen this information in any mainstream media reports (including his local paper, the Toledo Blade) - only the fact that he was divorced and his reported income at the time, which is certainly relevant information for somebody putting his income at issue. What, specifically, do you think is being reported about Wurzelbacher that is inappropriate and should be kept private?

If an Obama supporter confronted McCain pretending to be a “Joe the Plumber” who would be hurt by McCain’s economic policies, but said “Joe” turned out to be “Sam the Plumber” who wasn’t licensed, wouldn’t be harmed by McCain’s economic policies and deliberately inserted himself at the rally to confront McCain while pretending to ‘just happen to be there’, do you really think people would be defending him to the death?

Malkin and her fellow rock-dwellers don’t care about the shoe being on the other foot. They’re vile, hateful assjacks who care only about venting their mental and emotional issues on liberals. They are perfectly comfortable with the doublethink required to approve attacking a twelve-year-old boy, but screaming in outrage over checking whether “you will hurt me with your taxes” is actually a true statement by a Republican plant.

Comment #32: mythago  on  10/17  at  01:46 PM

Also, what’s up the republican plant thing? I thought Obama stopped in his neighborhood to meet and greet and that the plumber asked him a questions from his front yard. No way the Rethugs are that good.  Of course, he did take to the 15 mins of fame pretty quickly.

Comment #33: CampionRules  on  10/17  at  01:50 PM

Setting aside the fact that the question was hardly loaded, are you seriously suggesting that a citizens privacy should be “vetted” to the whole world for asking a question to a politician? Not the America I want to live in.

A citizen’s background and political affiliation should be vetted on relevant issues if said citizen is being held up as an iconic “everyman” figure by a Presidential candidate. Just asking aquestion isn’t a big deal, even in the presence of the press. But McCain upped the stakes during the debate and Joe followed along for his own reasons.

Comment #34: Gracchus  on  10/17  at  02:08 PM

Gracchus, I was talking to Mnemosyne, who said “if they published his divorce records” that would be an example of going over the line. There is no “if” there. They did it.

Huh?  I think you mixed me up with someone else.  I was saying that his supposed “connection” to Charles Keating was a pretty thin reed to hang a conspiracy theory on, and that the Frosts had the same “connection” to Democrats that Joe has to powerful Republicans (ie not much at all).

If a guy asks a question premised on the fact that he’s getting ready to buy a business that will give him $250,000 in income, I do think it’s fair to take a look at the actual circumstances (like how much the business he said he wants to buy really makes) and point out that he seems to be a little confused about the difference between gross receipts and income.  Dragging his divorce into it is an unnecessary sideshow and gets us into countertops territory.

Comment #35: Mnemosyne  on  10/17  at  02:47 PM

Well, mythago, I haven’t read anywhere in a serious news outlet that he was a plant for the McCain campaign, but everyone here seems to be operating under that assumption. I’m afraid I can’t say where I read it, because a co-worker read it off from something he was reading, and I didn’t ask him what he was reading. But it’s out there.

During the primary, the candidates were using a lot of the people they met in these small towns along the way as examples in their stump speeches. On several occassions, I heard news reports in which the reporter went back and checked out the every man or every woman. Whenever the story didn’t match what the candidate had said, the blame fell on the candidate for misusing the information, not on the ordinary person for failing to live up to the description given by the candidate.

I said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t have a problem with fact-checking (my journalism bonafides are at least as good as yours, I guarantee you) or clarifying what Obama’s tax plan would and wouldn’t mean for any particular scenario. The guy doesn’t have concrete plans to buy the business, but the scenario of someone being in a position to buy the company they work for and wondering about the tax impact of that is not unrealistic or fantastic. If I walked up to McCain and said “Your health care proposal could result in my employer dropping my health insurance coverage, couldn’t it?” someone could go interview the HR department where I work and report “They have no plans to drop coverage, even under McCain’s proposal,” but it doesn’t make the concern I’m raising an invalid concern for someone trying to decide how to vote. Obama gave a good answer and an honest answer to the question. People who are ideologically conservative don’t like. People who are ideologically conservative probably shouldn’t vote for and probably won’t vote for Obama. That doesn’t make it a gotcha question.

I guess my problem is with the overall tone of the coverage, which is not “McCain is misrepresenting this person and the impact Obama’s policies would have on him.” Instead the tone is “Joe is a fraud and a liar who doesn’t even use his real name.”

Comment #36: chingona  on  10/17  at  03:05 PM

My bad, Mnemosyne. It was mythago. All those m’s…

Comment #37: chingona  on  10/17  at  03:11 PM

Really?.....Setting aside the fact that the question was hardly loaded, are you seriously suggesting that a citizens privacy should be “vetted” to the whole world for asking a question to a politician? Not the America I want to live in.

Why do people keep saying that all he did was “ask Obama a question.”  After that, he did the following:

1.  Gave an interview to a website called Family Security Matters (a right-wing website that features articles with titles like “Was a Communist Obama’s Sex Teacher?”) in which he all but calls Obama a commie, and admits that he was more interested in ambushing Obama than in listening to what he had to say about his tax plans:

http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1465/pub_detail.asp

2.  Gave interviews to Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Trey Ware (a conservative talk radio host)

3.  Became the focal point of John McCain’s arguments against Obama’s tax plans in the third debate.

Joe milked this thing for all it was worth.  He deserves no one’s sympathy.

Comment #38: commie atheist  on  10/17  at  03:31 PM

If I walked up to McCain and said “Your health care proposal could result in my employer dropping my health insurance coverage, couldn’t it?” someone could go interview the HR department where I work and report “They have no plans to drop coverage, even under McCain’s proposal,” but it doesn’t make the concern I’m raising an invalid concern for someone trying to decide how to vote.

All that could happen, but I don’t think anyone would bother vetting you unless Obama were stupid enough to point to you as an example of someone who could be impacted by McCain’s healthcare proposal without checking you out himself, and unless you were stupid enough to follow up on that by going on Air America and Olbermann, etc.

As to validity, if the question you’re asking is discovered (via fact checking) to have no real relevance to your situation, current or projected, you’re basically making a statement of political opinion (or “gotcha”) disguised as a query. That’s fine, but political opinions are definitely open to critique and analysis—especially when that opinion is placed centre stage in front of millions.

I suppose you might also ask such a worried question based on ignorance of your own situation, in which case you’d be correctly lambasted for not checking with your own HR dept. directly before others did so for you.

I guess my problem is with the overall tone of the coverage, which is not “McCain is misrepresenting this person and the impact Obama’s policies would have on him.” Instead the tone is “Joe is a fraud and a liar who doesn’t even use his real name.”

Whose coverage? Bloggers? Commenters? A nasty tone is the price we pay for free speech on the Internet (make that anywhere—O’Reilly and Limbaugh are only two examples). If a particular blogger (or press outlet) has made a defamatory statement, I’m sure Joe can sue him.

If you want an “impartial” tone (the sort that leads to Xtian fantasists being given equal scientific standing with biologists in debates over evolution, or Joe equal standing with real business owners), the MSM might be a better fit for you. I prefer a medium that cuts through the BS, even if things get a little rude in the process.

Comment #39: Gracchus  on  10/17  at  04:12 PM

If Joe the Plumber was a GOP plant, then not only the GOP but also this guy as well had to know the kind of scrutiny that would follow. Fair enough. The kind of personal scrutiny featured in USA politics can be harsh and irrelevant - not enough policy, too much personal business. Maybe I would not defend jumping on a bandwagon and treating people cruelly for some act that does not deserve it, just because the world is screwed up and they knew that beforehand. But the GOP relies on this ugly personal politics to get its way all of the time, with its cultural narrative about Authentic Americans, and what is worse, Joe the Plumber is a textbook example of holding up personal characteristics rather than policy to please voters. The GOP just didn’t want others to look too closely at this guy’s personal stuff and accept its characterizations of this guy without question - to have their Joe the Plumber politics and eat them, too.

Comment #40: Luke  on  10/17  at  04:18 PM

The GOP just didn’t want others to look too closely at this guy’s personal stuff and accept its characterizations of this guy without question - to have their Joe the Plumber politics and eat them, too.

And without the liberal blogosphere’s efforts, I’d argue that’s exactly how it would have played out—Bob Schieffer and the rest of the MSM nodding politely and accepting Joe as someone whose opinions or fears on the matter were worthy of serious consideration.

Comment #41: Gracchus  on  10/17  at  04:29 PM

Joe milked this thing for all it was worth.  He deserves no one’s sympathy.

This, I guess, is where I part with chingona—when Joe decided to become a media star, he opened himself up to more scrutiny than if he’d just been some guy who got referenced in the debate.  His divorce is still off the table, but the fact that he’s a registered Republican and not an undecided voter is definitely an important part of the story.

Comment #42: Mnemosyne  on  10/17  at  04:30 PM

And there is nothing nefarious about going by your middle name. My brother has been known by his middle name since he was born. My parents always intended it to be his given name.

I’m not saying any sort of fact-checking is out of line. But this sort of breathless “And his name isn’t even Joe!!!!111!!1” stuff is crap.

Actually, I find the whole middle name thing both intriguing and hillarious. See, middle name usage and name misspellings are among the innocent clerical discrepancies that the GOP is using to challenge thousands of voters in critical swing states—including and especially Ohio, where up to 600,000 registrations were on the verge of getting thrown out until this morning. And the GOP is recruiting volunteers to hang out at the polls and shriek “Vote fraud! Vote fraud!” when someone tries to do something nefarious like use their middle name.

I find it satisfyingly ironic: the one way that Joe the Plumber truly represents large numbers of voters is the one way the GOP doesn’t want to talk about: his voter registration is likely be tossed and/or he is likely be challenged at the polls by GOP party operatives. (Assuming he lives in a Democratic-leaning polling district, of course.)

Comment #43: Dorothy  on  10/17  at  04:54 PM

Gracchus, you’re kind of missing the point of my example. First of all, who the hell trusts their HR dept. about what kind of benefits they’ll offer three years from now? Not me, that’s for damn sure. But more to the point, I am entitled to ask a question about the likely effect of McCain’s plans on employer-based health insurance even if it doesn’t affect me in my exact and very specific personal situation right this minute . I might not be applying for other jobs right now, but it might still have occured to me that perhaps I’ll be working somewhere else next year or the year after. Perhaps I’m just concerned in general about the liklihood of undermining employer-based health insurance with no replacement in the works. And I cannot get behind the idea that if someone doesn’t understand something as complicated as the tax code or health care policy, they aren’t allowed to ask a question without getting swarmed. You keep calling it a “gotcha” question. Did he trick Obama into saying something he shouldn’t have? I don’t think so. You also make it sound like the distinction between political opinion and innocent query is a bright bold line. My political outlook influences the kinds of questions I would ask a candidate if I were undecided (and many registered Republicans are voting Obama or are undecided - his political registration in and of itself does not mean he was a plant).

As for the tone stuff, some of what bothered me was MSM and some of what didn’t bother was on blogs. I call bullshit on your “free speech” excuse. My saying I don’t think we need to be as much of assholes as Malkin was to the Frosts doesn’t censor anybody. People can say what they want and I can say I don’t like it.

Comment #44: chingona  on  10/17  at  05:49 PM

Look, my husband works in local government. That means his employer doesn’t get a tax break for its share of his premiums because they don’t pay taxes to begin with. My husband intends to vote for Obama. If he went up to McCain and asked him a question about his plan to remove the tax benefit for businesses’ share of employees’ premiums - and let’s say he didn’t use exactly the right terminology because he’s a lay person but both he and McCain understood what the question was about and McCain said something about decoupling employment and health benefits that we here on the left jumped all over - and then Obama used my husband as an example of the kind of person who would be hurt by McCain’s health care plan ... everyone following me here? ... would that justify the press descending upon us and writing about how my husband wasn’t who he claimed he was, how he really works for the public sector, isn’t really like most Americans because he’s college educated and has a valid passport, how we have nothing to worry about with health care because he has employer-based health care now that wouldn’t be affected one way or the other by McCain’s plan, how he mischaracterized McCain’s plan, how he’s actually a registered Democrat, how he once was arrested for disorderly conduct and spent the night in the drunk tank and how he went to three colleges and it took him six years to get his degree?

I know what you mean, Chingona, but it seems to me that the only way to get righties to quit confabulating and prevaricating is to make certain that they understand that they lose as long as they insist on playing by the rotten lousy rules they invented.

If you have any alternatives to suggest, I’d sure be happy to hear ‘em.

Comment #45: bekabot  on  10/17  at  06:23 PM

Chingona, I don’t know if this will make any difference to you, but the McCain campaign invited him to attend the McCain rally in Toledo:

Wurzelbacher also divulged that the McCain campaign had contacted him several days before the debate and asked him to appear at the Toledo rally. A campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Wurzelbacher had been invited.

Again, still doesn’t excuse digging up the guy’s divorce records, but there’s definitely a story there.  I think that McCain’s campaign was hoping to use Joe the Plumber’s sad story of losing money because of Barack Obama’s policies and didn’t count on the media actually investigating his claims.

Comment #46: Mnemosyne  on  10/17  at  07:32 PM

I suspect that the strength of my disagreement with Gracchus’s view has caused folks to think I have a higher opinion of Joe than I do. The more I read about him, the more he sounds like a real douchebag. I absolutely agree that the more he seeks out publicity/openly works with the McCain campaign, the less right to privacy he has. There’s a sliding scale, and I can’t point to the exact tipping point. I just know that a few of the things I saw/heard were definitely over the line, by my standards.

Comment #47: chingona  on  10/17  at  09:24 PM

Guy was making 40k a year for chrissakes.  Obviously he’s a stooge of some sort, and the more I see about him, the less I like him and it just underscores the depths of depravity McCain will stoop to.

Enjoy.

Comment #48: Tim Fuller  on  10/18  at  01:43 AM

Well, mythago, I haven’t read anywhere in a serious news outlet that he was a plant for the McCain campaign, but everyone here seems to be operating under that assumption. I’m afraid I can’t say where I read it, because a co-worker read it off from something he was reading, and I didn’t ask him what he was reading. But it’s out there.

So, somewhere on the Internet - perhaps on the actual Court website where the records are kept, being public records - your co-worker found a reference to the content of the divorce records. You assumed this meant that ‘they’ (the media? liberals? Pandagonians?) are “digging into his personal life”.

Well, your co-worker sure was, and you were, by proxy. Other than that, the mainstream media has been remarkably circumspect about irrelevant personal details.

You’re also pretending that “Joe the Plumber” asked a general question (like your health insurance one) instead of making misrepresentations about how Obama’s policies would personally affect him.

I get that you don’t like the tone. You’re presenting that dislike by, bluntly, exaggerating and hand-waving.

Comment #49: mythago  on  10/18  at  01:12 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.