One of the more ironic twists in the current election season has been the Liberal mainstream media or MSM (a/k/a “friend of the working class") assailing every working person in sight!
When McCain failed to nominate “another rich white guy” (the media’s set attacks for Romney, Lieberman or Giuliani), they went apoplectic over Sarah Palin.
These so-called “friends of the working people” weren’t so friendly to one of our own.
I wonder why...Oh wait, no I don’t, it’s the ideology.
When the MSM found that its sliming was not having the intended effect, they retreated to, “It’s all about McCain.”
Now the race has been impacted by yet another “average Joe,” a plumber from Ohio named Samuel Joseph “Joe” Wurzelbacher, over an exchange between the plumber and Barack Obama, when the Presidential nominee was campaigning for votes on Mr. Wurzelbacher’s street.
“Joe the Plumber” told Barack Obama he didn’t much care for his tax plan, expressing his own aspirations to one day own the plumbing company he works for, upon which Barack Obama began to expound upon the “need to spread the wealth around.”
So, what was the response by a once chastened MSM and the Obama camp?
Perhaps a serious consideration of why so many relatively low income, wage-earners oppose redistributionist programs designed ostensibly to “help them?”
Not a chance.
Remember, not many in the MSM or in politics took a lot of math, so logic isn’t their strong suit.
But if you said, “How about reverting to form and sliming Joe Wurzelbacher like he was a red-headed Sarah Palin?”
Bingo! Now that’s the ticket! You nailed it.
Yes, we skipped right over all that working class aspiration stuff and learned that Joe’s real first name is (gasp!) Samuel.
OK, what’s the point? I know a guy named Lido James S. who goes by “Jim.” I’ll take it on faith that both Lido James S. and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher know their own names – Jim and Joe, respectively.
Oh yeah, and for years, Barack Obama went by the name “Barry.” So, what’s in a name?
We also learned that “Joe the Plumber” doesn’t have a “plumber’s license.”
Well, it turns out you don’t NEED a plumber’s license to work as an apprentice with a licensed plumber. Apparently Joe’s working on the license and would need it to buy the business he currently works for.
We also learned that “Joe the Plumber” has a tax lien registered against him. According to Barb Losie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, "There is a judgment lien against him for nonpayment of income tax," adding, “There is a 99 percent chance he doesn't know about the lien, unless he did a credit report or was ready to pay his taxes."
Losie said Wurzelbacher owes $1,182 from January 2007, but no action has been taken against him outside of filing the lien.
What we didn’t learn from the MSM (although it’s widely available online thanks to the likes of Instapundit, Michelle Malkin and the Volokh Conspiracy to name but a few) Barack Obama has his own tax problems, ones that are far more ethically serious than “Joe the Plumber’s.”
According to Jim Lindgren at the Volokh Conspiracy, “Just to remind you, Illinois prohibits state legislators from “taking speaking fees, and Barack Obama reported speaking fees.”
“Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.
“But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?
“2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”
“2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking).
“2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”
These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.
“The Illinois Governmental Ethics Act (apparently last changed in 1995) provides:
(5 ILCS 420/2-110)
“Sec. 2-110. Honoraria.
(a) No member of the General Assembly shall accept any honorarium.
(b) As used in this Section:
When McCain failed to nominate “another rich white guy” (the media’s set attacks for Romney, Lieberman or Giuliani), they went apoplectic over Sarah Palin.
These so-called “friends of the working people” weren’t so friendly to one of our own.
I wonder why...Oh wait, no I don’t, it’s the ideology.
When the MSM found that its sliming was not having the intended effect, they retreated to, “It’s all about McCain.”
Now the race has been impacted by yet another “average Joe,” a plumber from Ohio named Samuel Joseph “Joe” Wurzelbacher, over an exchange between the plumber and Barack Obama, when the Presidential nominee was campaigning for votes on Mr. Wurzelbacher’s street.
“Joe the Plumber” told Barack Obama he didn’t much care for his tax plan, expressing his own aspirations to one day own the plumbing company he works for, upon which Barack Obama began to expound upon the “need to spread the wealth around.”
So, what was the response by a once chastened MSM and the Obama camp?
Perhaps a serious consideration of why so many relatively low income, wage-earners oppose redistributionist programs designed ostensibly to “help them?”
Not a chance.
Remember, not many in the MSM or in politics took a lot of math, so logic isn’t their strong suit.
But if you said, “How about reverting to form and sliming Joe Wurzelbacher like he was a red-headed Sarah Palin?”
Bingo! Now that’s the ticket! You nailed it.
Yes, we skipped right over all that working class aspiration stuff and learned that Joe’s real first name is (gasp!) Samuel.
OK, what’s the point? I know a guy named Lido James S. who goes by “Jim.” I’ll take it on faith that both Lido James S. and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher know their own names – Jim and Joe, respectively.
Oh yeah, and for years, Barack Obama went by the name “Barry.” So, what’s in a name?
We also learned that “Joe the Plumber” doesn’t have a “plumber’s license.”
Well, it turns out you don’t NEED a plumber’s license to work as an apprentice with a licensed plumber. Apparently Joe’s working on the license and would need it to buy the business he currently works for.
We also learned that “Joe the Plumber” has a tax lien registered against him. According to Barb Losie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, "There is a judgment lien against him for nonpayment of income tax," adding, “There is a 99 percent chance he doesn't know about the lien, unless he did a credit report or was ready to pay his taxes."
Losie said Wurzelbacher owes $1,182 from January 2007, but no action has been taken against him outside of filing the lien.
What we didn’t learn from the MSM (although it’s widely available online thanks to the likes of Instapundit, Michelle Malkin and the Volokh Conspiracy to name but a few) Barack Obama has his own tax problems, ones that are far more ethically serious than “Joe the Plumber’s.”
According to Jim Lindgren at the Volokh Conspiracy, “Just to remind you, Illinois prohibits state legislators from “taking speaking fees, and Barack Obama reported speaking fees.”
“Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.
“But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?
“2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”
“2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking).
“2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”
These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.
“The Illinois Governmental Ethics Act (apparently last changed in 1995) provides:
(5 ILCS 420/2-110)
“Sec. 2-110. Honoraria.
(a) No member of the General Assembly shall accept any honorarium.
(b) As used in this Section:
"Honorarium" means a payment of money to a member of the General Assembly for an appearance or speech . . . .”
OK, so we’ve REALLY learned that both “Joe the Plumber” and Barry...I mean Barack Obama have had self-imposed name changes and both have ongoing tax problems!
OK, aside from all that trivia, isn’t there some room to address the crux of what Joe Wurzelbacher’s exchange with Obama meant?
Liberals scream, “Sam the non-plumber would benefit from Obama’s tax plan.”
Of course that’s based on Joe’s current status, as a $45,000/year plumber’s assistant and it discounts his aspirations, which is what he based his question about Obama’s tax policy on.
Moreover, like the vast majority of decent, hardworking Americans, Joe doesn’t want to benefit at someone else’s expense, as he replied to those reporters who told him of his Obama-plan windfall, “If you believed [Obama], I’d be receiving his tax cuts, but I don’t look at it that way,” he said. “He’d still be hurting others.”
No wonder the Left reviles Joe Wurzelbacher, he’s a real working American!
8 comments:
When you can't refute them, demonize them. That's the change we need.
JMK, I am back. I have returned from my short retirement thanks to Colin Powell.
Now to all the plummers pull your pants up. LOL.
It is indeed sickening. Real liberals should be pissed. I am. That's why I'm writing in my candidates - AGAIN.
Unwittingly or not, Joe Wurzelbach's question embarassed the Obama camp.
In a moment of reckless candor that he believed that America's wealth needed to be "spread around" more equitably.
Of course, since over 70% of Americans STRONLY OPPOSE that idea, the Obama camp has (1) retreated vigorously from that public stand and (2) sought to assail JtP's aspirations, as THAT'S wht his question was about - how such redistributionist schemes will impact the goals and aspirations of most Americans...and the answer is "Quite negatively."
I'm very glad you're back AM!
You write well and you're always passionate.
While I've said, "I can understand black Americans supporting BO out of ethnic pride, as I grew up knowing Conservative Irish and Italians who did the same with the likes of Kennedy and Cuomo," I DO expect folks like you to be honest in your appraisals should Obama take office (as he's favored to do).
I've said, and I think this is irrefutable, IF an Obama administration presides over two straight years of double digit Misery Indexes (the inflation rate + the unemployment rate), at THAT point it can be deemed "an utter failure." Without question, the same would go for McCain.
The Misery Index has been rising steadily since January of 2007 (since Pelosi-Reid took over Congress), and this year's stands at 9.88 through August 2008, and may just avoid double digits for the year by mere tenths of a point, preserving the current string of 16 straight years of single digit Misery Indexes!
Things don't look good for '09 at all. It will almost certainly be a double digit Misery Index year. It seems to be merely a matter of by how much. That would give the Obama administration another ten months to "clean things up."
At that point, I think we'd have to look at turning the Congress (both Houses) back over to the GOP.
I think I'm being fair here, if not, please let me know what you think.
I've said for a long time now, Rachel, that the choice this year is probably the worst I've ever faced. For me it is sickeningly depressing, but I'm a Conservative faced with a choice between a Republican who is even more Liberal than LBJ was, back in 1964, and a current-day far-Left Liberal of the Moore-Gore-Franken wing of that Party.
I'd think that you, as a self-proclaimed "Liberal" would be ecstatic (or at least somewhat happy) at the prospect of having TWO Liberal choices.
But perhaps by "Liberal," you mean, "in favor of more Liberty and LESS governmental intervention" - more Libertarian, than Liberal? You certainly seem more "fiscally Conservative" than most conventional Liberals and you seem to hold to many of the same traditional values as many Conservatives do, I guess I've always wondered exactly how you define "Liberal" for yourself, as we all tend to define our own terms in our own somewhat unique ways (I know I do).
I'll say this, I think we're in big (economic) trouble either way, probably even more, with a Democratic Executive Branch, but with Pelosi-Reid controlling Congress, I really don't see anything but hard times ahead.
But maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic, after all, maybe all those economic rules I've read about don't really apply. Certainly the far-Left doesn't think they do...and we haven't even felt the blast effects from the current credit crisis YET.
My fear is that the public sector is going to be shocked by the devastating impact of all this when the dust settles and as always, the last hit, will also be the last to recover.....but that's ONLY IF those economic rules you read about in all those economic text books really still apply.
I guess we'll see.
I think those economic rules do apply, Sir. And you have well illustrated the irony of the MSM/Obama swarm crapping all over Joe the Plumber... with the lemming supporters all roundly applauding. Yet they can't recognize that they are ALL Joe the Plumbers... to the Anointed One.
Isn't this just seriously sad?
You're right DI, those rules certainly do apply! As Margaret Thatcher so eloquently put it, "The facts of life are Conservative."
I fear that we're going to engage in a 1970s redux, whether we like it or not...and I (as I'm sure you, as well) do not like it, at all.
I refuse to accept either McCain as a "saviour of the Right, or the nation," nor Obama as "the end or ruination of Capitalist America."
I lived through the Carter debacle and before 1980 I could smell violent revolt in the air.
I was actually blind-sided by Ronald Reagan...and in some ways, at least in my view, he merely took the pressure off of Liberalism by offering those dolts a continuation of the regulated market only with an emphasis on the market itself (Supply Side policies) instead of the "social and economic injustice" that the Left insisted and foolishly continues to insist upon.
Well, the Left has finally gotten its second shot.
Fine.
To me, that's actually preferable to the tenuous cease-fire between Right and Left we've lived with over the past quarter century.
I've NEVER sought to convert or convince the Left...I want to destroy them.
So let them attempt to "remake America," let them attempt to shut down and shut out Conservative voices and then let them reap the violence their authoritarianism deserves.
I've had a good life and I LOVE LIBERTY more than I do any country, any government....so I'm ready for whatever it is that comes.
I'm not happy about it, but I'm steeled over it and I'm ready for whatever may come.
Post a Comment