I noticed in this thread a very heavy use of the word "smear." Is it really a smear when one reports only the truth about an individual? And not only the truth, but a truth or truths which are matters of public record - - tax liens, licensing status?
To those who are "seething with rage" - - and I thank Missus D for bringing this to our attention - - I can acknowledge some understanding, if not necessarily sympathy. It does seem unfair for this guy to be exposed to national ridicule, all for the terrible offence of questioning a man running for high public office. All the more so when, as it appears now, he did not approach Obama, but rather, Obama approached him. I would regard this as very bad luck on the part of Joe. Maybe the answer is stay away from politicians and always keep out of the limelight. I remember very vividly a concentration camp survivor's advice never to be the first or last in any line, never ask questions of authority and never stand out in any way, good or bad, likely to come to anyone else's notice, which might be good advice for a concentration camp inmate but very sad advice for an American citizen who wants to engage in the democratic process. Joe interacted with Senator Obama, got his 15 minutes of fame, and is "paying the price" - - but please, people, let's keep our heads screwed on tight and straight here.
Some of our more hysterical friends on the right are screaming that Joe is being "pilloried," that "every aspect" of his private (that's a lie) and professional life is being "exposed" and that Joe is being "obliterated." (I hope whoever wrote that dreck never has to live under a fascist dictatorship, where he or she can find out what being "obliterated" really involves.) That Joe is being "destroyed" (laughable, he's been handed million-dollar name recognition if he ever wants to work as "The Original Joe the Plumber of TV and Internet Fame") and humiliated (sadly, this is true.)
I think the bottom line, when you weed through all the hysterical, overblown hyperbole of the far right lunatic fringe, is that Joe spoke up and was ridiculed, embarrassed and humiliated by the national media. The cost of some invaluable publicity and 15 minutes of fame was another 15 minutes of public ridicule, basically. Was it some kind of irreversible tragedy? Hardly. Was it fair? Probably not, but since when was life ever fair? It is certainly survivable. Will it "chill" or "dampen" freedom of speech in America? Will The Man in the Checked Flannel Shirt run for cover and cower in his rec room rather than attend the next Town Hall Meeting in Libertyville, U.S.A.? What kinda chickenshit wimp would want to? If THAT'S how The Man in the Checked Flannel Shirt would react, then God damn him, he does not deserve the freedoms that the Founding Fathers gave him, and he should get his ass out of the Norman Rockwell painting. Now. Every candidate for public office, most notably Barak Obama, has to submit himself or herself, to a barrage of ridicule, innuendo, slander, accusations of treason and "terrorism," etc. and somehow, they all manage to survive.
I think those who rush to the defence of Joe the Plumber weeping their crocodile tears and beating their breasts over the "destruction" of an outspoken citizen ought to get a life. Get serious and start addressing some real issues of the campaign, including Joe's issues, pro and con. When I think of what these same self-appointed "defenders of privacy" did to Bill Clinton over a consensual blow-job between adults, I just have to say, "GET REAL."
