Brian I agree that the MSM wing of the Obama campaign is - well, it is what it is - but one factual correction. If you think that Joe might lose his job for lack of a license, you're mistaken.  Apparently, in Ohio, plumbers need a license for commercial work, not residential work. See: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDMxYjNmMzBiNDAyYWM0Y2JiZjdjZGVjNGZkNGVhNTM= And: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4740

Tom Excellent post, but the left evolved into Totalitarians starting about 90 years ago.

desiguy Joe 'the plumber' might lose his job not because of his interactions with Barack, but because he is not allowed to pretend to be a plumber under Ohio's laws.  BTW, who brought up Joe "the plumber" in the first place? It's the right wingers pushing his 'encounter' with Barack over the last weekend and then, John McCain resting his case of reviving his entire candidacy on Joe "the Plumber"'s pipes. Take some responsibilities of your own actions.

Brian desiguy, You're not smart.  That's no crime, but it's wrong for you to imply otherwise.  You're the kind of guy who has just a little bit too much trouble figuring thinks out. Joe W. will not lose his job, and he his plumbing work is entirely legal, for the reason I explained above.

glasnost Oh, get a grip, Mike. I don't remember you being this upset during the Graeme Frost affair, when the right-wing was doing the same thing to a 7-year old.  And, yeah, to follow up desiguy, Joe the Plumber is getting the same kind of scrutiny as anyone who was mentioned sixteen times in the third debate by John McCain. If he wasn't illegally failing to pay taxes, he wouldn't be potentially being forced to pay them, and that's the extent of the "retribution" here. So seriously. Grow up.

Jay_C Michael is 100% correct.  It is not who asked, or weather it was truthfully asked, but the question iteself and the parameters it was framed.  Joe probably should have framed it as a hypothetical, but he is just like me, and asled the question.. not thinking he would be scrutinized the way he was. It was a G.D. question, and a valid one!!  The MSM and the left are trying to make Joe the issue, and it isn't sticking.  Joes question and Obama's answer of "spreading the wealth around" was all we needed to hear, case closed.  IF the left and MSM keep pushing this, those of us that know and like real Joe the plubers,  that are supporting Obama now, (not ot mention other Joe the plumbers themselves) may sway their votes away.  I say Obama MSM and the left in general should tread lightly.  But I hope they keep pushing it!  It will only hurt Obama for attacking a regular Joe!

Peter Principle Considering that Obama will inherit all of the claims to extra-constitutional executive power that Bush and Cheney have claimed, and will have super majorities in the House and Senate, AND will have significant ownership and/or control of most of the US finnacial system, you idiots better HOPE he and the Democrats aren't as totalitarian-minded as your crankish delusions now lead to you believe. Because if you're right, you're all going to end up wearing orange jump suits in Guantanamo.

Bill Sanford Yes, the left has been going towards totalitarianism for quite some time.   Witness, 'political correctness'... We should expect to start having to be subservient to liberals; Witness, the 1st game of the World Series is being moved back so Obama can have his 30 minute pitch uninterrupted. Bad sign.

agraria @Michael van der Galien Agreed.  They are the same.  Thank you for your article.  Watch McCain in bocca al lupo at the Divine Comedy gathering (Al Smith charity) last night.  It is on YouTube, where you can also see Obama further degenerate through his own performance.  The propagated press releases do not do justice.  McCain's black tie humor was so on-target, so detailed,  that Obama was sweating bullets and the man standing behind McCain was moved to tears.

Jay_C “I’m sorry. Did The Left make Joe not get his license? Did The Left force Joe to ask a question based on (multiple) falsehoods? Did The Left force John McCain to bring him up twenty-some-odd times in a national debate? Did The Left force McCain to use Joe as a poster boy for his disingenuous attacks on Obama’s economic policies? I didn’t realize Norbizness was so busy these days.”   I don’t see how any of these questions have any relevance to the fact that   nobody forced Obama to say he would spread the wealth around.   “I understand being pissy about the utter ruin that your own cherished economic philosophies have resulted in”   What economic philosophies would those be?  Capitalism?  If that is what you are saying then that is not what cause the utter ruining of where we are today economically.  That was due to bad policy changes and people taking advantage of those bad policy changes.  Capitalism is alive and well than you very much.   “but that’s no reason to equate The Left with Michelle Malkin.”   Who is equating the Left with Michelle Malkin?   “Joe’s story had some sizable holes. Like being totally hypothetical, for one, and the fact that he’d actually benefit more from Obama’s tax plan for another.“   Again, so what if there is?  It’s the question that was asked, and the answer that was given.  The fact that Joe would benefit furthers  McCain’s argument.  Joe would like to make more and not be punished for it.  God forbid he strives for earning more.     “But you’ve got the “spread the wealth” socialism bugaboo bit in your teeth and you’ve bought in to McCain’s plan to use Joe as your champion, your heroic everyman whose simple rustic charm and hard-workitude will show all us snotty liberals a thing or two.”   Wow your smart! J   “After supporting economic policies that themselves have “spread the wealth” among the already well-to-do, telling the rest of us that the rising tide will lift our yachts too (if we had any)”   So who is going to pay the non-well to do, when the well to do move you know, out of the US because they can’t make any money here?  Why don’t you strive to be well to do?  I’m not, but I do to this day (perhaps I will only strive to make $249,999.99 after Obama is in Office.) I'd say buyer beware of Obama, talk about buyers remorse!!

DaMan Conners For years Obama has been claiming he was never a member of the Socialist New Party in Chicago.  Just ask yourself and any American if they would actually vote for someone who can be proven to be a socialist, but was still lying about being one? They will answer 'Obama is not a socialist but if it can be proven, they wouldn't vote for him. Proof thanks to Amazon.com's Internet Archive. The man can't run anymore. Someone needs to get this out there.   http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog?p=102 

Cernig Michael, Joe The Plumber has just told the Mccain campaign he can't appear with McCain and Palin because he'll be doing too many TV shows. Doesn't that make him (willingly) just as political as the 7 year old Frost unwillingly was? I look forward to seeing your next post on how the Right has likewise evolved into complete totalitarians. Regards, C

cr *McCain should have vetted Joe (and asking his permission) before mentioning him about 20 times during the debate. *Obama's answer, I believe, was a blanket statement/fudge against a reasonably tough question.  Think of a situation were your walking along and people ask you ANY kind of question at ANY time.  And you you know that ANYTHING you saw will be used against you. It's not worthwhile to put too much stock in any one incident. McCain did, and lost. *The media does what it does .  .  . makes money pursuing stories that it thinks is interesting to its audience. Given how much this is being talked about, expect it not to go away anytime soon *Obama showed poor taste using it in an ad. He's ahead, he can affort to let the media to parade this around. He really should move on. *Dems aren't totalitarians. They care about the constitution just as much a republicans. They merely have a different ruling style. *Joe does represent a lot of people. Middle class, misinformed and being now being exploited by both parties.

cr * Sorry about not proofing my comment.

John Joe put himself in the firing line and McCain exploited him. When the chickens came home to roost it turns out Joe is just about as phony as it gets. Joe is not his real name, he's not a licensed plumber but a construction cowboy, he has tax liens against him, and he's not remotely in the 250k tax bracket. The mystery is not why the press checked him as was inevitable after McCain mentioned him two dozen times, by the hell the McCain didn't check this guy out before throwing him to the wolves. It's Palin all over again. McCain's campaign is a disaster. 

This Guy By the way Joe the Plumber would actually pay less tax on his income under Obama, unless he runs his business foolishly or his company rakes in more than a $1 million in sales.  The truth people, it’s important to discuss the facts! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJgQMVekT3Jg&refer=home

Grewgills I haven't stopped by here in a while and it appears that the tone and quality of analysis has taken a turn for the worse.  Hopefully the season is the reason rather than this being the new course. I don't like the personal attacks on this man from some on the left, but to characterize these as coming from Obama is dishonest and to somehow equate this to totalitarian is just silly.  It is also dishonest hackery to remove one sentence from a minutes long, detailed answer to falsely characterize the totality of that answer.  If you are going to critique his response critique the entire response rather than one easily distorted line. Additionally, as Cernig pointed out Joe is certainly at least as much a political figure as was Frost.  Neither should have been attacked personally but that is the reality of the political season regardless of what side of the aisle you champion.  To try and characterize one side as totalitarian for this activity and not the other for the same activity is hackery.

C Stanley Um, Grewgills, please help me understand your complaint. Did anyone here claim that the attacks on Joe the Plumber have come from Obama, or did Michael specifically write the article in criticism of left wing media and bloggers who are digging for dirt? And did he now reverse his opinion or was he consistently critical of this sort of tactic when some in the rightosphere dug up information to discredit the Frost family?

C Stanley John: there's probably a moratorium on the use of the phrase "chickens come home to roost", no?

ster Obama let slip what he is. So, to DISTRACT voters, he, Biden and the media will attempt to destroy a private citizen that did nothing but ask a question to Barack, who came to HIS neighborhood to answer questions. The left in 24 hours have found out more about 'Joe' than two years they have found about Obama.

C Stanley LOL, on cue, 'ster' shows up to claim that the personal attacks on Joe the Plumber are being orchestrated by Obama and Biden, right after I challenged another commenter who said that that's what is being claimed in this post.

Tully Well, Christine, you've got to admit he has a point here: The left in 24 hours have found out more about ‘Joe’ than two years they have found about Obama. ;-)

Americaneocon Thanks for getting that out there, Michael. Sullivan's no longer a conservative, at least in my book. He's in bed with the Kos crew, and that' it.

kali Totalitarianism? Godwin's Law. You lose your argument. If you knew anything at all about liberal philosophy you'd know that the ideology is at the opposite end of the spectrum from authoritarian. So not only is your argument flawed on its face, it ignores important facts. Taxation has always, in every civilized society, been about distribution and pooling of resources. "Spreading wealth around" is a colloquial way of saying it. It is not clear from your writing why you believe Obama is attacking Joe? What I see is the media frenzy around Joe (Sam), and McCain's quick adoption of Joe. And truly, Joe is a Republican who favors McCain. But if you want to argue that Barack Obama is attacking Joe, you'll need to present a rational argument.  

Dan Ashley "Government by sound bite" I can think of lots better ways to engage in important discourse about the future of our country than by arguing about sound bites, and single sentences uttered by politicians.  Joe's concern represents the concerns of many.  Obama's answer represents the answer by many...but to what question?  Yes--we need to spread wealth to everyone.  We do that by making good investments and by building a great nation.  Wealth is not a zero sum program.  We all get wealthy together.  The right discussion should be, what did Obama mean by that.  In other words, given that he is an educated person, is he really saying "take from the rich and give to the poor?"  Or is he saying, "Build a bridge to the future?"  Interestingly, many cite his statements about giving middle class tax cuts to be proof of his "Robin Hood" mentality.  Yet, by doing so, he will create more commerce, and thereby greater tax revenues.   Hmm...maybe insetead of discussing sound bites, we should discuss issues.

jsc "Taxation has always, in every civilized society, been about distribution and pooling of resources.  'Spreading wealth around' is a colloquial way of saying it." Now this is one load of crap if ever I saw one. Do you own a copy of the U.S. Constitution?  I don't really give a flying rip about other "civilized societies" but I know that my Constitution does not allow for our government to tax its people in order to "take care of its economic problems" and "spread the wealth around." Period. They are allowed to pay for certain items. That's it. We go by the Constitution around here.  It's called, "the law." You want socialism or anarchy, dictatorships, please hop on the next plane out of here; we don't want you. I'm sick of this - I'm sorry, WHO on this stinking blog has a right to call the plumber a phony?!  So, a person who happens to use his middle name instead of his first name (I have, like, a dozen friends who do that - oh, I didn't realize they were phonies...) - who is practicing a trade for which he may not YET be licensed - ok, HOW do most people learn trades anyway?? Duh. And who has a very real "American dream" of owning a business which can grow to its heart's content.  So, now we call anyone who falls in these categories a "phony."  Ok, thanks for the heads up. Jerks. You libs are so angry and so discontent and you want everyone to drown in your misery along with you. Well I'm not joining you and this is MY country and I'm not handing over my wallet to socialists. You're so mad that Obama has finally been exposed as the socialist he is. This whole thing is about HIM and about what HE SAID. Stop trying to make it about the plumber. You don't help your useless cause when you do this.  The very people Hussein purports to be compassionate towards *gagging* are fully represented in this man, "Joe." Obama doesn't give a rip about him or anyone else in a middle income bracket. Stop acting like he does. He's a liar and a thief.

C Stanley LOL, Tully, yes, I meant to add that that part of his comment was right on target. Kali, if you'd read the article you'll see that Michael pointed out facts which contradict your assumption that those who call themselves liberal today are adhering to that philosophy which should, as you point out, be on the opposite end of the spectrum from authoritarianism. That's sort of the point, get it? And thus the title of the argument, which I'm sure was meant as hyperbole yet continues to seem closer to the truth day by day. BTW, the other facts you asked for are also in the article, regarding why Michael thinks that Obama's supporters are attacking Joe: Mission accomplished: the left - the lefty media and bloggers - have created circumstances in which Joe Wurzelbacher might very well lose his job. Why? Because he had the audacity to ask “The One” a question, to which “The One” honestly answered that his goal is to “spread the wealth around.” That, of course, was a major mistake on Obama’s part. His team and most in the media know that this could cost him the elections if it were repeated time and again on television. Americans don’t take “spreading the wealth around” very well. So, they went after Joe. Trying to find anything on him that would hurt him. Not because he said anything himself, but because he asked Obama a question to which the latter gave an honest but, from an opportunistic perspective, stupid answer. See, it's sort of like a context clue, when someone writes the question "Why?", the sentence that follows that often gives insight as to what the writer believes the answer to that question is. ;-)

Tom Kali: Michael stated in his post - perhaps a little strongly, but not by much - that the LEFT was evolving toward totalitarianism, not "liberal philosphy". I know you'd like to classify the left as mostly reasonable, tolerant, skeptical "liberals." Many of today's leftists actually refer to themselves as "progressives" (yep, they've destroyed another otherwise good word). They're a far cry from the early-to-mid 20th century liberal tradition of Keynes, FDR, etc., which fought against communism and other forms of totalitarianism - most of which were spawned by leftism (regardless of how much the left tries to disown them). The point now is that we don't know who Obama really is, but lots of evidence suggests he was or still is a leftist; meanwhile, the leftist media, blogosphere, and activist cadres continue to show their true faces, as evidenced by the pirhana attacks against a plumber who had the temerity to ask Obama a question.  

Kaspar I am of the left. I am not a totalitarian. The headline of this article is... I am disgusted, offended, appalled and most of all very very bored with it all.

Kaspar You say the left crossed a line. No. Joe crossed the line, and now he wants to pretend that those scrutinizing him went over the line instead. Not so.

KV The fact remains.. I hope Joe keeps his job, gets endorsements from FOXNEWS etc.. I sure Hannity will have him on everyday for next 17 days.. fact is John McCain is the one that brought him up 21 freaking times, then the next morning at a rally, then on Letterman, then at the charity event last night.. And Joe is not hiding from the cameras he has already answered more questions to the press in 2 days than Palin has in 2 months.. but the right wing nuts blame Obama for him being outed by the media.. look in the mirror

Jeremy The libs commenting here are hilarious! I've just read that a 7 year-old chose to be a political figure, and Joe joined him in that choice. You people have lost any handle on reality to attempt to pass that as a rational thought. Democrats paraded the little boy around to tout their flawed program and to make Bush look like he doesn't want children to have healthcare, when in fact conservatives didn't like raising the income ceiling so more people could abuse it and push us closer to a government-run system. It's not as if Graeme called into Fox for an interview that set the whole thing ablaze. Joe asked a question, and Obama gave an answer that should be troubling to anyone that understands America; an answer that coincides with his personal stories of socialist inspiration, socialist involvement, and socialist rhetoric. Now, with a possibility of complete Democratic control of our government, he can enact those ideas into law. I'm seeing that I may be wrong now, but I was born into a capitalist, free America and thought I deserved to keep it that way. I highly doubt that our Founding Fathers imagined America would be hijacked by well-funded, increasingly extreme-left propaganda targeting America's uneducated and America's impressionable youth. The fact that Democrats have admitted the party was WRONG about Fannie and Freddie, that the sub-prime mortgage crisis created this mess, that bad Democratic legislation paved the way (CRA), and proof that Bush/McCain/Republicans tried to STOP the impending implosion as Democrats mocked them and blocked the attempt, but Obama, Reid, and Pelosi can keep shouting the "Bush's failed policies" and "McBush" talking points without ever telling us HOW just AMAZES ME! Republicans can blame the Democrats for this mess and pull written and recorded proof. If you don't like reading the flawed laws, and don't trust statistics, the freakin' interviews and newspaper clippings are enough to prove it. Democrats blame the Republicans for the economic mess and don't feel the need to prove it--they can't, because it's not a fact. But in this election of style over substance, the American Idol candidate wins the ignorant vote. If we stripped voting rights of every liberal who can live with themselves comparing Graeme Frost to Joe the Plumber, Democrats would never hold office again. There's something terribly wrong with the movement, and there are scary similarities to Nazi Germany. Youth productions, "Truth Squads", harassment, hypocrisy, lies--liberals that throw words around like totalitarianism or fascism (or try to explain with liberalism is the opposite of each) apparently haven't studied history and the liberal love for Mussolini, Hitler, etc, before Hitler screwed up the little "experiment" and they became bad words to be thrown against anyone that opposed them. Hitler did that well--simply deny the accusation and accuse the accusers of the very same thing. So the NRLC says Obama lied about his stance on infanticide, then Obama says it's not true and calls the NRLC liars, when in fact, the NRLC is correct. Be proud, libs!

Steve J. “The One” honestly answered that his goal is to “spread the wealth around.”

Acts of the Apostles (New Revised Standard version) 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

Mike Steve J, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you honestly suggesting that we should attempt to create that kind of ideal community through tax policy and federal law?  So will the tax policy not be progressive enough until the wealth is equally distributed? I'll assume you don't really believe that and you were just using the scripture to make a point.  Then I'll ask this question: how progressive is enough?  After Obama implements his tax plan, there will still be rich and poor.  Will you be advocating still higher taxes on the rich and lower on the poor?  When will we know that our tax policy is fair enough?

Grewgills <blockquote>The libs commenting here are hilarious! I’ve just read that a 7 year-old chose to be a political figure, and Joe joined him in that choice.</blockquote> I can see why you would find that funny, but you made small error in reading.  It was people on the right that suggested that the 7 year old chose to be a political figure to justify viciously attacking him and his family.  The 'libs' here are merely pointing out that it is ridiculously hypocritical for some (here and elsewhere) who supported the dismantling of the 7 year old for political purposes to now be outraged at what has happened to the plumber.  It is slightly less hypocritical to claim that the attacks on the 7 year old were "over doing it" and the attacks on the grown man are evidence of totalitarianism. BTW Steve it is far from accurate to try and lay the current economic mess entirely or even primarily at the feet of the CRA.  Many seem to be conflating sub prime lending and CRA loans.  More than half of sub prime lending was to people who could have qualified for traditional loans and only about 20% of sub prime lending was connected to the CRA.  The deregulation in 1995 that allowed securitizing these loans (first done in 1997) and the further deregulation in 2004 that allowed for much heavier leveraging of these packages (from 12:1 to >20:1) are responsible for much more of this problem.  The 1995 changes set this mess in motion (compromise by Ds and Rs signed by Clinton) and the 2004 changes sped the rush to the cliff edge. Also try to remember that comparing your domestic political rivals (D or R) to nazis is stupid at best. <blockquote>Steve J, perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but are you honestly suggesting that we should attempt to create that kind of ideal community through tax policy and federal law? </blockquote> I think that he's just pointing out that is what Jesus thought (thinks?).

Mike "I think that he’s just pointing out that is what Jesus thought (thinks?)." Understood.  But I think that's highly presumptuous.  In any case, we probably would do best to avoid getting into it.