Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

[Enigma]

He won't get it, Mookie. :rotfl:

[August]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I think some people have confused the order in which things have happened.

First, Joe asked a candidate a question. Then, a CAMPAIGN used Joe the Plumber as essentially a tag line. THEN, the Democrats sought out to destroy Joe the Plumber. THEN, Joe decided to use his newfound fame for personal gain.

Joe the Plumber didn't seek out the spotlight - he was thrust into it.

Notice that none of our forums partisan democrats are challenging this....

[Tchocky]

The campaign that carried him was the McCain campaign. Witness McCain's performance in the debates, constantly mentioning him. It's not unusual for campaigns to adopt mascots, happens all the time.
The standard response is to challenge the campaigns narrative, its version of events. Notice the fact that his original question to Obama was in error.

When a person becomes central to a news cycle, any and all information sources are immediately called upon. Not all of it will be respectful, but neither will all of it be partisan. This is a natural consequence of the world we inhabit. *insert vague reference to Google*

Honestly, I believe the "media persecution" of this person to have existed more in the mind of Tucker Bounds and Steve Schmidt than it did in reality. Notice "more". Persecution was there, but by mainstream media outlets (ie, not DailyKos) and official Democratic party statements/interviews? I think not.

THEN, the Democrats sought out to destroy Joe the Plumber

"The Democrats" - party or supporters?
It's important.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

"The Democrats" - party or supporters?
It's important.

Uh-huh. Well, the supporters are the party. Do you mean party leadership in official DNC posts or just party members(voters)?

[Enigma]

Uh-huh. Well, the supporters are the party. Do you mean party leadership in official DNC posts or just party members(voters)?

In other threads you have shown a complete inability to distinguish between either. All are "Idiots on the left".

[Aramike]

You know, there's something even more pathetic about this whole situation. Let's say that Joe the Plumber WAS indeed out for publicity via making his political views known...

SO WHAT???

Why dig into the man's past and attempt to destroy him versus simply debating his arguments? I think there are only three answers to this:

1. Certain individuals are just wee little people who get off at besmirching another person. These people need to make themselves feel better at the expense of others. So, we'll make fun of someone who WAS on welfare instead of celebrating the fact that he's not any longer, for example.
2. Certain individuals don't feel that they can discredit the arguments themselves so they have to attack the person making them. These individuals obviously are too small-minded to have enough faith in their own positions to trust using them in a debate against an individual from the other side. Therefore they resort to feeble attempts to discredit the person rather than the idea.
3. Elitism: what's a plumber know about politics, anyway?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Uh-huh. Well, the supporters are the party. Do you mean party leadership in official DNC posts or just party members(voters)?

I mean party leadership and elected reps.
"The supporters are the party" is a ridiculous simplification. In a general sense, it is logical, but it doesn't allow any space between voter ranting and party policy.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I mean party leadership and elected reps.
"The supporters are the party" is a ridiculous simplification. In a general sense, it is logical, but it doesn't allow any space between voter ranting and party policy.

True, in a sense.

But I've had a theory for quite sometime: one of the key differences between the Democratic and Republican parties is that the Democrats do nothing to shut their crackpots up. It is a generalization, of course, but I find it to be true again and again.

[Tchocky]

I'd disagree, and say that neither do. I don't really think they should, either.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I'd disagree, and say that neither do. I don't really think they should, either.

You're right. "Shut up" is the wrong term. More like the Republicans are more likely to openly disagree with their crackpots than the Dems.

[Enigma]

"I think media should be abolished from, you know, reporting."

To be honest with you, I don't think journalists should be anywhere allowed war (sic). I mean, you guys report where our troops are at, you report what's happening day-to-day, you make a big deal out of it. I think it's asinine. I liked back in World War I and World War II, when you'd go to the theater and you'd see your troops on the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for them. Now everyone's got an opinion and wants to down soldiers, our American soldiers, Israeli soldiers. I think media should be abolished from, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell, and if you're going to sit there and say, "Well, look at this atrocity," well, you don't know the full story behind it half the time. So I think the media should have no business in it.

- Joe the Plumber.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Enigma

"I think media should be abolished from, you know, reporting."

- Joe the Plumber.

I actually partly agree with his point. I don't believe that the media has any business being on the battlefield. There's just no way that an "embedded" reporter can really get the proper, large enough picture to accurately report the news. In fact, I find that it's done for more sensationalism than anything.

I mean, have you ever seen a report from Geraldo Rivera in a war zone?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I mean, have you ever seen a report from Geraldo Rivera in a war zone?

You mean the one where the dork draws out our plans for all the world to see

I say feed them a bunch of misleading erronious information and let them have at it. :p