You may recall this B-BBC post which linked to a BBC story titled “Doubts raised on US ‘plumber Joe'”:
Doubt has been cast over the story of “Joe the plumber”, the man who unexpectedly became the star of this week’s US presidential debate.
Joe Wurzelbacher, of Ohio, was thrown into the spotlight after he was used by John McCain as an example of who might suffer under Barack Obama’s tax plans.
But it now emerges he is not a licensed plumber and owes $1,200 in back taxes.
So, Joe Wurzelbacher is suddenly thrown into the spotlight – and in about five minutes flat the BBC makes sure we all know about his lack of a licence, his back taxes, and even that the name on his birth certificate is not actually Joseph.
Compare that to the BBC’s approach to another man who has found sudden fame: Dr Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor currently working in Gaza, has been quoted in media outlets all over the world, including multiple mentions on the BBC:
- Israel ‘is nearing Gaza goals’
Doctors Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse said half of their patients were civilians, some of them young children with shrapnel and blast wounds.
They also said 12 ambulance staff had been killed in shelling, despite their clearly-marked vehicles.
- Israeli raids as reserves move in (includes a video interview with Dr Gilbert)
Doctors Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse said half of their patients were civilians, some of them young children with shrapnel and blast wounds.
- Inside Gaza’s al-Shifa hospital (another video interview with Dr Gilbert)
- Fighting flares outside Gaza City
Israel says it is not targeting civilians but Dr Gilbert said he had only seen two fighters among hundreds of casualties.
No doubts raised there as to Dr Gilbert’s motives or veracity as a witness. The video interview within the second “Israeli raids” link is not exactly challenging (“You look exhausted. Tell us what it’s been like”) but does raise a teensy doubt an inch or so (“It has been said that you’ve turned political. What do you say to that?”) the better to set the stage for Dr Gilbert’s impassioned reply about the Hippocratic oath and being the voice of the voiceless.
Yet there are things in Dr Mads Gilbert’s past and present of a little more consequence than unpaid back taxes. For one thing, he didn’t “turn political” after seeing the sufferings of the Palestinians this month. He has long been very definitely political, a Maoist in fact. He is a member of the Norwegian Rødt (i.e. Red) party, formerly known as the Workers’ Communist Party. That alone tells us something about his attitude to objective truth that should raise doubts about anything he says as a witness. Note, I am not here throwing random abuse along the lines of “he’s a lefty, so he must be a liar.” I am stating that Maoists, in common with other Marxists, consciously hold as a matter of doctrine that “objective truth” is a bourgeois construction and truth is whatever the Party says it is.
In the BBC interview Dr Gilbert describes his unspecified politics as merely part of the “whole person” working in Gaza. Another aspect of his whole personhood is that he supported the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Here, via Harry’s Place, is a link to the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet in which when asked “Do you support the terrorist attack on the United States?” he replied “Terrorism is a bad weapon but the answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.” You don’t need to understand Norwegian to be able to spot where he says this.
I have not yet touched on the biggest doubt of all: a doctor wrote to the Little Green Footballs website stating his opinion that Mads Gilbert participated in a staged video purporting to show CPR being executed in an unsuccessful attempt to save a mortally injured Palestinian boy. Numerous other doctors have agreed with the original correspondent that the man shown performing “chest compressions” could not possibly have believed that his light bouncing movements would actually restart the heart. Dr Gilbert is to the left. There are also odd editing discontinuities, and unexplained discrepancies between the order of events as shown on CNN and on Channel 4.
Isn’t that at least as interesting as “…a bit of media digging has uncovered that Mr Wurzelbacher’s first name is actually Samuel and he does not have a plumber’s licence, although the company he works for does”? The fact that the video was first withdrawn and then reinstated by CNN is a story in itself. It all remains undug by the BBC, though.
What about prosecuting Hamas for war crimes then? Not a frigging word.
Martin | 13.01.09 – 11:11 pm
Just about every action Hamas takes would be a ‘war’ crime if committed by a high contracting party, which Israel is and Hamas patently is not. (Part 1, Article 1 4th Geneva Convention). As it now stands Hamas are guilty of ‘ordinary’ crimes.
One can only hope that when they ‘arrive’, that when they arrive, a heavenly court is waiting instead of 72 virgins (or raisins).
BTW The ICRC is quite aware that the current Geneva conventions don’t apply well or at all to combats were one or both parties are ‘non-state actors’ and a working on a new convention. It may take time before it is presented and even longer before the majority of countries ratify it.
In short the talk of International Law and War Crimes is propaganda B.S.
The draft version I saw presents far looser criteria for opening fire than the current IDF guidelines.
I wrote here about the Marxist Norwegian doctor being used by the BBC (I wrote in the general thread on biased BBC yesterday after stumbling on a reference to him by a Norwegian in another blog: Melanie Philips’ blog I think), but as far as I can see no one commented on it at the time. Anyway, I’m glad the facts are being fully disclosed in this thread.
I only have access to BBC World where I am, and the pro-Palestinian spin presented on the situation in Gaza is going from bad to worse. The BBC’s shamelessly biased and tendentious reporting is doing irreparable damage to Israel. As a Briton, I am ashamed of my national broadcaster; I am beyond angry with it, in fact, I’m sickened. Please pass me the remote.
Frankos:
we’ve had Alex on here before (when he was “angry” and “young”). Faced with a destruction-job of the sort meted out by Jason, above, he tends to disappear for a while, but then returns a few months later.
And he IS a sixth-former by the way, so don’t be too hard on him!
Since the BBC relies of what they laughably call ‘agency footage’ for their Gaza pictures, do they not have a special responsibility to ask their suppliers for approriate shots.
Every imga I have seen the BBC broadcast from inside a hospital has featured children, and ONLY children.
Either the Israelis are very poor shots or the BBC is being manipulated.
Has anyone verified Gilbert’s medical qualifications ? Do we know if he really is a medical Doctor ?
Degee 7:26
A great clip, exposing the lies of Hamas , wonderful !
Joe first:
Martin: “I see a member of Osama’s staff has been caught NOT paying his taxes…Funny thing is I can’t find a mention of this on the BBC and it wasn’t mentioned on the evening news. Perhaps Alex you might like to explain why?”
Probably because said staff member hadn’t already risen to fame over tax-related issues.
Jason: “The aim was not to equate Joe the Plumber with Dr. Mad and from there to attack the Beeb for treating “the same thing” differently – it was in fact to contrast the scrutiny and treatment given on the one hand to the past of Joe the Plumber, which is irrelevant”
I disagree. Joe cited himself as an example. He claimed to be “getting ready to buy a company that would earn between $250,000 and $280,000”, and used this as a platform to criticise Obama’s tax plan. Basically, his entire claim to fame, not to mention the example he used to criticise Obama, turned out to be lies. The fact that a major figure in the debate had openly lied to get his dig in is pretty newsworthy.
“and on the other hand the total non-scrutiny given to the past of Dr. Mad, which given that he’s in a position to dramtically shape international perceptions about a serious conflict, most certainly is relevant.”
As I understand it, Gilbert’s fame comes from being a doctor communicating from Gaza. It has yet to be proven that he lied about any of these things. While his political background may be relevant (I would expect you to show an equivalent far-right pro-Israeli figure being dragged through the mud by the BBC to prove that), comparisons to Joe the Plumber are pretty tenuous.
Right. Terrorism.
Natalie: ““If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, then there is also a moral right to attack the United States with the weapons they had to create. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis.”
It’s just a general statement that terrorism against Americans is legitimate that he then narrows down to the particular case of the 9/11 attacks in the next paragraph.
That’s not what it is at all. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re blinded by rage rather than wilfully misrepresenting the quote. He is clearly saying that civilians is civilians, and if one party has the right to kill them, so do others. Something of an oversimplification in my view, but not nearly as much as boiling down abstract moralising over who is allowed to kill civilians as “support for the 9/11 terrorist attacks”.
moonbat nibbler: “Alex, there is no ‘context’ of any merit in the question, there is no misrepresentation.”
Well that’s me told.
“You’ve now shown yourself as an apologist for those supporting 9/11, congratulations.”
Ah, the classic internet-warrior leap of logic. A suggests B may have misrepresented C, B decides A agrees wholeheartedly with C on everything. Otherwise, see above.
Jon: “Just to remind Alex – the “attack” was on 3,000 civilians deliberately targeted by terrorists – it was not against the US military. Can you see the difference.”
Shit, I knew I was forgetting something. In light of this new information, I concede wholeheartedly that at no point was Natalie’s post a false equivalence, a gross misrepresentation or a ham-fisted rant.“
“I disagree. Joe cited himself as an example. He claimed to be “getting ready to buy a company that would earn between $250,000 and $280,000″, and used this as a platform to criticise Obama’s tax plan. Basically, his entire claim to fame, not to mention the example he used to criticise Obama, turned out to be lies. The fact that a major figure in the debate had openly lied to get his dig in is pretty newsworthy.”
Actually Alex, I think you will find that Joe is most likely now to be in the position where he can buy the plumbing business…and all thanks to Obama f8cking up the answer to a very straight forward, simple question.
Its interesting that you have concentrated on the question and not the answer.
The Light Worker should have been prepared for questions like this but when confronted by a real question, a question that no one in the media asked him (ie. a hard ball question), he stumbles and fumbles and f8cks the answer up completely.
Whats also telling is how you have singularly construed his question to be a criticism. The reality is that this was nothing more than a question, a question that the Light Worker should have been prepared for, yet wasnt.
Finally, isnt it strange that a guy who asked a straight forward question has had his life poured over, his personal files rifled through because he asked a simple question of The One ™.
Yet Al Beeb couldnt, or wouldnt, do some of that sh1t it calls journalism and dig in to the background of the Doctor spinning Hamas propoganda!
This is the problem that you refuse to see. Al Beeb can go all journalistic on a plumber YET suddenly cant find the same kind of journalistic interest in a doctor who is spinning hamas propoganda?
Oh, BTW, wasnt Mengele a doctor too?
Mailman
Oh, BTW, wasnt Mengele a doctor too?
Mailman | 14.01.09 – 11:38 am
Many of Hamas’ chiefs are/were doctors too. Syria’s Assad Jr is an ophthalmologist… the terrorist who drove the bomb laden Jeep into Glasgow airport was a doctor.
Mailman:
I was in Paris when the media assault on Joe the Plumber was engineered. There, I met French people who could recite the trained-in phrases that were broadly distributed, and discovered that your average french lefty was more able to drool on command that anyone else.
The campaign was founded entirely in hatred, based on the theory that one need not face the content of someones’ statement if you immediately degrade their character, and venally use your leverage over others to make the constructed narrative seem real.
The democrats’ techniques are nearly identical to those the fascists used in the early 30s.
Israeli comedy show spoofs the BBC. Very funny.
”
Ah, the classic internet-warrior leap of logic. A suggests B may have misrepresented C, B decides A agrees wholeheartedly with C on everything. Otherwise, see above.”
No, Alex, if I believed that then I would have said you supported terrorism.
moonbat “internet-warrior” nibbler.
Alex | Homepage | 14.01.09 – 11:14 am | #
Alex dammit, you missed the point about as thoroughly as was humanly possible. The point was that the truth or non-truth of Joe’s stated background was completely and utterly irrelevant to the brouhaha which resulted from the answer Obama gave to his question. If Joe had turned out to be a robot which was being operated by “angry Republicans” inside a van around the corner, it would not matter. What mattered was Obama’s response to his question.
Another way to think of it is that if Joe had said “what about someone in this position” instead of ascribing that position to himself (which wasn’t entirely dishonest by the way – your claim that it was “all lies” is a lie in itself) then Obama would have given the same answer. The focus should have been on Obama, not Joe – and yet the media, including the BBC, somehow thought that Joe’s background was more important than the answer that Obama gave.
There you go son, let me know if it still needs more explaining.
You’re also continuing to suggest that Natalie was trying to claim some kind of equivalence between Joe and Dr. Mad, which she wasn’t, which I explained to you (fruitlessly it seems.)
The whole point was that the background of Dr. Mad is 1000x more relevant than the background of Joe the Plumber and yet the Beeb saw fit to publicize one and not the other. I really don’t see what you’re finding so difficult to understand about that.
Thank god Sky have got Emma Hurd reporting from Israel. She’s one of the few balanced reporters that always gives good coverage.
Unlike the halfwits at the BBC (you know who you are Bowen and Ducet)
Jason: Obama’s answer to Joe’s question is irrelevant here. His background is of interest because he himself brought it up, and he quickly rose to fame on the back of it as an example of failings in the Democratic tax plan. His background was central to his overnight celebrity, the fact that so much of it was fantasy rather than fact is therefore definitely relevant.
Gilbert is a different matter. Arguably, his background is more relevant, as it could shape his perspective. However media interest on him is not based on his background, but who he is and what he is doing, neither of which have been challenged as facts.
The fact that their backgrounds are relevant for entirely different reasons makes them poor material for comparison, and the BBC should not be expected to treat two entirely different cases in a similar way. A better comparison for this would be, as I suggested earlier, something like a vehement pro-Israeli reporter in Sderot whose background was dredged up by the BBC.
By the way, you missed Dr Doom and Dr Octopus.
something like a vehement pro-Israeli reporter in Sderot whose background was dredged up by the BBC.
Is there such a thing?
I find “vehement” a strange choice of adjective in this context.
Indicative of a certain viewpoint…
Alex, can you kindly stop lying about “Joe the Plumber”, please? I really can’t stand it any more.
You are ignorant of the facts, and have bought entirely into the lies fed to you by your Leftoid friends and by the BBC and the Guardian, CNN International, and the rest of them.
Let’s start with the lowest hanging fruit first. “Joe” may not be his first name, but many people go by their middle names, as does Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. This isn’t a lie.
Next, let’s address the lie you keep telling about whether or not he’s actually a plumber. Your position is that since he does not hold a license, he’s not a plumber. This is false. In the real world, nobody gets a license for anything unless they’ve done it under supervision for a specified period of time. In trades in the real world, a period of apprenticeship is required before one can apply for a license.
Joe the Plumber is from Ohio. Here are the rules in Ohio for getting a plumber’s license, among other things. As you can see, one needs a minimum of 5 years of experience to apply for a plumbing license in that state. One gets this experience by working for someone with a license. Only the guy who contracts the job and takes your cheque requires a license. The people doing the work under his supervision do not.
This may be a difficult concept to grasp, but Joe the Plumber can still work as a plumber even if he doesn’t have a license. He can work as one all his life as a licensed contractor’s employee without ever having a license himself. Furthermore, he can even call himself a plumber while doing so. Of course, he’ll have to get one to start a contracting business, but he doesn’t need one to think about doing so, or to tell a Presidential candidate that he is thinking about doing so.
Joe the Plumber was not lying about his background: you are, and so is the BBC.
max, I was just gonna post the same thing 🙂 It’s hilarious.
Hettie,
He didn’t get the accent right but other than that it’s almost indistinguishable from the real thing 😛
Interesting that Alex highlights one of the dead-ends in human development – the fear of changing opinion, and the need to be consistent. (Rebuttal-units please note) There is nothing wrong with being “inconsistent” – as a result of unfolding facts, debate, and intelligence – your position should change. Someone said once you should change your opinion like you change your underwear – when it gets dirty.
BBC: “Palestinian deaths in the Gaza Strip have passed 1,000, medical sources in Gaza say”
No. its not getting througgh to the BBC that we have all rumbled “Dr Mads Gilbert” aka “medical sources say”
“Perhaps as many as 400,000 people have been killed and some two million driven from their homes since 2003. Are we talking about Gaza? No, it is Darfur and the victims are black Christians and animists in southern Sudan. The culprit? The Arab Islamist government in Khartoum. But where are the street protests against the Islamists? There are none, because the victims are not Palestinian Arabs”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/media_and_activists_ignore_hor.html
Has anyone verified Gilbert’s medical qualifications ? Do we know if he really is a medical Doctor?
Grant | 14.01.09 – 9:32 am | #
He really is a medical doctor.
Alex | Homepage | 14.01.09 – 5:30 pm | #
Joe The Plumber hit the spotlight in the midst of a U.S. election during which the relevant subject was not the finer details of an unknown plumber’s life, but the character, values and ideology of a prospective future President of the United States of America.
I will repeat the following to you one more time and if you refuse to address it again then the subject is closed:
The “truth” behind Joe the Plumber’s claims are irrelevant. Completely and utterly irrelevant. It would not make the slightest bit of difference if:
a) Joe’s claims were 100% truthful
b) Joe’s claims were 100% false
c) “Joe” was a fictional construct, a hypothetical man with hypothetical circumstances.
The only thing that was relevant was the response that Obama gave when confronted with “those circumstances” – i.e. a man thinking about buying a business that was expected to make a certain amount of money. If Joe had said “listen, I’m a complete nobody who has no intention of doing anything, but what if I were thinking of buying a business that made $250,000 a year?” then Obama’s response would have been exactly the same.
His response, that he believed that wealth was something that should be “spread around” via the tax system, exposed a fundamental aspect of his ideological beliefs and was therefore about as relevant as it was possible to be in the context of an American election campaign. Yet, the liberal media (including the BBC) seemed to think that the personal details of the man who asked the question which revealed Obama’s ideological values, were more important than Obama’s answer.
In fact, the liberal media asked more questions about Joe the Plumber’s life than they did about the ideological past of the man running for President. It was left to the blogosphere – and to a certain extent, Fox News – to ask those questions.
I think I’ve explained pretty clearly why Joe the Plumber’s background was completely irrelevant to the U.S. election campaign. Do let me know if there’s anything you still don’t understand.
And I think it’s also pretty clear why the background of Dr. Mad most certainly is relevant. He’s giving information about an international conflict to the international media, information which could shape literally millions of opinions worldwide. Unlike Joe the Plumber, the issue of whether or not Dr. Mad is telling the truth is completely and utterly relevant to the subject at hand. Therefore, his past and his ideological leanings – both of which could have a direct affect on his credibility – are extremely important for us to know.
Yet the BBC saw fit to inform us of Joe’s past – completely irrelevant – while presenting Dr. Mad to us as “just another doctor,” completely neglecting to mention for example the fact that he’s not just an impartial observer, having quite clearly expressed his allegiances in the past.
Therefore, it is quite acceptable to challenge the factual legitimacy of his statements and in fact this has been questioned. Just not by the BBC.
It’s not that “their backgrounds are relevant for entirely different reasons” – it’s that the background of Joe is entirely irrelevant while the background of Gilbert is highly relevant. That was the intention of Natalie’s post and therefore to contrast the BBC’s treatment of an irrelevant past with its non-treatment of a relevant past was completely fair.
For the love of God, just look at the length of this post. This is what happens when you have to explain the simplest of things to a leftie. I won’t even go into your lies regarding Joe the Plumber’s “lies” because David Preiser did such a good job of it above. Is there anything else you’d like to twist into a pretzel of nonsense while we’re here?
AndrewSouthLondon | 14.01.09 – 8:14 pm | #
Interesting that Alex highlights one of the dead-ends in human development – the fear of changing opinion, and the need to be consistent. (Rebuttal-units please note) There is nothing wrong with being “inconsistent” – as a result of unfolding facts, debate, and intelligence – your position should change. Someone said once you should change your opinion like you change your underwear – when it gets dirty.
That’s all very well and good as long as you make the distinction between changing your opinion in response to new information while still assessing that information using the same premises or values (which is perfectly acceptable) – and changing those premises themselves.
In fact the retaining of fundamental premises does not constitute a “dead end in human development.” It constitutes a moral and intellectual integrity.
For example, if I refuse to change my fundamental belief that one man does not have the right to enslave another, that does not constitute a “dead end” in any shape or form. However, although that basic principle may well be the driving force and the motive behind ethical conclusions that I make, the raw material that those principles work on may change and thus lead me to different conclusions, yes. But there is no need for me to change my basic premises if I am confident they are sound. For instance, there are no “new facts” capable of making me change my belief that the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians in terror attacks is wrong, or that the victims of those attacks have the right to do what is necessary to stop them.
Jon | 14.01.09 – 9:51 pm | #
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/media_and_activists_ignore_hor.html
Excellent article, it’s simply not possible to counter reasoning like that. The antisemitic left around the world are well and truly BUSTED!
Jason | 15.01.09 – 7:00 am
Jon | 14.01.09 – 9:51 pm |
The problem with the American Thinker article is that though it may be the case in the US, it sure isn’t in the UK.
Whatever the failings of the BBC, you can’t say they haven’t reported the civil war in Sri Lanka, the Darfur crisis or any of the others mentioned. I’d add several more – Burma for instance.
And every uni in the country has meetings and demos about these subjects. Britain is much more outward looking and aware of world events than most countries IMHO.
BBC – lots of comment about Joe Wurzelbacher’s birth certificate, none about the future president’s? Anyone know if there has been any?
And you know this as a fact how?
You look at the state broadcaster, help up as the model of informative news and then tell me Poms are much more informed than any one else.
The article hits the nail square on the head. Where were all these protesters when millions were being murdered in the Congo? Why werent they out on the streets when people were being murdered in Durfur?
Face it, these protesters are fair weather protesters going after the easy issue.
Mailman
Last post.
David Preiser:
A well-researched and informative post. Thanks. But it doesn’t address the key point – that Wurzelbacher was nowhere near earning buying a business that earned $250-280,000 a year. This was his key claim and the one that made his question difficult. The fact that he’s not really called Joe (in the same way I’m not actually called Alex, as it happens), and is not a licensed plumber doesn’t really have a massive effect. The fact that he used himself as a folksy, real-life-middle-America example, when in fact the situation was entirely hypothetical does show clear dishonesty.
Jason: “Joe The Plumber hit the spotlight in the midst of a U.S. election during which the relevant subject was not the finer details of an unknown plumber’s life, but the character, values and ideology of a prospective future President of the United States of America.”
His life became relevant when he himself used it as an example. Naturally not as relevant to the election as Obama’s answer, but this is not a discussion of the election. This is about when the BBC can and should report details of an individual’s life. When the individual in question has brought his own background into the debate, which has become an important trope within one side’s campaign, the fact that this background was fantasy becomes quite important.
“It would not make the slightest bit of difference if:
a) Joe’s claims were 100% truthful
b) Joe’s claims were 100% false
c) “Joe” was a fictional construct, a hypothetical man with hypothetical circumstances.”
Not normally, no. But Wurzelbacher claimed it was a) when it was in fact c), and the McCain campaign leapt on this as a GENUINE VICTIM OF OBAMA’S COMMUNIST TAX PLAN. The fact that Joe was not a real-life example but a slightly worried fantasist does not put him particularly at fault. It does, however, undermine the Republicans’ deceitful use of his example.
“I think I’ve explained pretty clearly why Joe the Plumber’s background was completely irrelevant to the U.S. election campaign. Do let me know if there’s anything you still don’t understand.”
Understood, not agreed with. I think you omitted a lot of key points.
“The issue of whether or not Dr. Mad is telling the truth is completely and utterly relevant to the subject at hand. Therefore, his past and his ideological leanings – both of which could have a direct affect on his credibility – are extremely important for us to know. Therefore, it is quite acceptable to challenge the factual legitimacy of his statements and in fact this has been questioned. Just not by the BBC.”
Unless he has been caught lying in the past, which as far as I know, he hasn’t, then no, the truth of his statements should not be subject to any more scrutiny than that of any others. Unless the BBC makes a habit of using people’s ideological beliefs to dishonesty without presenting any evidence of actual lying, this would be a gross case of bias in the case of Gilbert.
“It’s not that “their backgrounds are relevant for entirely different reasons” – it’s that the background of Joe is entirely irrelevant while the background of Gilbert is highly relevant.”
Joe’s background was obviously relevant to the conservative media when he was a hero, so it’s no surprise that it became relevant to the rest. Anyway, relevance is a matter of opinion. The reasons why the two cases might be considered relevant are wildly different, therefore a proper comparison of their treatment in the media is impossible.
“For the love of God, just look at the length of this post. This is what happens when you have to explain the simplest of things to a leftie.”
No, it’s what happens when you massively oversimplify things to fit your existing ideas and then have the complexities pointed out to you.
Alex | Homepage | 15.01.09 – 1:53 pm |
But it doesn’t address the key point – that Wurzelbacher was nowhere near earning buying a business that earned $250-280,000 a year. This was his key claim and the one that made his question difficult. The fact that he’s not really called Joe (in the same way I’m not actually called Alex, as it happens), and is not a licensed plumber doesn’t really have a massive effect. The fact that he used himself as a folksy, real-life-middle-America example, when in fact the situation was entirely hypothetical does show clear dishonesty.
You just made this up. You have no idea whatsoever whether or not Joe had a friend or relative – or a bank loan officer – willing and able to help him start his business. You also have no idea exactly when he was going to do it. Nothing he said implied that he had the money and was any minute about to start his new business.
Your entire argument – what’s left of it – now rests on your idea that Joe’s starting a business was imminent. This is also a false premise. Certainly Joe could have started his business any time in the next four years and be affected by the redistributionist tax policies of President “I Want To Move That Wealth Around”. There’s no logical reason why Joe had to earn enough money to start his own business the day he asked his question.
Better go back to your discussion with Jason about your baseless attempts to discredit Joe the Plumber as a smokescreen to distract from the accidental truth spoken by the guy who is about to really be President “IWTMTWA”.
Anonymous | 15.01.09 – 9:37 am | #
There may be the odd report on the BBC, there may be the odd “meeting” in universities, but there sure as hell ain’t protests in the streets, they sure as hell don’t bandy the word “Nazis” around like the left does when the subject is Israel – and you sure as hell won’t see any riots or broken windows at Starbucks.
THAT is the difference. To pretend that there is none is just ludicrous.
Alex, this is stupid. Just ridiculous. The McCain did not “leap on Joe the Plumber” for the sake of Joe the Plumber, they leaped on him as a symbol of everyone in America who is in the position that Joe talked about. Neither, as David outlines above, do you have any proof whatsoever that Joe was not in a position to buy a business. So that puts paid to that. The Republicans were not “deceitful” at all in using his example, unless you are of the belief that they were doing it “for Joe.” They weren’t.
As for Dr. Mad, no his past does not “prove” that he is lying, but when someone is in a war zone making claims about the actions of one side in the conflict, their ideological leanings and past statements in relation to the same conflict sure as hell ARE relevant.
By the way, Joe was not considered a “hero” for having the circumstances he claimed to have, he was considered a hero for prompting Obama to betray his ideological intentions in glorious technicolor during the height of the election campaign.
And still, you fail to understand the whole point of Natalie’s original post, which was primarily to highlight the fact that the BBC saw fit not to mention Gilbert’s background – which is highly significant in itself. The point of bringing up Joe the Plumber was not to make some kind of comparison or claim of equivalence between the two, it was to highlight the ease with which the BBC will bring up someone’s background when it’s not relevant (especially when that person appeared to be a spanner in the works of the election campaign of the candidate they were rooting for with all guns) yet will neglect to do so when it’s a person who appears to be offering “evidence” which supports the narrative they so obviously are taking in this conflict: Palestinians as the only victims, Israel as bloody butchers who deliberately target civilians etc.
Further, I don’t think I oversimplified things at all. Of course, I had to simplify them somewhat for you.
Joe is an idiot. He was used and manipulated by the Republicans. The fact McCain even stooped so low to use him showed how desperate he became (although, most of us knew that after he picked Palin).
This ‘everyman, guy I’d like to have a beer with’ crap ruins American politics, and thankfully intelligence won out with Obama’s victory.
Bill ‘the one and only’ Buchan | 16.01.09 – 4:30 pm | #
That’s strange Bill, because I’ve never once come across an Obama supporter who was able to successfully defend his ideological stance on even one issue. In fact amidst the fawning, gushing hero-worship which was substituted for intelligent discourse during the campaign, I don’t think I actually came across one person who actually knew what his policies stood for. It was all admiration of his looks, the color of his skin, the “history” in the making, his poise, his stature, his voice, his Presidential image. If that’s what you mean by “intelligence winning out” then fine.
Alex,
“Joe” the plumber did not lie. We Americans can use any name we want so long as it is not for the purpose of avoiding a debt. He could have called himself Fred. As it is, Joseph is his middle name.
A plumber is someone who works in plumbing. He can either have a licence of his own or work for someone who does under his supervision.
Oh, it has been said that Barak Obama is a lawyer. No, he is not. He went to law school and passed the bar exams, but he let his law licence lapse.