Atrocious to Smear a Private Citizen

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Atrocious to Smear a Private Citizen
369
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 4:22pm
I think it is atrocious for the press to try to smear a private citizen who merely used his first amendment rights to question a candidate! He didn't ask for all this attention, and he has not stated who he will be voting for, but since John McCain received some points in the debate last night about an exchange "Joe the Plumber" had with Barack Obama the press is out to destroy this man. Good Grief! The man is a plumber! An average citizen. Now the left wing is trying to vilify him like he's George Bush! How HORRIBLE! And the extremists on the left seem to be following in lock step. No compassion for an ordinary man UNLESS he shares their socialist viewpoint. This is about as dirty as it gets!

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2008
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:10pm
It isn't a question of silencing speech! Chomsky understands that issue far better than you do, apparently, because he's not blind to the notion that actions have consequences. Political speech (perhaps more than any other kind) most definitely IS free to anyone in this country. But two things that no one should expect, regardless of circumstance are:

  1. the guarantee of a platform or microphone from which to BROADCAST such speech, and

  2. any assurances that whatever the actual content of their constitutionally protected free speech is won't have any negative consequences for them



The first one often gets confused by conservatives, who seem to feel that because, say, Michael Savage was fired from MSNBC for telling an admittedly abusive caller to his show "you should only get AIDS and die," Savage was somehow "persecuted" or that his right to free speech was violated. It wasn't; what was removed (quite ethically and legally) was MSNBC's decision to provide Mr. Savage with one of its sought-after air-time slots in which to broadcast his views using equipment they owned (and THEIR cable and satellite frequency) to the rest of the country. Michael Savage was still, immediately after being fired, exactly as free to speak those very same words and express those very same sentiments as he was prior to being fired. He just no longer has the megaphone of a show on MSNBC from which to do so.

The second one should be much easier for conservatives to grasp (which I'll explain presently), and has only come up now that the right is all a-twitter that "Joe the Plumber" is being "destroyed" by the media, supposedly. Nothing of the kind is true, of course, but that doesn't stop the idea from being spread. The reason I'd think the notion that words have consequences would be easy for conservatives to grasp is that they've been using similar arguments on liberals and any other bugaboos they see for years now. Examples? Have you ever heard a conservative saying to a pregnant teenager (or about a pregnant teenager) that, if she had well and truly wanted to avoid this problem, there was one foolproof way to do so: keep her legs shut? Have you ever heard a conservative talking about homeless people or people on welfare that, if they'd worked harder and/or "made better choices," that they wouldn't be facing the consequences they're currently facing (usually backed with a "look at ME, I'm doing FINE" analogy)? Heck, have you heard a conservative saying "elections have consequences?" I heard that one a LOT after 2004, and I believe John McCain said it as recently as this WEEK! All are examples of the idea that the things we say and do have consequences.

You're trying to make this indistinguishable in moral character from the "blame the victim" dynamic that people rightly loathe when they hear some sanctimonious person say that a woman who was raped was "asking for it" because of how she dressed or talked or acted. But "Joe the Plumber's" actions and words aren't at all akin to that situation. In the previous case, no matter how a woman dressed or talked, someone had to take actions against her will to forcibly rape her. That makes her a victim and them a criminal. Joe's case is far more like yet another conservative bugaboo - the explanation for why seemingly ANY amount of intrusive and unconstitutional domestic surveillance is, in many conservative's opinions, hunky-dory and A-OK with them: they just say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." In Joe's case, it was HIS action (or, rather, INaction) which led to him never obtaining a plumber's license....not the media's actions, or Barack Obama's - or even John McCain's. Likewise not having paid taxes when they were due. That isn't the media's fault, either. Would it have remained concealed - illegally - had he stayed out of the limelight? Possibly. But probably not forever, if this is the way the man conducts himself on a daily basis. If he had a plumber's license, the media scrutiny he's undergone would not have caused that problem for him. If he'd paid his taxes when they were due, THAT would not now be a problem for him, either. Both things are a result of actions Joe HIMSELF has either taken or failed to take; only the surfacing of those problems can be attributed to the media's recent focus on his story - focus which, I'll point out one more time, Joe himself welcomed and eagerly enabled.

It's always a good idea to keep one's own house in order, as much as possible: don't lie, don't keep secrets, don't cheat business associates, customers or the government. These aren't novel concepts; in fact, they're some of the very bedrock of what many if not most conservatives claim to have as their governing moral philosophies: if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear. But the media's having exposed some of these problems which might have stayed hidden at least for the time being, had not Joe invited them into his home and his life, does not equal "suppressing political speech." The "free speech" clause in the constitution applies to GOVERNMENT pressure applied to citizens not to speak. By definition, entities which have no official power over you in the way that government does can't "suppress" your speech. If Joe the Plumber were instead an escaped convict who's underground and on the run from the law, it would not have been "suppression of free speech" if he'd decided instead that it would be very bad news for him to talk to either Barack Obama or John McCain. It would have been his own choices leading HIM to conclude that speaking out on his thoughts regarding tax policy wouldn't be smart, at this juncture.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2008
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:11pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2008
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:13pm

I wouldn't be so quick to laugh.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:13pm

I'm not sure if that answered my question....However, what we have is a difference of opinion as to the motivation behind the "vilifying" of Joe the Plumber. Personally, I have not seen anything where he is being scrutinized for his opinions on socialism, Obama's plans or for even expressing those views. What I am seeing is some scrutiny as to his personal story (did he accurately portray his back story ie. is he a plumber earning over $250,000 and a potential small business owner etc...).

Again, let me state that it's unfortunate, due to a sequence of events that he has come under the public spotlight however, he is not curbing his interviews to the press (so I'm not sure he is as unhappy with the situation as you seem to be for him).

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2008
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:13pm

Surely you can see the difference between "I don't read HuffPo or dKos BY CHOICE, ON A REGULAR BASIS" and "I refuse to ever read anything written there."

If time4fun had said the latter, you might have a point. But since what (s)he DID say was far closer to the former - that (s)he simply doesn't open those websites, and is thus not aware of their content - it's a bit ridiculous to try to call him/her a liar for having responded to an article which was cut and pasted here. I think it's safe to say that ALL of us who post here at least take the time to read what it is we're responding to.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:13pm

Actually you are ASSUMING incorrectly. I was away from my computer until late yesterday afternoon. When I got back to it I saw a thread entitled, "Joe the Plumber doesn't Pay his taxes". Seeing that the press was going after this ordinary citizen really infuriated me. That is what prompted me to write this thread.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:22pm

<>

One, I don't think that his life is actually being "destroyed"....and am seeing that not all of this attention is coming solely from the left. Also, I'm not sure specifically sure which "tactics" you are referring to that have convinced you that this is the case as you have described it here.

Name for me some specific tactics and examples (and please, while you are at it....be specific about the those who have perpetuated these life destroying acts to which you refer without using this blanket statement of "the left") and I will state my opinion. I tend to zero in on specific acts by specific people when I am ready to denounce (or praise) something....I tend not to be able to form a proper opinion on such sweeping blanket statements and generalities. I do not believe that "the left" or "the right" are homogenous groups and I don't think they should be treated as such when coming to a conclusion about anything.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:24pm

<>

No it's not.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2008
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:25pm

All you have to do is read this thread and you will get your answers to who is attacking Joe and trying to ruin his life.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:37pm

Pages