The Return of McCarthyism

[HAL 9000 96]

Furthermore, trying to equate McCarthyism with getting slammed on by the wolves in the media is a bit ignorant of actual history and what transpired during those times, but I am pretty sure that's already been mentioned.

It has also been mentioned that the equation was to point out the idiocy of the criteria being used to suggest that Obama is the victim of McCarthy-like harrassment. See previous posts. The criteria given by the OP described what happened to Joe the Plumber better than anything that is being or has ever been done to Obama.

I agree that what was done to Joe was not on the level of what happened during the McCarthy era, but in a world where people support what was done to him, we are getting closer to the point where a McCarthy-like witch hunt could take place, and that would be when those in power use that power to intimidate and harrass and even imprison those who disagree with those in power. NOT when some members of the media and some private citizens accuse the most powerful man in the country of being a communist.

To suggest that this is a "Return to McCarthyism" (see title of thread) is as wrong as suggesting that there is Naziism afoot or that, so far, we have seen communism being implemented. If you have a problem with that label being tossed about, you should equally have a problem with this claim being made. But everyone seems to want to overlook that point. Again, I ask, convenience?

Perhaps because the intellectual parallels are astoundingly similar?? Certainly that would make sense to most of us...

Joe is doing just fine now.

As a matter of fact, with his whoring up of pundit/correspondent status he may even have placed himself in that next tax bracket under Obama's proposal. Good for him.

Hardly a life ruined, and he should have known the kind of maelstrom he'd put himself and his family into for being a pawn and a tool for McCain's campaign.

What that has to do with the current administration is seriously beyond me, although I do remember certain times in the last administration that seemed to have moments of neighbors calling on neighbors for potential activities threatful to America. Now all I can see are people fed up of idiots misinterpreting public record and the hysteria of who can yell the loudest contrary to the electoral mandate being attempted to be implemented.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Furthermore, trying to equate McCarthyism with getting slammed on by the wolves in the media is a bit ignorant of actual history and what transpired during those times, but I am pretty sure that's already been mentioned.

You talkin about Sarah Palin? Must be a b!tch livin with that logic. Speakin of logic, whered you get yours?

[HAL 9000 96]

McCain made Joe the Plumber a figurehead for his election campaign. Not only that Joe chose to participate.

This is kind of what happens when you put yourself in the firing line of public life.

Joe the Plumber became a figurehead in McCain's election campaign because he had immediately been put in the firing line. Not the other way around. The background checks began immediately after Obama answered the question, not after McCain took Joe in. The media continued hounding him, but it wasn't McCain's support that instigated the scrutinizing.

There were 3 days between when Joe met with Obama and the Presidential debate where McCain name dropped Joe and used him as the poster boy for the "working man". Joe also appeared on TV interviews on that same day and held a press conference at his home the day after.

He was whoring it up in the media with the best of them. If he didn't want that kind of attention - he should have refused all the media appearances, not actively sought them.

Interesting. I had heard of Joe the Plumber before the debate when McCain mentioned him. At that point, to those in the know it seems, McCain was strumming on already thrumming strings. He was using a name that already held meaning to his listeners. As for Joe "whoring" it up, when the press are camped out on your lawn and following you whereever you go because you've asked a question, what will you do? I would probably avoid them because, as I've already stated, I would be afraid of that sort of scrutiny. But I'm not proud of that. I wish I had the guts to stand up against that sort of unfairness, say what I believe and press be damned. But at this point with a child in my life, I feel I have too much to lose. I know the power of the press, especially unchecked, which it seems it is as there are so many even here on little old VJ ready to excuse them and even justify their behavior. Especially when there are people in positions of power who will abuse that power to do background checks on me. Even though they might not be able to find anything incriminating about me, they could probalby embarrass me somehow.

I'd get a restraining order to remove them off my lawn (if I had one).

[GabiandVi 34]

McCain made Joe the Plumber a figurehead for his election campaign. Not only that Joe chose to participate.

This is kind of what happens when you put yourself in the firing line of public life.

Joe the Plumber became a figurehead in McCain's election campaign because he had immediately been put in the firing line. Not the other way around. The background checks began immediately after Obama answered the question, not after McCain took Joe in. The media continued hounding him, but it wasn't McCain's support that instigated the scrutinizing.

There were 3 days between when Joe met with Obama and the Presidential debate where McCain name dropped Joe and used him as the poster boy for the "working man". Joe also appeared on TV interviews on that same day and held a press conference at his home the day after.

He was whoring it up in the media with the best of them. If he didn't want that kind of attention - he should have refused all the media appearances, not actively sought them.

Interesting. I had heard of Joe the Plumber before the debate when McCain mentioned him. At that point, to those in the know it seems, McCain was strumming on already thrumming strings. He was using a name that already held meaning to his listeners. As for Joe "whoring" it up, when the press are camped out on your lawn and following you whereever you go because you've asked a question, what will you do? I would probably avoid them because, as I've already stated, I would be afraid of that sort of scrutiny. But I'm not proud of that. I wish I had the guts to stand up against that sort of unfairness, say what I believe and press be damned. But at this point with a child in my life, I feel I have too much to lose. I know the power of the press, especially unchecked, which it seems it is as there are so many even here on little old VJ ready to excuse them and even justify their behavior. Especially when there are people in positions of power who will abuse that power to do background checks on me. Even though they might not be able to find anything incriminating about me, they could probalby embarrass me somehow.

I'd get a restraining order to remove them off my lawn (if I had one).

Good answer. I'm sure that would solve the problem.

[HAL 9000 96]

McCain made Joe the Plumber a figurehead for his election campaign. Not only that Joe chose to participate.

This is kind of what happens when you put yourself in the firing line of public life.

Joe the Plumber became a figurehead in McCain's election campaign because he had immediately been put in the firing line. Not the other way around. The background checks began immediately after Obama answered the question, not after McCain took Joe in. The media continued hounding him, but it wasn't McCain's support that instigated the scrutinizing.

There were 3 days between when Joe met with Obama and the Presidential debate where McCain name dropped Joe and used him as the poster boy for the "working man". Joe also appeared on TV interviews on that same day and held a press conference at his home the day after.

He was whoring it up in the media with the best of them. If he didn't want that kind of attention - he should have refused all the media appearances, not actively sought them.

Interesting. I had heard of Joe the Plumber before the debate when McCain mentioned him. At that point, to those in the know it seems, McCain was strumming on already thrumming strings. He was using a name that already held meaning to his listeners. As for Joe "whoring" it up, when the press are camped out on your lawn and following you whereever you go because you've asked a question, what will you do? I would probably avoid them because, as I've already stated, I would be afraid of that sort of scrutiny. But I'm not proud of that. I wish I had the guts to stand up against that sort of unfairness, say what I believe and press be damned. But at this point with a child in my life, I feel I have too much to lose. I know the power of the press, especially unchecked, which it seems it is as there are so many even here on little old VJ ready to excuse them and even justify their behavior. Especially when there are people in positions of power who will abuse that power to do background checks on me. Even though they might not be able to find anything incriminating about me, they could probalby embarrass me somehow.

I'd get a restraining order to remove them off my lawn (if I had one).

Good answer. I'm sure that would solve the problem.

Just pushes them farther away from the front door. Many jurisdictions have policies on harassment. And should fake accusations or even libelous/slanderous statements be made in the media... well... therein would likely exist legal recourse for quite the lawsuit with a nice financial windfall for Joe or anyone in the spotlight.

Of course... when a person goes on camera in the way he did, in a highly polarized campaign season, and make inaccurate claims about policy...

then one could seriously make the case of it having been asked for. Then again... Ole Joe turned out quite alright.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

McCain made Joe the Plumber a figurehead for his election campaign. Not only that Joe chose to participate.

This is kind of what happens when you put yourself in the firing line of public life.

Joe the Plumber became a figurehead in McCain's election campaign because he had immediately been put in the firing line. Not the other way around. The background checks began immediately after Obama answered the question, not after McCain took Joe in. The media continued hounding him, but it wasn't McCain's support that instigated the scrutinizing.

There were 3 days between when Joe met with Obama and the Presidential debate where McCain name dropped Joe and used him as the poster boy for the "working man". Joe also appeared on TV interviews on that same day and held a press conference at his home the day after.

He was whoring it up in the media with the best of them. If he didn't want that kind of attention - he should have refused all the media appearances, not actively sought them.

Interesting. I had heard of Joe the Plumber before the debate when McCain mentioned him. At that point, to those in the know it seems, McCain was strumming on already thrumming strings. He was using a name that already held meaning to his listeners. As for Joe "whoring" it up, when the press are camped out on your lawn and following you whereever you go because you've asked a question, what will you do? I would probably avoid them because, as I've already stated, I would be afraid of that sort of scrutiny. But I'm not proud of that. I wish I had the guts to stand up against that sort of unfairness, say what I believe and press be damned. But at this point with a child in my life, I feel I have too much to lose. I know the power of the press, especially unchecked, which it seems it is as there are so many even here on little old VJ ready to excuse them and even justify their behavior. Especially when there are people in positions of power who will abuse that power to do background checks on me. Even though they might not be able to find anything incriminating about me, they could probalby embarrass me somehow.

It wouldn't have gone any further than it did if McCain's campaign managers hadn't picked up on the clip and used it to revitalise their flagging campaign. Joe could have told the McCain camp that he wasn't interested in publicity or having his name used for campaign purposes. Had he done that the press attention would have died away quite quickly. The fact is this man actively courted media attention with a slew of TV appearances before and during the time he went to speak and McCain's campaign rallies.

The only dodgy thing that happened to him were the database searches conducted by Ohio State workers - for which the director of the institution in question resigned.

But guess what, Joe the Plumber isn't going to become a plumber now. He's already got a book out and I believe he now works as some sort of news correspondent/commentator for a media company. They sent him to Israel a few months back to comment on the conditions in Gaza. He's a media shill.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Private Pike

[GabiandVi 34]

Furthermore, trying to equate McCarthyism with getting slammed on by the wolves in the media is a bit ignorant of actual history and what transpired during those times, but I am pretty sure that's already been mentioned.

It has also been mentioned that the equation was to point out the idiocy of the criteria being used to suggest that Obama is the victim of McCarthy-like harrassment. See previous posts. The criteria given by the OP described what happened to Joe the Plumber better than anything that is being or has ever been done to Obama.

I agree that what was done to Joe was not on the level of what happened during the McCarthy era, but in a world where people support what was done to him, we are getting closer to the point where a McCarthy-like witch hunt could take place, and that would be when those in power use that power to intimidate and harrass and even imprison those who disagree with those in power. NOT when some members of the media and some private citizens accuse the most powerful man in the country of being a communist.

To suggest that this is a "Return to McCarthyism" (see title of thread) is as wrong as suggesting that there is Naziism afoot or that, so far, we have seen communism being implemented. If you have a problem with that label being tossed about, you should equally have a problem with this claim being made. But everyone seems to want to overlook that point. Again, I ask, convenience?

Perhaps because the intellectual parallels are astoundingly similar?? Certainly that would make sense to most of us...

Joe is doing just fine now.

As a matter of fact, with his whoring up of pundit/correspondent status he may even have placed himself in that next tax bracket under Obama's proposal. Good for him.

Hardly a life ruined, and he should have known the kind of maelstrom he'd put himself and his family into for being a pawn and a tool for McCain's campaign.

What that has to do with the current administration is seriously beyond me, although I do remember certain times in the last administration that seemed to have moments of neighbors calling on neighbors for potential activities threatful to America. Now all I can see are people fed up of idiots misinterpreting public record and the hysteria of who can yell the loudest contrary to the electoral mandate being attempted to be implemented.

Okay. So there was nothing wrong. No harm no foul. Never mind that others are now afraid of what will happen to them if they ask a question. And if you want to talk about people being asked to spy on neighbors, (I was out of the country for the entire Bush and half of the Clinton administrations, so if this happened under them, I missed it, and happy that I did) what was that about sending in "fishy emails"?

And if you find the "intellectual parallels astoundingly similar" then I'm sure an equally good, probably more intellectual parallel could be made that Obama is a communist. But again, you conveniently won't see that. I don't see either. I think to call this a "Return to McCarthyism" is as intellectually dishonest and as big a disservice as when people accuse anyone and everyone of being a Nazi. People were actually destroyed under McCarthyism. People who did not have power were destroyed by people in power. Obama is in power now. He holds all the power. His party is in power in congress. If you actually think he can be destroyed in the way that people were destroyed under McCarthyism, then you are the one with the tenuous grasp on history.

[HAL 9000 96]

Furthermore, trying to equate McCarthyism with getting slammed on by the wolves in the media is a bit ignorant of actual history and what transpired during those times, but I am pretty sure that's already been mentioned.

It has also been mentioned that the equation was to point out the idiocy of the criteria being used to suggest that Obama is the victim of McCarthy-like harrassment. See previous posts. The criteria given by the OP described what happened to Joe the Plumber better than anything that is being or has ever been done to Obama.

I agree that what was done to Joe was not on the level of what happened during the McCarthy era, but in a world where people support what was done to him, we are getting closer to the point where a McCarthy-like witch hunt could take place, and that would be when those in power use that power to intimidate and harrass and even imprison those who disagree with those in power. NOT when some members of the media and some private citizens accuse the most powerful man in the country of being a communist.

To suggest that this is a "Return to McCarthyism" (see title of thread) is as wrong as suggesting that there is Naziism afoot or that, so far, we have seen communism being implemented. If you have a problem with that label being tossed about, you should equally have a problem with this claim being made. But everyone seems to want to overlook that point. Again, I ask, convenience?

Perhaps because the intellectual parallels are astoundingly similar?? Certainly that would make sense to most of us...

Joe is doing just fine now.

As a matter of fact, with his whoring up of pundit/correspondent status he may even have placed himself in that next tax bracket under Obama's proposal. Good for him.

Hardly a life ruined, and he should have known the kind of maelstrom he'd put himself and his family into for being a pawn and a tool for McCain's campaign.

What that has to do with the current administration is seriously beyond me, although I do remember certain times in the last administration that seemed to have moments of neighbors calling on neighbors for potential activities threatful to America. Now all I can see are people fed up of idiots misinterpreting public record and the hysteria of who can yell the loudest contrary to the electoral mandate being attempted to be implemented.

Okay. So there was nothing wrong. No harm no foul. Never mind that others are now afraid of what will happen to them if they ask a question. And if you want to talk about people being asked to spy on neighbors, (I was out of the country for the entire Bush and half of the Clinton administrations, so if this happened under them, I missed it, and happy that I did) what was that about sending in "fishy emails"?

And if you find the "intellectual parallels astoundingly similar" then I'm sure an equally good, probably more intellectual parallel could be made that Obama is a communist. But again, you conveniently won't see that. I don't see either. I think to call this a "Return to McCarthyism" is as intellectually dishonest and as big a disservice as when people accuse anyone and everyone of being a Nazi. People were actually destroyed under McCarthyism. People who did not have power were destroyed by people in power. Obama is in power now. He holds all the power. His party is in power in congress. If you actually think he can be destroyed in the way that people were destroyed under McCarthyism, then you are the one with the tenuous grasp on history.

Who's afraid?

Plenty of people are asking questions.

Regarding those emails, perhaps a dose of context would help you answer your own question. It seems 'records can't be set straight' anymore. And again- it really is incongruous to equate spying on neighbors with 'reporting' misinformation.

Completely agree with you on the silliness of calling Obama something he isn't and his tactics as of the sort seen in the 50s. No, I do not see him being damaged much by such stupidity nor do I think I have made any points to that effect. In fact... it is the GOP and the hysterical right wing media circus show that is doing itself in by acting so irrationally.

All about the context, it's all about that.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The fact is, Obama ask Joe what he thought in Joes fvckin hood! Now its Joes FAULT? Send out the fvckin investigators to trash Joe

Turds for SALE! get your red hot TURDS! My GOD!

Nuthin like trashin a citizen!

[GabiandVi 34]

McCain made Joe the Plumber a figurehead for his election campaign. Not only that Joe chose to participate.

This is kind of what happens when you put yourself in the firing line of public life.

Joe the Plumber became a figurehead in McCain's election campaign because he had immediately been put in the firing line. Not the other way around. The background checks began immediately after Obama answered the question, not after McCain took Joe in. The media continued hounding him, but it wasn't McCain's support that instigated the scrutinizing.

There were 3 days between when Joe met with Obama and the Presidential debate where McCain name dropped Joe and used him as the poster boy for the "working man". Joe also appeared on TV interviews on that same day and held a press conference at his home the day after.

He was whoring it up in the media with the best of them. If he didn't want that kind of attention - he should have refused all the media appearances, not actively sought them.

Interesting. I had heard of Joe the Plumber before the debate when McCain mentioned him. At that point, to those in the know it seems, McCain was strumming on already thrumming strings. He was using a name that already held meaning to his listeners. As for Joe "whoring" it up, when the press are camped out on your lawn and following you whereever you go because you've asked a question, what will you do? I would probably avoid them because, as I've already stated, I would be afraid of that sort of scrutiny. But I'm not proud of that. I wish I had the guts to stand up against that sort of unfairness, say what I believe and press be damned. But at this point with a child in my life, I feel I have too much to lose. I know the power of the press, especially unchecked, which it seems it is as there are so many even here on little old VJ ready to excuse them and even justify their behavior. Especially when there are people in positions of power who will abuse that power to do background checks on me. Even though they might not be able to find anything incriminating about me, they could probalby embarrass me somehow.

It wouldn't have gone any further than it did if McCain's campaign managers hadn't picked up on the clip and used it to revitalise their flagging campaign. Joe could have told the McCain camp that he wasn't interested in publicity or having his name used for campaign purposes. Had he done that the press attention would have died away quite quickly. The fact is this man actively courted media attention with a slew of TV appearances before and during the time he went to speak and McCain's campaign rallies.

The only dodgy thing that happened to him were the database searches conducted by Ohio State workers - for which the director of the institution in question resigned.

But guess what, Joe the Plumber isn't going to become a plumber now. He's already got a book out and I believe he now works as some sort of news correspondent/commentator for a media company. They sent him to Israel a few months back to comment on the conditions in Gaza. He's a media shill.

I disagree that it wouldn't have gone farther. It had already gone far enough. But we will never know so that argument is a waste of time. However, regardless of whether Joe the Plumber landed on his feet or not, the damage has been done to the psyche of America. And you, whether intentionally or because you are afraid to concede even the smallest point, are supporting the treatment he received. You are excusing and dismissing it. That is what I find the most dangerous. I've seen this attitude over and over again, and from what I can gather, the Republicans under Bush were just as guilty of it. If the Republicans are against it, it must be good. If they are for it, it must be bad.

If it is wrong, it is wrong. When we start excusing this sort of intimidation of private citizens and other obvious wrong-minded attitudes, regardless of which party is behind them, we are going down a slippery slope.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

None of this would happen if the election system in this country were not so overly concerned with personality.

[GabiandVi 34]

Furthermore, trying to equate McCarthyism with getting slammed on by the wolves in the media is a bit ignorant of actual history and what transpired during those times, but I am pretty sure that's already been mentioned.

It has also been mentioned that the equation was to point out the idiocy of the criteria being used to suggest that Obama is the victim of McCarthy-like harrassment. See previous posts. The criteria given by the OP described what happened to Joe the Plumber better than anything that is being or has ever been done to Obama.

I agree that what was done to Joe was not on the level of what happened during the McCarthy era, but in a world where people support what was done to him, we are getting closer to the point where a McCarthy-like witch hunt could take place, and that would be when those in power use that power to intimidate and harrass and even imprison those who disagree with those in power. NOT when some members of the media and some private citizens accuse the most powerful man in the country of being a communist.

To suggest that this is a "Return to McCarthyism" (see title of thread) is as wrong as suggesting that there is Naziism afoot or that, so far, we have seen communism being implemented. If you have a problem with that label being tossed about, you should equally have a problem with this claim being made. But everyone seems to want to overlook that point. Again, I ask, convenience?

Perhaps because the intellectual parallels are astoundingly similar?? Certainly that would make sense to most of us...

Joe is doing just fine now.

As a matter of fact, with his whoring up of pundit/correspondent status he may even have placed himself in that next tax bracket under Obama's proposal. Good for him.

Hardly a life ruined, and he should have known the kind of maelstrom he'd put himself and his family into for being a pawn and a tool for McCain's campaign.

What that has to do with the current administration is seriously beyond me, although I do remember certain times in the last administration that seemed to have moments of neighbors calling on neighbors for potential activities threatful to America. Now all I can see are people fed up of idiots misinterpreting public record and the hysteria of who can yell the loudest contrary to the electoral mandate being attempted to be implemented.

Okay. So there was nothing wrong. No harm no foul. Never mind that others are now afraid of what will happen to them if they ask a question. And if you want to talk about people being asked to spy on neighbors, (I was out of the country for the entire Bush and half of the Clinton administrations, so if this happened under them, I missed it, and happy that I did) what was that about sending in "fishy emails"?

And if you find the "intellectual parallels astoundingly similar" then I'm sure an equally good, probably more intellectual parallel could be made that Obama is a communist. But again, you conveniently won't see that. I don't see either. I think to call this a "Return to McCarthyism" is as intellectually dishonest and as big a disservice as when people accuse anyone and everyone of being a Nazi. People were actually destroyed under McCarthyism. People who did not have power were destroyed by people in power. Obama is in power now. He holds all the power. His party is in power in congress. If you actually think he can be destroyed in the way that people were destroyed under McCarthyism, then you are the one with the tenuous grasp on history.

Who's afraid?

Plenty of people are asking questions.

Regarding those emails, perhaps a dose of context would help you answer your own question. It seems 'records can't be set straight' anymore. And again- it really is incongruous to equate spying on neighbors with 'reporting' misinformation.

Completely agree with you on the silliness of calling Obama something he isn't and his tactics as of the sort seen in the 50s. No, I do not see him being damaged much by such stupidity nor do I think I have made any points to that effect. In fact... it is the GOP and the hysterical right wing media circus show that is doing itself in by acting so irrationally.

All about the context, it's all about that.

I'm afraid. And if I'm afraid, so are a lot of other people. Good for the people asking questions. I'm proud of them and hope they keep it up.

So you agree that there is no "Return to McCarthyism", but you just said it that the "intellectual parallels are astounding." Which is it? Context. It's all about that.

As for your non-answer about the "fishy emails," when is it ever neccessary to send in the "fishy emails" in order to address the misinformation? Send in your questions and they will be answered. You don't need to send in the emails. That seems so blatantly obvious to me that I can't believe anyone would miss that. In your line of work are you allowed to forward personal emails on to others with their personal information in them without their consent? I can't in my line of work and I'm a lowly teacher. I have to protect all personal information of all I come into contact with. The whole process was changed because it was wrong. Even the people who started that program admitted that, but you still seem to think there was nothing wrong with it. It might have been pure sloppiness and not intentionally designed to stifle opposition to start that program in the first place. I'd like to believe it was. But yet again, people like you dismiss it as harmless. It wasn't harmless. And neither was the complete ripping apart of a private citizen for the sake of political expediency.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

None of this would happen if the election system in this country were not so overly concerned with personality.

Say again? JUDGE!

Edited September 22, 2009 by ={Rogue}=

[GabiandVi 34]

And now I must get some sleep.

[HAL 9000 96]

err... I think sister Gabi meant intimidation from partisan media outlets.