wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:24:31 -0700 (PDT), Michel
wrote:



www.newsbusters.org
CBS's Early Show Discredits 'The Real Joe the Plumber'
On Friday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Jeff Glor reported on the
role of Joe the plumber, a.k.a. Joe Wurzelbacher, in the presidential
campaign: "The McCain campaign is using Wurzelbacher to say their
opponent would raise taxes. Though it turns out, Wurzelbacher himself
owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes and his annual tax bill would
actually go down under Obama's plan." Glor then added: "Obama mocked
the McCain strategy." At the end of Glor's report, co-host Harry Smith
asked: "Yeah Jeff, we're starting to learn a little bit more about Joe/
Steven, the plumber?" Smith mistakenly referred to Wurzelbacher's
first name being Steven, when in fact it is Samuel, and he corrected
himself: "Samuel." Glor responded: "A couple of more things about Joe
the plumber -- Samuel, indeed. He is registered to vote. There were
some questions about that. He does not have a plumber's license,
though. And it turns out his real first name is Samuel. Joe is his
middle name." At that moment, an on screen Graphic appeared with the
headline: "The Real Joe the Plumber" and listed the details Glor
mentioned.



I will repost the below with an additional sentence.

When you can't paint yourself out of a corner ( "we need to
redistribute the wealth" ) The last resort is to attack the victim.

This is exactly what the Obama campaign including parts of the
media are doing now. It makes no difference if Joe in licensed or
not. It makes no difference if Joe has a unpaid tax bill. It makes no
difference if Joe only makes $42,000 a year. It makes no difference
if Joe is Samuel's middle name. Joe's question was hypothetical, yet
the Obama campaign is twisting this to the public by saying that
plumbers don't make $250,000 a year. In reality Joe truly is the
average Joe. Yet he is attacked?

It looks like this Obamanation is exactly what we have to look forward
to.




I don't want an endless political argument, but how has the Obama
campaign "discredited" the
guy? Local media, with help from union, I believe, pointed out the the
guy didn't have a
license and that some parts of the locale (township vs. county vs.
city?) do require
a license. Media pointed out that Joe/Sam alleged that he could work
without his own
license as long as his employer was licensed. Seems like media just
followed the story
and filled out the truth......or was it a plot to find a pooor guy
working without license
to show how dishonest the opposition was? Sometimes the truth hurts )

Good way to steer media away from McSame's plan to tax employer-paid
health insurance?