Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Response to Clarence Page

This piece is from the Editorial Page of the Jacksonville Times-Union. I reproduce it in full, verbatim, but include the questions that should be asked of the writer, as well as of Mr. Obama, before accepting these “conclusions.” My comments and questions are clear.

“Just Like Palin,” Clarence Page, Tribune Media Services, 10/21/08

With Election Day closing in, Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign has been lurching along like an old car that can’t get out of first gear. He desperately needs to gain ground with independent voters.

McCain’s woes were embodied in his biggest surprise of the last debate: Joe the Plumber.

That’s Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, 34, who confronted Obama recently at a campaign stop in Joe’s Holland, Ohio neighborhood.

In addition to the unnecessary insults lobbed above, the use of the term “confronted” is not only additionally unnecessary but inaccurate, as well. Since when is it a matter of “confronting” a candidate to approach and ask a question?

Joe didn’t like the fact that Obama’s tax plan might raise his taxes, if he bought the plumbing company on which he had his eye.

I would not hesitate to say that many, many, regular people do not like the fact that Obama’s tax plan not only “might” but definitely will raise his taxes.

McCain brought up Joe during the debate as an example of an American who supposedly would be hurt by Obama’s tax plan, “class warfare” and “socialist” ideas, in McCain’s view.

Not only in Senator McCain’s view, but also in the view of any regular citizen who has worked hard for everything earned and accomplished. The idea of “spreading it around” is without a doubt at least the basis of socialism at best, and the start of the road to communism at worst.

For now, with much of Wall Street now bought up by the federal government under the Bush Administration, McCain’s political vocabulary seems to be painfully out of synch with the times.

Perhaps out of synch with your times, Mr. Page, but not out of synch with those of us who really are “regular Joes.” We understand the source of the current economic problems (President Clinton’s Community Reinvestment Act) and continuously made worse by the likes of Barnie Frank, Chris Dodd and the many other democrats who felt it necessary to, as Nancy Pelosi so eloquently put it, “save the world!” It is the Democratic misrepresentations, lies, and greed that have brought us to this pass, Mr. Page, not the so-called “8 years of mismanagement,” when one considers the Democratic-majority congress of the past few years.

It turned out that the man McCain put at the center of his tax debate was delinquent in his taxes. He wasn’t quite an independent swing voter, either, having voted Republican in this year’s primary. Even his plumber status was questioned. He was not licensed, although the company for which he plumbed was licensed.

I understand the liberal mentality of “repeat a lie ‘til it becomes truth,” but this is pretty bad, even for the liberal perspective. 1) Senator McCain did not “put” him at “the center” of anything. It was a natural reference to be made after the man questioned Senator Obama on a legitimate issue. 2) I, for one, understand Civics 101, Mr. Page, though you appear not to. One must register to vote, and declare one’s affiliation for primaries, but one need not necessarily vote in the same vein in a presidential election (hence the talk about “cross-over” votes). 3) It is typical of liberals to attack and try to deflect legitimate concerns with perpetual red herrings. The man owed about $1,000 or so in taxes – not “back” – taxes. I personally fail to the see issue here as my husband and I owed about $6,000 in taxes – not “back” – because of issues that are immaterial to this discussion. Does that make us ineligible to ask a legitimate question of a political candidate, or are only those who “follow” him allowed to question? 4) I am not surprised that nothing specific is charged about Joe’s “plumber status.” Only a half-finished innuendo, inferring some nefarious dealings where there are none to be found.

Do we really want to bring into the Oval Office a candidate so beholding to those who are willing to lie, misrepresent, and attack a citizen’s right to question?

How many other rights should we be ready to give up should an Obama presidency be on the horizon?

Most important to the presidential debate, a host of experts said Joe’s taxes probably would not be increased under the Obama tax plan. In fact, if Obama’s health plan proposal and tax breaks went into effect, Joe’s new business might fare better than they would under McCain’s tax plans.

I have also encountered articles from a “host” of experts who decry the Obama tax plans as impossible to implement without raising everyone’s taxes. It appears to be fairly simple mathematics. How can 95% of the citizenry’s taxes be reduced when 45% of those citizens already do not pay taxes? In addition, according to a “host” of experts, Mr. Obama’s health plan is nothing more than a widening of public health (Medicare), making it merely one more area for the government to intrude in, and control, each individual’s personal life.

Had anyone in McCain’s campaign bothered to check Joe’s background before McCain used him as a debate foil? Was Joe vetted by the same genius who vetted Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be McCain’s running mate?

Here again, a classic red herring. Since when – in a Democratic society – is it necessary to “vet” a citizen who asks a straightforward question of a public figure? I know it is a requirement to “vet” a citizen before that citizen is allowed to do anything in a socialist or a communist society, but things like that just aren’t done in the U.S. – at least, not so far.

In case Mr. Page missed it, Governor Palin was “vetted” when she became the governor of the great state of Alaska, not only by the citizens of that state, but no doubt by the open-minded, accepting and ‘sincere journalists’ such as yourself.

The comparison between Joe and Palin is revealing.

The truest words in the entire essay! The comparison is incredibly revealing! Mr. Obama claims to bring some so-called “change,” but his running mate is one of the most long-term senators in the Senate. His running mate is an expert in the very old boy politics the candidate claims to want to “change.”

Senator Palin, on the other hand, clearly represents a “change” – for the better. She represents not only the regular Joes who have made good as business people but also all the regular women who never felt it necessary to get rabid about “women’s rights.” She represents the women who have always known they could do everything their hearts were set on, as long as they were ready to work hard and earn their way. Now, that’s “change!”

Each offers Republicans a new, exciting small-town working-class face at a time when the party’s brand is badly damaged.

Since there is still freedom of speech in this country, I will merely ignore the nonsense about “damages” brands. We are not in a commercial. We are not electing a “brand.” We are electing the person We the People see as bet fit to run the United States of America.

Since the greater majority of us really are working class, if not from a small town, it is clear to any thinking, rational person whose policies best support working class ideals.

John McCain will not tax us out of our success.

John McCain will not push government into our health decisions.

Originally posted on, 10/22/08 by MCzwz, all rights reserved.

No comments:

Post a Comment