No, no, no, no! Stop this madness!
When GOP congressional aides gather Tuesday morning for a meeting of the Conservative Working Group, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher – more commonly known as Joe the Plumber — will be their featured guest. This group is an organization of conservative Capitol Hill staffers who meet regularly to chart GOP strategy for the week.
Wurzelbacher, who became a household name during the presidential election, will be focusing his talk on the proposed stimulus package. He’s apparently not a fan of the economic rescue package, according to members of the group.
Make him go away! So many questions come to mind: can we not put this misbegotten election and all of its populist, average-glorifying symbolism behind us, already? Does Mr. The Plumber regret what he said about the media: that it should not cover war? Why on Earth is this man advising Congressmen? Why is a man named Joe the Plumber not really named Joe and not even really a plumber?!
Alright, that’s my rant for the month.
–
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:03 am
“Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher – more commonly known as Joe the Plumber” Among other things, many people do use their middle names. Perhaps this man should not be advising Congress, but frankly, I’d rather have a Plumber in Congress rather than some of these other clowns.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:21 am
I think we would be better at this point if we replaced Congress with 435 people who’s name we drew from a bucket.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:31 am
Might as well ask for people to swear off cooking with heat.
You need to learn to break, tame, and ride the bronco, not shoot it.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 am
“You need to learn to break, tame, and ride the bronco, not shoot it.” It is funny that we want a big tent, but no plumbers allowed.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Better to have Joe the Plumber than Joe the Biden.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 am
Wasn’t it the late William Buckley who stated that he’d rather be governed by the first 535 names in the Boston phonebook than the faculty at Harvard?
Anyway, I agree with Alex on this one. Trying to ride “Joe the Plumber” as a prop-turned-cultural-icon-turned-policy-expert?? is making the GOP look rather silly.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
For the record, I’m not against populism per se (being a pitchfork carrying veteran of the Buchanan Brigade), but elevating some (almost) random guy to be a focal point of party direction and leadership makes the GOP look superficial at best, and utterly lacking direction and leadership at worst.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
4,
Plumbers are allowed. So are media whores like this guy.
7 nails it. What has Joe ever done besides reciting generic republican talking points? I could train my 7 year old nephew to do everything I’ve ever seen Joe the Plumber do.
Since when are we the party of identity politics!!??
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
Ohio Joe,
We get it. It would be better for us if the most average conservative citizen was in office over the most brilliant liberal politician. But when we are looking for spokespeople, can’t we consider conservatives with at least “above average” accomplishments/skills?
This “conservative” assault on intellect and accomplishment only reminds people who the party of Bush cronyism is.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
Fair enough Eric, but I do not think we are assaulting intellectuals. Maybe your nephew will be an intellectual when he grows up.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
I never have, and likely never will, understand you guys who have read into the campaign speeches and decided there was an attack on accomplishment. Yes, there certainly was an effort to elevate “the common man’s” role in the country, and there certainly was an attack on big gov’t, but how does that translate to an attack on accomplishment? The speeches and “celebrities” used were part of a tactic to try and peel away Dem voters (such as union members), not as some denigration of accomplishment.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 am
“The speeches and “celebrities” used were part of a tactic to try and peel away Dem voters (such as union members), not as some denigration of accomplishment.” Yeah, we need a big tent, but shhhhhhhhh, we do not need any Joe Union guy or Hispanics in our tent, haha. Yeah, we need the Suburban intellectual White voters, haha. Do the math!
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Richard M,
I agree, but I think ol’ Joe the plumber is a little overworked.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
#13 “I agree, but I think ol’ Joe the plumber is a little overworked.”
Hard to argue with that one.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:15 am
I say leave the guy alone. If you must throw stones throw them at the person responsible for “Joe the Plumber”. That would be John McCain.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 am
“I say leave the guy alone. If you must throw stones throw them at the person responsible for “Joe the Plumber”. That would be John McCain.” Small correction, it would be Mr. Obama, not Mr. McCain.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
A self-professed Buchananite? Didn’t know anyone was still following that racist anti-Semite.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
And I will NOT leave Joe the Plumber alone as long as he keeps putting his fat, uneducated head into policy debates.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
As for Plumber Joe, I hope he makes the most fast cash out of the whole affair as he can.
He didn’t ask to run into Obama and elicit a response so revealing. Also, the public airing of Joe’s personal history was criminal, in my view.
The message from our political and media overlords was clear: You normal types dare to speak up, and we’ll tear you a new intestinal release valve.
And with all the tax dodgers in high office — especially from the party that believes paying taxes is a citizen’s first patriotic duty — the depiction of our overlords’ untouchable power should now be quite vivid.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
“He didn’t ask to run into Obama and elicit a response so revealing.”
No, he dreamed of it.
I don’t think the guy should move out of the country or even the party, but I’m willing to bet that there are millions of conservatives who are better suited to articulate conservative thought. As I said, anybody with a command (or hell, even a sort-of command like GWB) can recite our talking points.
And Obama did just fine with blue-collar voters without this kind of patronizing nonsense.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
“A self-professed Buchananite? Didn’t know anyone was still following that racist anti-Semite.” Not every Jew thought Mr. Buchanan was anti-Semite.
“And I will NOT leave Joe the Plumber alone as long as he keeps putting his fat, uneducated head into policy debates.
” Perhaps the Community Organizer should not have invited him to the debate in that case. No uneducated people are allowed to vote GOP anymore, haha. Yeah, let’s make the tent big enough only for those of us with degrees.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
“Normal type”? He wanted to be left alone so badly that he wrote a book, went overseas to cover the war in Gaza through PajamasMedia, and now is speaking to Congressional Republicans. Let’s not turn him into some guy who wants nothing more than to be left alone.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
“And Obama did just fine with blue-collar voters without this kind of patronizing nonsense.” Yeah, let’s keep our tent small and let them keep voting for Mr. Obama, haha.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
Not every Jew thought Mr. Buchanan was anti-Semite.
That’s nice. He still is one. I guess EVERY SINGLE JEW needs to think he is before he gets confirmed as one?
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:41 am
“That’s nice. He still is one.” Then maybe Tano is a Buchananite.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
No kiddin’. Especially degreed experts in the education theory department like Doctor William H. Ayers, PhD, or experts in everything like Doctor Noam S. Chomsky, PhD….
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Chomsky, lol
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
#22 “He wanted to be left alone so badly that he wrote a book, went overseas to cover the war in Gaza through PajamasMedia, and now is speaking to Congressional Republicans. Let’s not turn him into some guy who wants nothing more than to be left alone.”
I don’t know what he originally wanted, but once he started getting the attention, he saw an opportunity to cash in. That’s capitalism at its finest, and he should be commended for making something out of it. Does that mean you need to like him, what he’s doing, or anything related to it? No, he’s probably past his 15 minutes at this point. That doesn’t invalidate that this might not have been what he was looking for when he went out to speak to Pres Obama, even if he’s happy with the outcome.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I don’t blame Joe the Plumber one bit – it’s the morons who keep propping him up, inviting him to speak at events, buy his book, listen to his views, etc., who get the blame.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
#29
On the nose.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Alex,
Buchanan is neither racist nor anti-Semitic.
Being opposed to racial quotas and school busing does not make one racist.
Suggesting that the Likud party should not dictate America’s foreign policy or security interests is not anti-Semitic.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“Suggesting that the Likud party should not dictate America’s foreign policy or security interests is not anti-Semitic.” Good point MWS, while I support the Likud party, I do not necessarily think that all those who support the Labour Party are anti-Semitic. Do I agree with all of Mr. Bucchanan’s poliicies? No, but anti-Semitic? C’mon.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
“Alex,
Buchanan is neither racist nor anti-Semitic.
Being opposed to racial quotas and school busing does not make one racist.
Suggesting that the Likud party should not dictate America’s foreign policy or security interests is not anti-Semitic.”
People have been tarring Buchanan as an anti-Semite for years, and it’s just patently not true. Being opposed (vociferously opposed) to Israel’s foreign policy does not make one anti-Semitic. I’m reasonably acquainted with Pat personally, and I gotta tell ya, he’s the nicest, most decent guy I’ve ever encountered in politics. Total gentleman. I’ve got loads of disagreements with him, but he’s not a racist or an anti-Semite.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“I’m reasonably acquainted with Pat personally, and I gotta tell ya, he’s the nicest, most decent guy I’ve ever encountered in politics. Total gentleman.” Cool.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
He says that Capitol Hill is “Israeli-occupied territory” and that Israel’s “amen corner” in the USA is dictating US foreign policy.
All that this trash is is a new anti-Semitism cloaked in a politically correct anti-Israel stance, rather than an anti-Jewish stance. But it all harkens back to ideas of a nefarious Jewish elite controlling world policy.
Racists and anti-Semites can be friendly, too, Win M.
This seems like a good site… http://www.realchange.org/buchanan.htm
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Win,
“I’m reasonably acquainted with Pat personally, and I gotta tell ya, he’s the nicest, most decent guy I’ve ever encountered in politics. Total gentleman. ”
Good to hear. I’ve heard that before from liberals who would argue with him on TV.
I meant Pat once at a campaign rally in 1996 and got to speak with him a few minutes.. I was helping work the photo op with donors, and even spoke briefly with his wife, Shelley. This was heady stuff for a 19 year old from the sticks of central Illinois. He is truly a gentlemen.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
In the 1980s, I’d have been with Reagan, and in 1988, grudgingly with Bush, and perhaps even in 1992. But in 1996, I would probably would have been a DLC Democrat. To think that a man like Pat Buchanan won a primary! Aye.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Alex,
“But in 1996, I would probably would have been a DLC Democrat. To think that a man like Pat Buchanan won a primary!”
That doesn’t make him anti-Semetic either…….
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Oh, quiet.
Anyway — http://www.realchange.org/buchanan.htm
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Alex,
Yeah, I’ve been through all that stuff before. What you have to realize about Pat is that he is not just a two-bit journalist or commentator who speaks in talking points or bumper sticker platitudes. This is a guy who actually reads history, knows history, and actually cares about the accurate portrayal of history. If you read his columes regularly, you will find some of the most obscure (and poignant) historical references you could imagine. Ann Coulter he is not. In the same colume he might refer to some 19th century Paraguayian dictator, a 17th century civil war in Madagascar, or the economic policies of 1930s Poland.
What’s the point? Take Hitler for example. Most people leave the historical treatment of Hitler at “Hitler was bad.” And that is true. Hitler was evil to the core. Most politicians, celebrities, and people in the media would never dare go beyond that one basic fact. But real historians, as well as those who want to understand history, will look deeper than the obvious fact that “Hitler was evil.”
Anyway, the whole anti-Semitic charge is a shibboleth. It is a handy attack that neocons and their liberal friends use to escape real debate with Buchanan’s thoughts.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Alex,
The real reason that Buckley and the other sellouts at NR labeled Buchanan an anti-Semite is because he dares to suggest that the interest of the United States and Israel are not always one and the same. Even more outrageous to them, is that Buchanan believes that Israel is not always holy, and perfect, and wise in their policies and actions towards their neighbors. Yes, to dare suggest that Israel is not perfect, and that Israel’s interests are not identical to ours, is “anti-Semitic” to these people. If you really want to see them go crazy, suggest that Israel has a very powerful lobbying prescence in Washington. We are supposed to pretend that Israel is the only foreign country that does not lobby or in anyway influences US policy for their own benefit.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
“Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as caricature. … Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him.”
Quotes like these are always used to portray Buchanan as an anti-Semite/defender of Nazis. It’s ridiculous. Read the quote; anyone with any intellectual honesty couldn’t refute what he’s saying.
The man is opposed to the US’s foreign policy as far as Israel is concerned. That doesn’t make him anti-Semitic.