TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The ghosts of Watergate linger on
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The ghosts of Watergate linger on  

post #1 of 17
10/26/08 at 5:41am
Thread Starter 
It looks like the urge to use political operatives in public office to retaliate against opponents is alive and well.

Joe the Plumber's Record's Breached?

This was a real problem in the Clinton administration. No one is saying this has anything to do with the Obama campaign, however. Low-level politicians, trying to do their guy a favor, are really the biggest danger to all of us, since they are so much less accountable (and traceable).
post #2 of 17
10/26/08 at 5:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
It looks like the urge to use political operatives in public office to retaliate against opponents is alive and well.

Joe the Plumber's Record's Breached?

This was a real problem in the Clinton administration. No one is saying this has anything to do with the Obama campaign, however. Low-level politicians, trying to do their guy a favor, are really the biggest danger to all of us, since they are so much less accountable (and traceable).
Who cares anymore about this guy? Hasn't his 15 minutes passed already? It could have been a nosy reporter and why is Rudy involved in this? This is so desperate. They are trying everything to link Obama to something or to have some unseemly thing happen to change the momentum.
Why would anyone smear him when he is unimportant? Rudy is trying to gin up the story to give it legs. Or to get some attention for himself. Who knows.
post #3 of 17
10/26/08 at 6:26am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
Why would anyone smear him when he is unimportant?
That's an excellent question. You asked it; can you propose a possible answer? Because it's certainly true that the press has gone to great lengths to discredit him.
post #4 of 17
10/26/08 at 8:41pm
When a person's name is brought up 24 times during a presidential debate, do you think that the media wouldn't research the guy? What they dug up didn't discredit him, or at least in McCain's eyes it hasn't. His campaign is still heralding the glories of Joe the Plumber! McCain is keeping him front and center in the media.
post #5 of 17
10/26/08 at 8:47pm
Yeah, I remember when they dug around and found out that Joe the Plumber was late paying his property taxes and there was lien against his property.
It was a big deal until it came out that Obama's campaign treasurer himself had a lien against his property for being late on paying his property taxes and then it, suddenly, became a non-issue.

And Charles Keating was supposed to be Joe the Plumber's father-in-law until that was shown to be utter fabrication.
post #6 of 17
10/27/08 at 5:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
That's an excellent question. You asked it; can you propose a possible answer? Because it's certainly true that the press has gone to great lengths to discredit him.
Excellent point!

Why would someone be so interested as to violate privacy laws?

And I think people should be concerned that the same thing could happen to their confidental records.
post #7 of 17
10/27/08 at 5:25am
Thread Starter 
My real point had very little to do with the campaigns, as such. It's always the little guys we have to keep an eye on. I doubt Hitler ever visited a concentration camp. Nixon never knew about the break-in at the Watergate until long after it happened. Any powerful person draws all sorts of people to their cause, and it's the little people, like an IRS agent or DMV worker or the school secretary who end up doing others damage, always believing they are "doing the right thing."

Joe the Plumber is a non-issue for me, although I personally think any candidate who walks through a neighborhood opens himself up to being asked good questions and Obama didn't get anything he didn't deserve. But I find it interesting that the same people who find a "right to privacy" in the Constitution seem to think it shouldn't apply to those who question their candidate.
post #8 of 17
10/27/08 at 6:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
My real point had very little to do with the campaigns, as such. It's always the little guys we have to keep an eye on. I doubt Hitler ever visited a concentration camp. Nixon never knew about the break-in at the Watergate until long after it happened. Any powerful person draws all sorts of people to their cause, and it's the little people, like an IRS agent or DMV worker or the school secretary who end up doing others damage, always believing they are "doing the right thing."

Joe the Plumber is a non-issue for me, although I personally think any candidate who walks through a neighborhood opens himself up to being asked good questions and Obama didn't get anything he didn't deserve. But I find it interesting that the same people who find a "right to privacy" in the Constitution seem to think it shouldn't apply to those who question their candidate.
I do. Obama is my candidate but my point is why would anyone on either side care really. He is some guy who as usual in the age on insta-fame become a household name and there is nothing remarkable about him. I thought Obama was gracious with him and Joe may have had a bone to pick or whatever but that is okay too. We live in a free society so Joe should have as much access as anyone else to the candidates. I just don't find his story thrilling or particularly interesting so I wonder why anyone is digging up anything on him when clearly the country is already on another page of interest.
I would bet it is a reporter looking to break a story.
post #9 of 17
10/27/08 at 7:45am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
I would bet it is a reporter looking to break a story.
Not a bad theory, but it doesn't match the facts. The state's tax and DMV computers were accessed, apparently by low-level officials, for no good reason, except to find embarrassing information on someone who gained instant fame by challenging a candidate supported by people in those offices. That is the very definition of invasion of privacy, and a violation of the First Amendment, which very specifically allows Americans to express their opinions about the government and candidates for office.

And the real concern is that all of us have so much info about us stored in computer files that are supposed to be secure that anyone, anywhere, could be the victim of this sort of thing. Suppose you found that someone was accessing the DMV info for cars with a particular candidate's bumper stickers. Or mortgage information was being accessed for houses with candidates' signs out front. This IS a serious problem.
post #10 of 17
10/27/08 at 8:15am
more attempts from the obama machine to attack people who are not falling for in line.
It will get worse.

and maybe Joe's 15 min are over, but his questions are still there,
and still unanswered by obama.
post #11 of 17
10/27/08 at 8:56am
I'd like to point out the headliner for the article, with emphasis added:

Quote:
Let the Wild Charges Begin: McCain Campaign Insinuates Joe the Plumber's Private Records Were Illegally Breached as "Political Retribution" by the Obama Campaign, Compares it to Watergate
Insinuate, per Merriam Webster dictionary:

1 a: to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way <insinuate doubts into a trusting mind>
b: to impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way : imply <I resent what you're insinuating>
2: to introduce (as oneself) by stealthy, smooth, or artful means

That's right Bruce, let's blame it on Obama.
post #12 of 17
10/27/08 at 9:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
That's right Bruce, let's blame it on Obama.
Bruce didn't write the article. Blame ABC News for the title.
post #13 of 17
10/27/08 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Bruce didn't write the article. Blame ABC News for the title.
I was responding to Bruce's attack:

Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
more attempts from the obama machine to attack people who are not falling for in line.
post #14 of 17
10/27/08 at 11:52am
Thread Starter 
An interesting take on it from the cartoonist Batton Lash:

No Clothes on the Emporer
post #15 of 17
10/27/08 at 5:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I was responding to Bruce's attack:
Not a attack, just statement of fact,
the media went after joe, just as fast as they could in a effort to dis credit him. Never mind the questions he asked.
post #16 of 17
10/28/08 at 9:06am
4 inquiries, only one rooted out so far.
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live...litics&sid=101

Sad answer from the lady in charge, IMO.
post #17 of 17
10/28/08 at 9:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
An interesting take on it from the cartoonist Batton Lash:

No Clothes on the Emporer
I love it Mrblanche, thank you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The ghosts of Watergate linger on