« Hatch dissembles on Obama's agenda | Main | Sarah Palin = Yoda? »

November 11, 2008


Why stir fear and division when we have so many problems already. Comparing anyone to Hitler is widely considered a lapse of logic. This kind of rhetoric is such a disappointment.

Broun complains that the media focus only on his words, not at all on what Obama will actually do as President. Brendan's post continues that pattern.

It is a bit of a worry not to know what Obama's National Security Force might be. I am also concerned that the unfair attacks on Joe the Plumber signal that criticism of Obama might be punished under his administration.

What's more disturbing to me is that the main stream is not even raising the issue. It's sad that the one standing up for civil liberties is a kook like Broun.

Joe was something of a lie, pointing it out wasn't retaliation.

Sen. Broun said some stupid things, pointing it out is pointing it out.

Joe's confidential state records were illegally researched and made public by Democrats in Ohio.

A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on "Joe the Plumber" were more extensive than it first acknowledged.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.

The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.

Jones-Kelley made the revelations in a letter to Ohio Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, who demanded answers on why state officials checked out Wurzelbacher.

Harris called the multiple records checks "questionable" and said he awaits more answers. "It's kind of like Big Brother is looking in your pocket," he said

"I am also concerned that the unfair attacks on Joe the Plumber signal that criticism of Obama might be punished under his administration."

I certainly hope that Obama's administration does far less of this than the current administration has.

-Broun complains that the media focus only on his words, not at all on what Obama will actually do as President.

Basically, you're arguing that you don't believe Obama will do what he says he'll do.

If we rule out Obama's stated positions and you argue that he doesn't have any real record to judge him on, then how exactly is the media supposed to figure out what Obama will actually do as president?

I don't understand why the actions of state Democrats regarding Joe the Plumber would reflect on how Obama would run the federal government. Obama spoke out against the Palin email hack. There's no evidence that Obama would misuse the federal government in any way close that the Bush administration has.

Sean-B and Diane: I am aware that Bush has been criticized for abusing governmental powers in the war on terror. I am not aware of Bush using governmental powers to punish political enemies.

Obama comes from the Chicago school of tough politics. During the campaign, he threatened to withdraw an appearance with a TV station that had run an overly harsh inteview with Biden. The station responded by removing the offending interview from the internet. Obama also kicked off his campaign plane reporters from newspapers that had endorsed McCain. Both these actions were legal, but they illustrate a hard-nosed approach to one's political adversaries.

I cannot think of comparable actions taken by Bush. Diane or Sean B, can you provide some examples?

Sure, David.

The firing of U.S. attorneys is an excellent example. Valerie Plame is another. There are many more that I can't think of off hand (Monica Goodling, etc,), and more will come to light after Bush steps down.

Obama didn't kick reporters off of the plane because of a difference of opinion. Even the newspaper that had a reporter on that plane readily admitted that.

Abuse of power by the party in charge is a valid fear. I warn Democrats of it all the time. But Obama already seems to be setting rules to try and prevent corrupt practices by people in his administration. We'll see how well he does.

Although the Dems made a fuss over the firing of a few US Attorneys, I do not recall any wrongdoing. As I recall, they were fired because it was believed that they were insufficiently vigorous in investigating corrupt Democrats.

However, the fired Attorneys were not political enemies of Bush. They were not fired to deter investigations of Republicans. By contrast, Bill Clinton fired all the US Attorneys, including some who were in the midst of investigations of Democrats.

David, please. You're concern trolling Obama irrationally, when one of your issues has been debunked, and you're ignoring true politicization behavior in the Bush administration. I mean, you asked, didn't you?

It is not unusual for Presidents to dismiss attorneys, and this is not an uncommon practice at the beginning of a term. Reagan did it. It has been widely reported in the media. But halfway in a President's second term, that is unusual.

The reason for their firings was stated as performance issues, even though most of them had had outstanding evaluations. The reason given was not for not investigating Democrats, but that reason itself is political. Carol Lam is to have thought to have been fired for prosecuting Duke Cunningham. The politicization of hiring practices (Monica Goodling, that Brendan posted about) and the outing of Plame still stand as other instances as well.

The comments to this entry are closed.