via the normally hilarious Iowahawk, who has decided to pass on humor:

Politicians — Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, et al. — obviously have to put up with some rude, nasty shit, but it’s right there in the jobs description. Joe the Plumber is different. He was a guy tossing a football with his kid in the front yard of his $125,000 house when a politician picked him out as a prop for a 30 second newsbite for the cable news cameras. Joe simply had the temerity to speak truth (or, if you prefer, an uninformed opinion) to power, for which the politico-media axis apparently determined that he must be humiliated, harassed, smashed, destroyed. The viciousness and glee with which they set about the task ought to concern anyone who still cares about citizen participation, and freedom of speech, and all that old crap they taught in Civics class before politics turned into Narrative Deathrace 3000, and Web 2.0 turned into Berlin 1932.0.

Godwin’s Law! you say? if the jackboot fits, wear it.

And I happen to agree. I wonder if those in the media would feel the same if that kinda scrutiny being summoned upon Joe was instead placed upon them (from Ace):

A lot of people want to know why we shouldn’t begin “vetting” the media — and by “vetting,” I do in fact mean vetting. I mean starting a fund to put fucking detectives on them and begin outing them, one by one:

In the closet.

Hits his wife.

Fucking her editor.

Stoned out of his mind on coke half the time.

Etc.

And to reduce costs, I’m sure some budding citizen journalists-detectives would be wiling to take a night a week following these bastards around, taking pictures.

The media’s position that Joe the Plumber who merely asked a question must be “vetted” out of existence certainly supports the full-blown “vetting” of them.

After all, far more turns on the questions they ask and… refuse to ask, more importantly.

Now wouldn’t that be nice, to get down in the stinky gutter and start really digging through everyone’s trash at NBC, CBS, and ABC, the NY Times, etc., etc. If a reporter happens to ask a tough question, or paints a particular candidate in a false or unflattering light, then they become fair game. Hell, if they paint the OPPOSING candidate in favorable light, then they become fair game. The proverbial slippery slope, well, I think the MSM and the crazy, bat-$h!t left has pushed us over and down it.

I know one criticism of Joe the Plumber is that he owes something like 1200 bucks in back taxes. Rusty brings up a pretty interesting question over at The Jawa Report:

Obama’s Treasurer Martin Nesbitt Won’t Pay His Patriotic Taxes

“If tax liens are such an indicator of character and trustworthiness, wouldn’t it have more significance for the treasurer of a presidential campaign than for a man who just asked a question of the candidate? If the national media has such an interest in investigating a plumber who made a couple of national appearances, why wouldn’t they have at least the same interest in the people running a major party presidential campaign?

…Because, you know, associations matter when choosing a plumber, but apparently not when choosing a President.”

Indeed. Poor Joe. He made the Anointed One Who Wants To Spread The Wealth™ really shine his socialist a$$ to the world, and Joe’s gonna pay. Oh he’s gonna pay.

Michelle Malkin also has a good piece about the new Joe The Plumber Derangement Syndrome (JTPDS)™.

But once again, I ask, how does this “politics of personal destruction” change anything about how Obama answered Joe’s question. Answer. It doesn’t.