Joe The Plumber: Spreading the wealth actually pretty great

As Gawker is reporting courtesy of Inside Edition, Joe the Plumber has been having a little trouble making ends meet of late. Probably because he has been acting as the McCain campaign's foreign policy expert, and not actually, you know, plumbing. Well, it appears that Mr. The Plumber is not earning any money, is actually broke, and as a result is subsisting on the money that magically turns up in his mailbox sent to him by people with more money than he. Sound like anything to you? Go ahead, think about it for a second.

As Mr. The Plumber explained to Inside Edition's Deborah Norville:

"I'm not getting paid for things. It's starting to get hard
to eat,"

On the eve of election day, Joe, a single dad, told INSIDE EDITION he's getting by with help from friends and family, along with donations from well-wishers.

"It's hard being on the receiving end, a little bit of
pride gets in there sometimes," admits Joe.

"So you just go to the mailbox
and there's an envelope with a check in it, written to your name?" marvels Norville.

"Yes ma'am," Joe says.

So, lemme get this straight Joe. You think it's socialism for the government to take money from rich people in the form of taxes that everyone has to pay and give it to everyone including poor people who pay less taxes in the form of services. Ok, you're wrong, but I'm following your logic. But how do you feel about poor people who don't work but instead take money from rich people for free? Spreading the wealth? Socialism? Welfare? Rich people having their hard earned money go to provide food for poor people? Anything ringing a bell here? Anything? Hello? Is this thing on?

Palin to the Supreme Court

Following up on the embarrassingly ignorant response to the question about the role of the vice president showing her total ignorance of the U.S. Constitution, I guess this shouldn't surprise me. But it does. I have this weirdly quaint notion that the people we elect to hold the highest federal offices in the land should have at least a passing familiarity with our laws. I'm a huge dick that way. Given how shockingly, disturbingly, dangerously and cosmically wrong Palin is on this one, I question whether she has ever read the U.S. Constitution even in comic book form.

As reported in the Huffington Post, Palin was interviewed on a conservative (shocker!) radio show this morning and told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Palin suggested that reporters who suggested that this is a negative attack may be threatening her free speech rights under the Constitution. Yes. Seriously.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Now, here's the thing, this is not just wrong, it's the exact opposite of right. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects Freedom of the Press, not freedom of the government. It ensures the press' right to freely question the government or a political officeholder, and protects the rights OF the press FROM the government. It does NOT protect elected officials from the scrutiny of the press. When the press criticizes a political candidate or an elected official, that is an example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

As Rachel Weiner notes, this isn't just a demonstration of profound ignorance of our liberties, it's also giving voice to the "standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional." Well said.