State employee says she was ordered to check out Joe the Plumber

Can you imagine the uproar if a Republican used the government to attack and smear a private citizen? Suddenly, its acceptable because they went after a Republican. This is what we have to look forward to if Obama is elected. Do not dare speak out against the one, because they will come after you.

www.columbusdispatch.com...

Friday, October 31, 2008 10:21 PM
By Randy Ludlow
The Columbus Dispatch
Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.

Niekamp didn't know she just had checked on "Joe the Plumber," who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain's example in a debate of an average American.

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
Can you imagine the uproar if a Republican used the government to attack and smear a private citizen?

Gee, I bet that has never happened. What about attacking another country?

I believe it is a pretty good bet that those who the power do this are from both parties.

What is wrong with checking it anyway. If he needed to pay he should, if he is paid up great.

reply to post by roadgravel

Gee, I bet that has never happened. What about attacking another country?

What is your point? Congress voted to go to war. A war that had been gearing up for a decade. I'm not surprised you would try to deflect from the topic though. This is pretty damning stuff.

I believe it is a pretty good bet that those who the power do this are from both parties.

Go ahead, give me an example of the media or Republicans attacking a private citizen for disagreeing with the president or candidate.

What is wrong with checking it anyway. If he needed to pay he should, if he is paid up great.

So, you wouldn't have any problems with Bush seeking out those who spoke out against him and looking in to their personal life as a way to destroy them?
I cant even beleive I'm arguing this. If anything, its proof to everyone that the left is not the tolerant, diplomatic, open minded bunch they claim to be. All of that goes out the window when they can use these tactics to push their agenda.

So, you wouldn't have any problems with Bush seeking out those who spoke out against him and looking in to their personal life as a way to destroy them?

Do you honestly think that the Bush administration has not looked into the background of any one who has opposed some of the policies of his administration.

reply to post by roadgravel


Even if there was some evidence that he had, what are you saying? That because bush did it, its ok for the media and Obama to do?

For those of you that don't think this is a big deal.
Imagine yourself two years from now, the election is over the excitement long gone and let's just say for the sake of argument that it was the Republicans that won again.
So you write a letter to your local newspaper complaining about your representative because he has ignored your many requests to have a pothole in front of your house repaired.

Next thing you know you find out that your representative called child protection services to have you investigated, your name and picture plastered on the evening news as being investigated for child support violations. AND YOU NEVER OWED ANY! because you made this politician look bad when he is preparing to run for office again.

And he happens to be a Republican and knows you are a democrat.

Would you be upset? or would you say "what is the big deal?"

So where does Obama play into this?

Your article didn't mention anything about him.

Is it "implied"?

Originally posted by davion
So where does Obama play into this?

Your article didn't mention anything about him.

Is it "implied"?

May I ask what you are implying?

Is it your job to come in here and taint the topic with bs?

Originally posted by SGSPatriot
May I ask what you are implying?

Is it your job to come in here and taint the topic with bs?

Marcus mentioned Obama like he's apart of this, I'm wondering how he fits into the picture.

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
For those of you that don't think this is a big deal.
Imagine yourself two years from now, the election is over the excitement long gone and let's just say for the sake of argument that it was the Republicans that won again.
So you write a letter to your local newspaper complaining about your representative because he has ignored your many requests to have a pothole in front of your house repaired.

Next thing you know you find out that your representative called child protection services to have you investigated, your name and picture plastered on the evening news as being investigated for child support violations. AND YOU NEVER OWED ANY! because you made this politician look bad when he is preparing to run for office again.

And he happens to be a Republican and knows you are a democrat.

Would you be upset? or would you say "what is the big deal?"

Your hypothetical situation holds little water due to the fact that this is not nearly the scenario that plays out in that article.

First of all, no where in that artical AT ALL does it state what political party the supervisor who asked for the check is affiliated with. People are jumping to the conclusion that she was a Democrat.

Secondly, there is absolutely no link between those people working in that office and Obama.

Lastly, is there any chance in any of your minds that perhaps, while what she asked for CLEARLY was against the rules, perhaps she really DID have the check run to see if he owed any back taxes, child-support, or anything else that the state might like to recoup now that he's on his way to stardom? Doesn't make it right, but it's far more likely than Obama's secret clan of double agents tring to tear down poor Joe the Plumber, who, by the way, wouldn't even have all of this publicity if it wasn't for McCain and Palin trying to make him a martyr.

This was the first time I have heard Joe and child support mentioned together. Don't recall that used in the political topics.

It appears the only person that might even be considered as revealing private info might be this clerk talking about the incident.

Of course I would not have been surprised to see it stated by someone if he had owed support (assuming he doesn't, could be wrong). In that case, I would think it is a privacy issue if the laws cover that informations.

What does it say when the election debate is about some guys child support issue instead if the issues that are destroying the economy, etal.

reply to post by davion

Marcus mentioned Obama like he's apart of this, I'm wondering how he fits into the picture.

Why were these people looking in to Joe's personal life? Because he disagreed with Obama and it got national attention. That combined with all these people who have had the secret service show up because they said something against Obama, or the papers thrown off Obama's plane. Than there is the reporter who asked Joe Biden tough questions, who is now being smeared by the media.

There seems to be a price to speaking out against the Obama campaign.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius

Why were these people looking in to Joe's personal life? Because he disagreed with Obama and it got national attention.

This all came about after McCain used him as an example 20 something times. He can thank John.

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
reply to post by davion

 

Marcus mentioned Obama like he's apart of this, I'm wondering how he fits into the picture.

Why were these people looking in to Joe's personal life? Because he disagreed with Obama and it got national attention. That combined with all these people who have had the secret service show up because they said something against Obama, or the papers thrown off Obama's plane. Than there is the reporter who asked Joe Biden tough questions, who is now being smeared by the media.

There seems to be a price to speaking out against the Obama campaign.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]

maybe they were just being nosey and quite possibly they have done something illegal, but there's no evidence in that story that obamas campaign had anything to do with it. i think you're jumping to conclusions.

how did the press get hold of the story in the first place? seems the only person giving the public awareness of a possible child support case against Joe is Niekamp herself.

reply to post by roadgravel


Thats a pretty lame excuse. McCain only used him after Obama walked through the neighborhood for questions from the average joe. All McCain did was bring attention to it. Joe the Plumber only got on the news because Obama stopped to talk with him and now you blame McCain? Not only that, but justify the media and government going after a private citizen for it?

People like you concern me....


reply to post by ll__raine__ll

how did the press get hold of the story in the first place? seems the only person giving the public awareness of a possible child support case against Joe is Niekamp herself

Because Obama went with the press to Joe's neighborhood and took questions from the people.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius

Why were these people looking in to Joe's personal life? Because he disagreed with Obama and it got national attention.

This all came about after McCain used him as an example 20 something times. He can thank John.

Oh wait a sec - so when Joe the Plumber is used by a candidate as an example of a common man asking a common question, that automatically means it's okay to check into the man's criminal background, his child support payment history, and every other facet of his private life?

Oh, yes, that totally makes sense. /* blatant sarcasm off */

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
reply to post by roadgravel

 

Thats a pretty lame excuse. McCain only used him after Obama walked through the neighborhood for questions from the average joe. All McCain did was bring attention to it. Joe the Plumber only got on the news because Obama stopped to talk with him and now you blame McCain? Not only that, but justify the media and government going after a private citizen for it?

People like you concern me....

How is it a lame excuse? No one cared about him until McCain started talking about him.

That seems to point pretty clearly to the fact that if it wasn't for the exposure McCain gave him in the debates nothing like this would have happened.

As you've already answered the only way you can pin Obama to this is through conjecture. Of course, to you, the only reason why anyone would possibly look into Joe the Plumber is because Obama hates him for asking a "tough question", so he has to send in his stealth Men in Black agents to dig up dirt on him. Of course you can't prove it, this article doesn't prove it, but in your head it's all a big Obama conspiracy.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by davion]

reply to post by davion

How is it a lame excuse? No one cared about him until McCain started talking about him.

That simply isn't true. Joe was all over all the news channels after OBAMA stopped to answer his questions. It was Obama who brought the media, who put it on TV for days. It was only after that attention that McCain started talking about him.

Originally posted by Layla

First of all, no where in that artical AT ALL does it state what political party the supervisor who asked for the check is affiliated with. People are jumping to the conclusion that she was a Democrat.

Secondly, there is absolutely no link between those people working in that office and Obama.

Lastly, is there any chance in any of your minds that perhaps, while what she asked for CLEARLY was against the rules, perhaps she really DID have the check run to see if he owed any back taxes, child-support, or anything else that the state might like to recoup now that he's on his way to stardom? Doesn't make it right, but it's far more likely than Obama's secret clan of double agents tring to tear down poor Joe the Plumber, who, by the way, wouldn't even have all of this publicity if it wasn't for McCain and Palin trying to make him a martyr.

You are correct, in the article in the OP it doesn't state Jones-Kelly's political leanings.

However, in an earlier article on this whole mess the same paper revealed:

Columbus Dispatch 10/29

Jones-Kelly also has denied any connections between the computer checks on Wurzelbacher and her support for Obama. She donated the maximum $2,500 this year to the Obama campaign.

Since she donated $2500 to his campaign I think we can assume she is an Obama supporter and a Democrat.

So, that is the first one down.

For #2 - you are correct. Other than her contribution there are no known ties between her and the Obama campaign.

For #3 - There is that chance. But why the different stories?? Why on 10/28 say to those asking that it was all routine and done all the time.

She said on Monday that her department frequently runs checks for any unpaid child support obligations "when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight."

When her employee says they do not do it below.

Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. "I've never done that before, I don't know of anybody in my office who does that and I don't remember anyone ever doing that," she said today.

If its all so routine why hasn't a 15 year employee ever heard of it and is there really a mysterious "man that asked." If so, who is he?

A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.

Seems that either the employee's or the boss' nose should be growing pretty quickly - because one of them is fibbing.

Originally posted by Marcus CalpurniusThat simply isn't true. Joe was all over all the news channels after OBAMA stopped to answer his questions. It was Obama who brought the media, who put it on TV for days. It was only after that attention that McCain started talking about him.

But strangely he wasn't investigated until McCain dropped his name about 20+ times in the debates.

Hmmm, I wonder why that is.